Abortion and gay rights [Mobile/Archive]

HotShotX

03-28-2008, 02:33 AM

I'm for both, though they both need elaboration.

Abortion: I'm Pro-Choice up until the end of the first trimester regarding willing sex/unplanned procreation, and Pro-Choice up until just about any point in rape cases. Both cases place the health of the mother first.

Gay "Marriage" Rights: I'm assuming you mean their marriage rights, since I'm taking the liberty of believing that you don't honestly think they shouldn't have any rights at all. In that case, they have the right to the same happiness and unhappiness marriage brings, and I hope that gay couples do not squander the joy of marriage as much as straight couples have. That being said, the following applies:

Gay Couples have a right to marriage.
Gay Couples do NOT have a right to force a church to marry them (they need to find a church that will).

Gay "Adoption" Rights: Absolutely for it. Thousands of orphaned children in this country and you're going to say they can't have a loving family because the parents are gay (but are decent people that can afford to raise a child)? Fuck you (Not directed at anyone). You have a right to be a bigot, but not when it affects the life of a child (already born, don't confuse this logic with the abortion issue).

~HotShotX

dsingh2007

03-28-2008, 02:47 AM

camoor

03-28-2008, 10:59 AM

I'm against chromic aboration - that's why I use a color fringe remover to tidy up the photos.

Seriously though, I must be psychic because I knew your opinion on these issues just by reading the title of your thread.

pittpizza

03-28-2008, 11:36 AM

Seriously though, I must be psychic because I knew your opinion on these issues just by reading the title of your thread.

Lol, yeah stupid people are so predictable. (Not calling you stupid OP, just in general).

My opinions, since you asked:

ABORTION:
Pro-choice. I don't know when life begins, so maybe I'd say within the first trimester. That is plenty of time for the woman to make a decision. Of course this encompasses all less liberal views as well (abort at any time if rape/incest, abort if birth risks mother's life). I do think there should be a limit though, I'm not for abortion as a form of birth control.

For shits and giggles I'll just cursorily bring up this point (fodder for debate): "Criminalizing abortions will just cause more back-alley abortions."

GAY RIGHTS:
Hmm.....tough tough issue here. It seems to boil down to one of semantics since lots of states seem to be recognizing civil unions. I beleive the word "Marriage" applies to a man and a woman. I also believe that having the government recognize civil unions (but not "marriage") of gay couples, with all the acompanying rights of a married couple (except the title of their relationship) is 2008's version of "Seperate but equal" and because I hate racism and prejudice, I am for Gay Marriage.

dallow

03-28-2008, 11:53 AM

I have no opinions on anything.

RAMSTORIA

03-28-2008, 12:01 PM

wow, welcome to cag.

ananag112

03-28-2008, 12:03 PM

I am for both. Why should the government tell people how to live their lives?

dallow

03-28-2008, 12:31 PM

I am for both. Why should the government tell people how to live their lives?
I wish I could torch cars for fun but the dang GOVERNMENT keeps me down.

ElwoodCuse

03-28-2008, 01:07 PM

aborations for all

Javery

03-28-2008, 01:11 PM

Hex

03-28-2008, 01:26 PM

IYes, it's disgusting and all, but they can go on about how it's their lives and they should be treated the same way as normal people, etc. I'm just worried if they adopt children.

.. disgusting? Haha, wow. I could stoop to your level and infer than munching carpet is revolting, but I won't go there.

Oops. :D

Treated the same way as normal people? We are normal people, numbnuts. I offer the food-for-thought of anyone against gay rights this morsel: pretend that heterosexuality was less prevalent than homosexuality- basically as though it's all switched around. Wouldn't *you* want the same rights, even if heterophobes said otherwise? :roll:

I agree with HotShotx's position, in either case. I'm curious as to why our knuckle-dragging OP feels the way he does, though. Did god tell you those damn faygits should be treated like second-class citizens or what?

Oh yeah, abortion. Go for it, as long as it isn't used as a method of frivolous birth control.

daroga

03-28-2008, 04:31 PM

Abortion: only in cases where life of child and mother are threatened. Adoption is a wonderful thing for "unwanted" pregnancies regardless of their circumstances. Rape and incest are horrible, but why should the child pay the ultimate price because of them?

I think "gay rights" has a different connotation for every person on earth. As stated above, I'd need elaboration on that.

Javery

03-28-2008, 04:39 PM

Rape and incest are horrible, but why should the child pay the ultimate price because of them?

Because some people differentiate between "child" and "potential child" but in a perfect world I can see where you are coming from.

Ikohn4ever

03-28-2008, 04:41 PM

I am not a homophobic person, this is just my opinion.

I am curious how just because its your opinion absolves you from possibly being homophobic.

Me personally am pro-choice though I think the male should have a say in it too.

I am against discrimination of all forms. What two consenting adults do is their own business. The government state or federal should not get involved in preventing marriage. They should also apply the same benefits to gay married people. Separate but equal is always separate and never equal.

daroga

03-28-2008, 04:43 PM

Because some people differentiate between "child" and "potential child" but in a perfect world I can see where you are coming from.Yeah, I think that's the fundamental disagreement on the abortion issue.

I do find it weird that if someone kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with a double homicide, but abortions are legal. Seems like an odd double standard / inconsistency. "A child is only a child before it's born if I decide I want it"? I guess I don't follow how a person's will changes the state of a fetus. Seems like for consistency the double homicide charge shouldn't be allowed or abortion should be classicifed a homicide as well.

speedracer

03-28-2008, 07:42 PM

I do find it weird that if someone kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with a double homicide, but abortions are legal. Seems like an odd double standard / inconsistency. "A child is only a child before it's born if I decide I want it"? I guess I don't follow how a person's will changes the state of a fetus. Seems like for consistency the double homicide charge shouldn't be allowed or abortion should be classifed a homicide as well.
Fetus homicide laws have been (arguably in some places, unquestionably in others) introduced to create just such an inconsistency as a strategy for someday making abortion illegal. Prosecutors have little trouble maxing sentences (almost universally with overwhelmingly supportive juries) when a pregnant woman is murdered. A fetus protection law is about the most unnecessary you'll ever come across.

I'm for both abortion and gay marriage as I'll never prevent someone from carrying out their wishes, just as I expect everyone to allow me to carry out mine. I view both abortion and gay marriage as cornerstone barometers of our society, and sadly we are failing one of them.

sandaz93

03-28-2008, 08:22 PM

Deleted.

thrustbucket

03-28-2008, 08:40 PM

I am for both. Why should the government tell people how to live their lives?

I agree in most cases. But if a fetus is a person, and people have a right to live, and governments should try to prevent their murder.... well....

Of course, that's the big debate, are they people and do they have a right to live?

I think it will be interesting when/if time travel is ever invented how people will change their mind on this. If I go back in time and convince your mom to have an abortion, would that upset you or would you respect her "choice"? :) If your mom decides you became a horrible person and goes back in time to abort you, is that wrong?

I believe the very definition of marriage involves a man and a woman. If you want to obliterate that definition for homosexuals, then you also need to allow people to marry anything they want, and legalize polygamy. However, I'm all for calling them "civil unions".

Abortion is morally wrong to me. I still don't understand why if abortions are ok, it's not ok for a mother to murder her child at any age. I've heard countless arguments for abortion, but none of them feel right to me. That said, I understand there are some situations that it could/should be allowed. But for now, I'm ok with it being a local government issue.

All I know is that having my skull crushed and my brains sucked out with a vacuum seems like a very evil thing to do no matter how old I am, and you better have a pretty fucking good reason to do it, just like taking any life.

In fact, with both of these issues, I'd prefer no Fed involvement. Leave it up to states or even more local governments.

thrustbucket

03-28-2008, 08:56 PM

Yeah, I think that's the fundamental disagreement on the abortion issue.

I do find it weird that if someone kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with a double homicide, but abortions are legal. Seems like an odd double standard / inconsistency. "A child is only a child before it's born if I decide I want it"? I guess I don't follow how a person's will changes the state of a fetus. Seems like for consistency the double homicide charge shouldn't be allowed or abortion should be classicifed a homicide as well.

It's also quite a mind bender how most people that are pro-choice are also anti-capital punishment. And vice versa.

I'd like to say that one side simply is pro innocent life. But really it's just that one side has convinced themselves that life hasn't started till after you pass through the labian gates.

fullmetalfan720

03-28-2008, 10:58 PM

Gay rights:
I believe that two consenting adults should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. I also believe gays should be able to get married.

Abortion:
Pro-choice

camoor

03-28-2008, 11:38 PM

It's also quite a mind bender how most people that are pro-choice are also anti-capital punishment. And vice versa.

I'd like to say that one side simply is pro innocent life. But really it's just that one side has convinced themselves that life hasn't started till after you pass through the labian gates.

Nah, it's all in the trimester dude.

The real mind-bender is that one side has convinced themselves that life starts the immediate moment a sperm touches an egg. I'm reminded of Michigan J. Frog - the crazy christians keep tapping the rest of us on the shoulder, trying to tell us that the zygote was just tap-dancing "hello my baby" and we missed it. The zygote is as sentient as Terri Schiavo - an eggplant could kick it's ass in an IQ test.

Kirin Lemon

03-29-2008, 12:11 AM

lilboo

03-29-2008, 12:27 AM

Just curious on your opinion on these two topics. Personally I am against aboration and gay rights.

I am not a homophobic person, this is just my opinion.

You're always welcome to an opinion, but why?

As for gay rights, it doesn't really matter. They have the right to happiness, after all. Yes, it's disgusting and all, but they can go on about how it's their lives and they should be treated the same way as normal people, etc. I'm just worried if they adopt children.

Why are you worried if they adopt children? That means the children will automatically live their lives sexually abused by their sick and disgusting parents? Does that pretty much cover what you mean? Even though there are 15 year old stank ass' havin babies left and right and havin the fuckin government pay for them all..and that's ok? Even though by age 21 some people have like 3 kids by then..which of course with mom bein a piece of shit and dad, I mean the DADS bailin on her gettin other sluts knocked up? But it's ok since they are both male & female, right?

I'm for both, though they both need elaboration.

Abortion: I'm Pro-Choice up until the end of the first trimester regarding willing sex/unplanned procreation, and Pro-Choice up until just about any point in rape cases. Both cases place the health of the mother first.

Gay "Marriage" Rights: I'm assuming you mean their marriage rights, since I'm taking the liberty of believing that you don't honestly think they shouldn't have any rights at all. In that case, they have the right to the same happiness and unhappiness marriage brings, and I hope that gay couples do not squander the joy of marriage as much as straight couples have. That being said, the following applies:

Gay Couples have a right to marriage.
Gay Couples do NOT have a right to force a church to marry them (they need to find a church that will).

Gay "Adoption" Rights: Absolutely for it. Thousands of orphaned children in this country and you're going to say they can't have a loving family because the parents are gay (but are decent people that can afford to raise a child)? Fuck you (Not directed at anyone). You have a right to be a bigot, but not when it affects the life of a child (already born, don't confuse this logic with the abortion issue).

~HotShotX

I agree very much with it. Ideally, if I were to be married I would love to do it in a church as I was raised Catholic. However, I do respect (slightly) that if that's what that religion believes in..then I'll take my marriage elsewhere :lol:

But I'm sure if eventually it ever happens, there will be some churches that will allow it.

I believe the very definition of marriage involves a man and a woman. If you want to obliterate that definition for homosexuals, then you also need to allow people to marry anything they want, and legalize polygamy. However, I'm all for calling them "civil unions".

See this is where I am confused. You are more focused on a damn word? You believe in gay couples having every single benefit that married couples do, however, they must not use the word 'Married' (or to have a 'Marriage'). I don't understand that at all. But saying "If we let the gays use MARRIAGE, then EVERYONE can get married"..well, why shouldn't they?

If some lunatic wants to marry a rabbit...well, why not? You don't have to be apart of it, and it will have no affect on your life, so meh. I really doubt that if gays were allowed to MARRY, then all of a sudden all of the crazies will come out and demand they be allowed to marry _____. I really doubt that very much.

You have 3 sets of people in the world. Men & Women couples, Same sex couples, and people who live their life forever alone. That's pretty much how it ends up.

Xevious

03-29-2008, 01:16 AM

You know OP....You can change the spelling on the thread title.

Ikohn4ever

03-29-2008, 01:57 AM

I believe the very definition of marriage involves a man and a woman. If you want to obliterate that definition for homosexuals, then you also need to allow people to marry anything they want, and legalize polygamy. However, I'm all for calling them "civil unions".

I mean honestly what is your problem with Polygamy if all of them are over the age of 18, and they want to get married how does that effect you. Please try to avoid using Judeo-Christian morality because that stuff is so inconsistent its not even funny. Its not like I am condoning Incest/Bestiality/Child Brides. How would you like it if the government made any form of sex illegal that doesnt lead to the possibility of procreating. There are somethings the government needs to stay out of and one of those is the bedroom.

BigT

03-29-2008, 03:03 AM

Nah, it's all in the trimester dude.

The real mind-bender is that one side has convinced themselves that life starts the immediate moment a sperm touches an egg. I'm reminded of Michigan J. Frog - the crazy christians keep tapping the rest of us on the shoulder, trying to tell us that the zygote was just tap-dancing "hello my baby" and we missed it. The zygote is as sentient as Terri Schiavo - an eggplant could kick it's ass in an IQ test.

Can you please give me a definition for life? We currently have soft descriptive definitions that rely on structure, growth, adaptation, response to stimulus, and usage of energy, etc. However, there is no widely accepted rigorous and scientifically based definition of life. Why do you say that it is crazy to believe that "life starts the immediate moment a sperm touches an egg"? A zygote contains a diploid set of chromosomes that carry the blueprint and potential for further growth. Is it viable outside the womb without help? No. Is a newborn viable without help? No. But, for some reason, people are averse to killing newborns...

SpazX

03-29-2008, 03:12 AM

All I know is that having my skull crushed and my brains sucked out with a vacuum seems like a very evil thing to do no matter how old I am, and you better have a pretty fucking good reason to do it, just like taking any life.

Just as a sidenote, that type of abortion is a late-term abortion and accounts for less than 1% of abortions done in the US. Almost all abortions are done within the first trimester before there is even a skull for one to crush (the fetus at the time is only a couple inches long and doesn't have any bones).

Not that it necessarily changes any moral implications, but "having my skull crushed and my brains sucked out" just isn't really an accurate picture of what an abortion is and shouldn't be something you would use to make a decision about it.

usickenme

03-29-2008, 11:54 AM

Can you please give me a definition for life? We currently have soft descriptive definitions that rely on structure, growth, adaptation, response to stimulus, and usage of energy, etc. However, there is no widely accepted rigorous and scientifically based definition of life. Why do you say that it is crazy to believe that "life starts the immediate moment a sperm touches an egg"? A zygote contains a diploid set of chromosomes that carry the blueprint and potential for further growth. Is it viable outside the womb without help? No. Is a newborn viable without help? No. But, for some reason, people are averse to killing newborns...

not quite. Actually a newborn is completely viable outside the womb, just not very long. (Hours probably) but a zygote- no way.

I find it crazy to say life begins the moment a sperm touches an egg because I am an identical twin. My bro and I separated a few days after conception. Yet my life is separate from his.

As far a widely accepted standard-we've got one. Everyone has it on almost every form they fill out. It's called a Birthday. Hell even pro-lifers don't add 9 months to their age.

daroga

03-29-2008, 01:21 PM

not quite. Actually a newborn is completely viable outside the womb, just not very long. (Hours probably) but a zygote- no way.So what's the definition, then? Less than 1 minute survival = no, more than 1 minute = yes? That seems kinda arbitrary.

BigT, I appreciated your post above. The abortion issues causes all sorts of problems in consistency and logic that it makes my head spin.

camoor

03-29-2008, 01:23 PM

Can you please give me a definition for life? We currently have soft descriptive definitions that rely on structure, growth, adaptation, response to stimulus, and usage of energy, etc. However, there is no widely accepted rigorous and scientifically based definition of life. Why do you say that it is crazy to believe that "life starts the immediate moment a sperm touches an egg"? A zygote contains a diploid set of chromosomes that carry the blueprint and potential for further growth. Is it viable outside the womb without help? No. Is a newborn viable without help? No. But, for some reason, people are averse to killing newborns...

You make it sound as if the difference between a zygote and a newborn is negligible. Come on man, I know you're smarter then that - you don't really believe a zygote is using emotion or reason to communicate it's wants/needs do you?

Furthermore, what is so sacred about human DNA ("the blueprint"). One day scientists will fully map human DNA, but if they lose one of their files I don't think any reasonable person would say that a human life was lost.

Likewise, what is so mystically important about the potential for future growth? I have the potential for future growth sitting between my legs every day and like as not 99.99999% of those guys are going to end up sitting on the bench.

thrustbucket

03-29-2008, 02:01 PM

As far a widely accepted standard-we've got one. Everyone has it on almost every form they fill out. It's called a Birthday. Hell even pro-lifers don't add 9 months to their age.

This isn't because you aren't alive before leaving the birth canal. It's mostly because your chance of long term survival increases by many times once you are born. Abortion as birth control certainly doesn't help this "chance".

BTW, there are many Jewish and other religious sects that actually do add count conception as their birthday.

I'm merely against abortion as birth control. It's morally wrong.

I mean honestly what is your problem with Polygamy if all of them are over the age of 18, and they want to get married how does that effect you. Please try to avoid using Judeo-Christian morality because that stuff is so inconsistent its not even funny. Its not like I am condoning Incest/Bestiality/Child Brides. How would you like it if the government made any form of sex illegal that doesnt lead to the possibility of procreating. There are somethings the government needs to stay out of and one of those is the bedroom.

I don't recall using any Judeo-christian morality. For the record, I have no problem with Polygamists that fit your description. I happen to know some and they are great people. I see no reason for their lifestyle to be "illegal". Polygamists are the gays of 50 years ago.

You guys are absolutely correct about someone wanting to marry a rabbit, homosexuals, polygamists all having one thing in common - they don't affect me or my family. And as far as that stays true, I really don't care what they do.

My biggest concern with any "alternative sexual/marriage" lifestyle is normalizing it in our society and elementary schools. I don't want it ever taught to my kids that alternative sexual/marital lifestyles are valid normal choices to choose from. In fact, I don't ever want it taught that a persons sexual orientation/fetishes should ever define them as a person.

Beyond that though, I could give two shits what people do in their private lives. I could even really care less if this (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=105778)guy is legally able to have a "civil union" with his picnic table, since who are we to tell him his feelings for it aren't normal or legitimate? As long as I don't have to see him making out with his picnic table in a mall, and have to try and explain to my 3 year old why he is.

lilboo

03-29-2008, 02:05 PM

You guys are absolutely correct about someone wanting to marry a rabbit, homosexuals, polygamists all having one thing in common - they don't affect me. And as far as that goes, I really don't care what they do.

My biggest concern with any "alternative sexual/marriage" lifestyle is normalizing it in our society and elementary schools. I don't want it ever taught to my kids that alternative sexual/marital lifestyles are valid normal choices to choose from. In fact, I don't ever want it taught that a persons sexual orientation/fetishes should ever define them as a person.

Beyond that though, I could give two shits what people do in their private lives. I could even really care less if this (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=105778)guy is legally able to have a "civil union" with his picnic table, since who are we to tell him his feelings for it aren't normal or legitimate? As long as I don't have to see him making out with his picnic table in a mall, and have to try and explain to my 3 year old why he is.

Yes, we all choose to live a lifestyle where people look down on it. It was an amazing day when I chose mine :roll:

Yes, heaven forbid the children see the world for what it is--A place full of different people, doing different things. Seeing 2 women hold hands in the mall is just INSANE. How the HELL do you explain something like THAT ?!!?!? Ridiculous!

thrustbucket

03-29-2008, 02:09 PM

Yes, we all choose to live a lifestyle where people look down on it. It was an amazing day when I chose mine :roll:

Well I'm happy for you, and I am also proud of you that you could identify it as a CHOICE.

lilboo

03-29-2008, 02:11 PM

Well I'm happy for you, and I am also proud of you that you could identify it as a CHOICE.

:rofl: Wait, you thought I was serious?
You really do think that gays actually choose this? Do you really? :lol:

thrustbucket

03-29-2008, 02:18 PM

You really do think that gays actually choose this? Do you really? :lol:

The jury is still scientifically out on how "born with homosexuality" a person can be. I know there are scientific studies out there that try to prove it's true, and lord knows many schools try to convince you it is - but the scientific consensus doesn't exist. But you are deluding yourself if you think all gays are "born with it".

And yes, I do believe many homosexuals do choose it, for various reasons. Many of them come from broken/abusive childhoods before sexuality ever kicked in. Some just love the attention of being "different". You can see that in many alternative lifestyles. One of the lesbians on my team is open about the fact that she switched sides simply because she had too many bad experiences with men.

Furthermore, even if it does turn out to be something someone can be born with, the most it makes it is a disability. Just like any of the other thousands of chemical disabilities people are born with. And generally, people born with disabilities don't try to change laws to accommodate them. But it is important we don't look down on them for it either.

Hex

03-29-2008, 03:01 PM

Furthermore, even if it does turn out to be something someone can be born with, the most it makes it is a disability. Just like any of the other thousands of chemical disabilities people are born with. And generally, people born with disabilities don't try to change laws to accommodate them. But it is important we don't look down on them for it either.

Disability? You can just fuck miles of off. How the fuck is it a disability? Please, keep trying to convince yourself it's a choice, considering how easy it is for you to do so. Who the fuck would want to join one of the most maligned and hated groups in the world? As for your post about "normalcy" above, who's to say homosexuals or transegendered people aren't normal unless you don't fucking understand it? If you met me you'd have no idea I'm gay unless I told you. Your moronic concept of normal is what's gonna fucking bring us back into the dark ages.

My god, and I thought I hated you before. Let me know when you dredge yourself out of that 1950's mentality there, chief. :roll:

BigT

03-29-2008, 03:02 PM

not quite. Actually a newborn is completely viable outside the womb, just not very long. (Hours probably) but a zygote- no way.

I find it crazy to say life begins the moment a sperm touches an egg because I am an identical twin. My bro and I separated a few days after conception. Yet my life is separate from his.

As far a widely accepted standard-we've got one. Everyone has it on almost every form they fill out. It's called a Birthday. Hell even pro-lifers don't add 9 months to their age.

Just because you cannot see it with the naked eye, does not mean that it is not "viable." Look at in vitro fertilization methods. In these procedures, zygotes are created outside of the body and sustained for some time (up to days) in a petri dish where they may divide and develop into the morula and blastocyst stages; then they are introduced into the uterus where they further develop.

Your example about an identical twin does not prove anything about when life begins. It just shows that in vivo cloning is possible.

The standard of a birthday is not a rigorous scientific definition; it is simply convenient.

Hex

03-29-2008, 03:19 PM

Oh and by the way Thrustbucket, if it's such an easy choice, how about you give up the meat curtains and fall in love with a guy? Yup, thought so. :)

thrustbucket

03-29-2008, 03:25 PM

Disability? You can just fuck miles of off. How the fuck is it a disability?
dis·a·bil·i·ty (dĭs'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dis·a·bil·i·ties

1.
1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.
2. A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
4. Law A legal incapacity or disqualification.

Can we agree that living a strict homosexual lifestyle, for any mammal, impairs procreation? So it is a disability. There is no reason to take offense at that. There is no reason to get so offended as you are. Nobody is saying gay people are bad people that should be looked down upon. I would say your hate-filled attitude though, is.

Who the fuck would want to join one of the most maligned and hated groups in the world? I know many gay people. One of which admits she just decided to be gay after bad experiences with men (if you payed attention to my last post). I asked her that question once, she just said it wasn't a big deal and she didn't care what people thought. But it is a choice, for her.

Oh and since I know gay people and polygamists, I would have to say the polygamists have a few up on homosexuals as being "maligned and hated". But then again, they haven't gotten to the point of marching in the streets to gain acceptance....

As for your post about "normalcy" above, who's to say homosexuals or transegendered people aren't normal unless you don't fucking understand it? I didn't say. Nature says. When all mammals generally behave a certain way in order to continue it's species, but a very few of them behave another way, any scientific observer of that mammalian species would label the first group "normal".

Where you are flying off the wagon is equating normal with "as good" or not normal with "not as good". That isn't the case at all. That's your own unfortunate interpretation.

My best friend growing up, developed schizophrenia at puberty and is often in a half way house. When he isn't on his meds he sometimes thinks he's possessed by Hitler, among other things. Since most humans don't experience that condition, I feel safe in saying he isn't "normal". But that doesn't make me love him any less. And I certainly don't think he's less of a person.

If you met me you'd have no idea I'm gay unless I told you. Your moronic concept of normal is what's gonna fucking bring us back into the dark ages.
Your right, I wouldn't. And if you met my schizophrenic friend on medication, you would think he was normal too.

However, I might think less of you for your hateful intolerant attitude.

My god, and I thought I hated you before. Let me know when you dredge yourself out of that 1950's mentality there, chief. :roll:

Your god has nothing to do with this.

For a person that wants so badly to be accepted by society, wants so badly for everyone to be tolerant of his alternative lifestyle(s), you sure do have a lot of hate inside of you. Kind of hypocritical don't you think? Maybe you should work on the hate inside yourself for those you perceive think less of you, before you try to crusade to change people's minds. And when you do, I'll be right behind you to fight against anyone that looks down on you.

And for all your hate for me, I have none for you.

thrustbucket

03-29-2008, 03:27 PM

Oh and by the way Thrustbucket, if it's such an easy choice, how about you give up the meat curtains and fall in love with a guy? Yup, thought so. :)

I never said it was a choice for everyone. You, again, misunderstood me. I said some, if not many, gay people are by choice. Not all. Because I don't know all.

The thing that bothers me most about the whole homosexual debate is mostly that I am disgusted by anyone that defines themselves by their sexuality. And a lot of gay people come off as people that are.
And that goes for anyone of any persuasion. I'm sure you can think of some heterosexuals that fit that too.

BigT

03-29-2008, 03:33 PM

You make it sound as if the difference between a zygote and a newborn is negligible. Come on man, I know you're smarter then that - you don't really believe a zygote is using emotion or reason to communicate it's wants/needs do you?

Furthermore, what is so sacred about human DNA ("the blueprint"). One day scientists will fully map human DNA, but if they lose one of their files I don't think any reasonable person would say that a human life was lost.

Likewise, what is so mystically important about the potential for future growth? I have the potential for future growth sitting between my legs every day and like as not 99.99999% of those guys are going to end up sitting on the bench.

The difference between a zygote and a newborn is large. But, then again, the differences between a newborn and a toddler and an adolescent are also large. Of course, I doubt that zygotes are capable of emotion, reasoning, and communication. But, the repetoire of newborns is also very limited. They don't start smiling with purpose until about 1.5 months. Their brains are still in the process of refining and myelinating connections. Their communication is pretty much limited to crying and they keep their hands clenched in fists with no capacity to grab or rake anything. (for more fun facts, check out a milestone chart).

The human genome has been sequenced. Unfortunately, it's complicated, and we're not sure what many of the genes actually do... But still, the actual molecules that form the famous double helix, wrap around histones, and then compress into chromosomes are what serves as a plan for our future growth. Also, having the correct amount and configuration of these chromosomes is crucial for the development of a zygote. Not uncommonly, things go wrong when DNA is copied and certain eggs and/or sperm may have faulty genetic material. Mother nature takes care of this by spontaneously aborting zygotes/fetuses with major genetic disorders (some say that about 40% of all fertilized eggs get spontaneously aborted, often so early that it is unknown to the mother). So, having the correct complement of DNA and surviving the early automatic checks does, in part, determine viability.

Sperm, by themselves, do not have the potential for further growth. They only have a haploid complement of DNA. Even if an empty egg is fertilized by a sperm and then the chromosomes are doubled to yield a diploid complement, no fetus will develop. Instead, one gets a complete molar pregnancy (an abnormal, quasi-cancerous growth within the uterus that contains no fetal tissue; see http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1047.htm )
A zygote with grossly normal DNA, will more likely than not develop into a newborn, if given the correct environment.

Hex

03-29-2008, 03:46 PM

dis·a·bil·i·ty (dĭs'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dis·a·bil·i·ties

1.
1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.
2. A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
4. Law A legal incapacity or disqualification.

Can we agree that living a strict homosexual lifestyle, for any mammal, impairs procreation? So it is a disability. There is no reason to take offense at that. There is no reason to get so offended as you are. Nobody is saying gay people are bad people that should be looked down upon. I would say your hate-filled attitude though, is.

Yeah, there is considering that there's an implication that disability somehow keeps me from functioning in society. Despite the fact that they have an ability, do the many hetero couples who choose not to reproduce get labeled disabled as well? Considering the history of homw homosexual people are treated, I think I have a right to be as pissed off as I am- though I should calm down some. What I'm getting at is that it's easy for straight people to just not care or pass off gay people's problems 'cause they don't have to deal with it.

I know many gay people. One of which admits she just decided to be gay after bad experiences with men (if you payed attention to my last post). I asked her that question once, she just said it wasn't a big deal and she didn't care what people thought. But it is a choice, for her.

Oh and since I know gay people and polygamists, I would have to say the polygamists have a few up on homosexuals as being "maligned and hated". But then again, they haven't gotten to the point of marching in the streets to gain acceptance...

Right, a choice for her. Just because she does it doesn't mean you can label everyone the same way. Yeah, and Iran is totally hanging polygamists, right? Haven't heard of a polygamist having the shit beat out of him then dragged behind a truck. Polygamists don't have a thing on homosexuals.

I didn't say. Nature says. When all mammals generally behave a certain way in order to continue it's species, but a very few of them behave another way, any scientific observer of that mammalian species would label the first group "normal".

Where you are flying off the wagon is equating normal with "as good" or not normal with "not as good". That isn't the case at all. That's your own unfortunate interpretation.

Granted, you have a point, but being labeled "abnormal" I'm sure you can relate often is used to being looked down upon. Saying 'you're messed up' is fighting words, nd again considering the experiences that I've had I think my being pissed off is pretty justified.

My best friend growing up, developed schizophrenia at puberty and is often in a half way house. When he isn't on his meds he sometimes thinks he's possessed by Hitler, among other things. Since most humans don't experience that condition, I feel safe in saying he isn't "normal". But that doesn't make me love him any less. And I certainly don't think he's less of a person.

That's wonderful and all, but homosexuality isn't psychosis. We're only different in our inability (relatively speaking, because one could bring in the aspect of surrogate mothers) and the fact that we're attracted to the same gender. It's not really that abnormal.

Your right, I wouldn't. And if you met my schizophrenic friend on medication, you would think he was normal too.

However, I might think less of you for your hateful intolerant attitude.

I dunno about hate, but extreme anger and impassioned is probably more accurate. Can you at least understand where I'm coming from? People want to kill me because I don't find interest in the opposite gender. This doesn't exactly make me embrace people who've got that 50's mentality that homosexuals should be treated differently than anyone else.

Your god has nothing to do with this.

For a person that wants so badly to be accepted by society, wants so badly for everyone to be tolerant of his alternative lifestyle(s), you sure do have a lot of hate inside of you. Kind of hypocritical don't you think? Maybe you should work on the hate inside yourself for those you perceive think less of you, before you try to crusade to change people's minds. And when you do, I'll be right behind you to fight against anyone that looks down on you.

And for all your hate for me, I have none for you.

What god? :lol:

Again, it might be hypocritical of me to be angry, but again I think you can understand why I'm so angry. You mis-label my ravings as hate, though. Anger, yes, but I wouldn't go as far to kill or hurt anyone who thought otherwise.

SpazX

03-29-2008, 04:29 PM

Being gay isn't unnatural, there are plenty of non-human animals that are gay and plenty of others that have sexual relations with either sex.

Marriage and the lifestyle of people are social constructions. Animals don't get married. Are gay animals following an "alternative lifestyle"? Animals don't have lifestyles, of course, and animals aren't capable of "choice" in the same way that humans are either.

So it's perfectly natural for some people to be gay. To define it as unnatural would be to redefine nature. Is it "normal" to be gay then? What do you mean by "normal"? If by normal you mean average then being gay isn't average, I think the estimate I've seen is that around 10% of people are gay. But if that statistic is accurate and stable then that would mean that it's "normal" for around 10% of people to be gay.

If normal is average and there are more women than men on the planet than being a man would not be normal, so I don't think that's not a very good way to define things.

So I don't really think you can say that being gay is "unnatural" nor that it's not "normal". If you disagree with it then you do it entirely for social reasons and you shouldn't try to act as if you don't.

crystalklear64

03-29-2008, 04:35 PM

lilboo

03-29-2008, 04:38 PM

Having a steak for dinner is a choice.
Who you are attracted to, isn't.

If gay is a choice, then so is being stupid. Looks like many of you already made that choice. :roll:

lilboo

03-29-2008, 04:42 PM

crystalklear64

03-29-2008, 04:45 PM

Having a steak for dinner is a choice.
Who you are attracted to, isn't.

If gay is a choice, then so is being stupid. Looks like many of you already made that choice. :roll:
Some people consciously choose to become gay at a point after birth in their life.

I don't think its that far of a stretch to think that this choice could be made subconsciously based on influences during a child's development.

dtcarson

03-29-2008, 04:49 PM

I'm against abortion as retroactive birth control; I see it as a Hobson's choice in the case of danger to the mother's life. Sort of like murder, I'm against murder, but if it comes down to a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in a dark alley, I could understand shooting in self defense. I think the "it's my body, my choice argument" is a load of crap, because it's *not* your body, it's another body within yours. I don't really care what you do with *your* body--drink as much as you want, cut off your toes, do drugs, etc; as long as it doesn't endanger others or deprive them (like drinking and driving, or going on a drug fueled knife wielding rampage, or stealing to support a drug habit).
I'm male and a father; and even if I were for abortion, seeing my son's sonogram at the first trimester, and seeing that there was obviously a little person in there, would have changed my mind.
Gay "rights" is an interesting topic. Are there any actual Constitutionally-guaranteed rights homosexuals don't have? If there are, if they can't have the same freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or the right to vote, then certainly, they should have those rights. I don't recall "marriage" being in the constitution, and as has been said, many states have civil union laws which can include homosexual couples. Of course, logically, if gay marriage was codified as legal in the "consenting adults" category, you'd have to open it up for bigamy as well, and possibly even incestuous relationships, since in most of them there's only a slightly higher chance of genetic damage to any offspring. (I won't bring up the "marry a horse" argument" because I don't think we can lump most animals into the "consenting" category. But if five women want to be Mrs. John Smith, or five men want to have the same wife, and all agree, what's the difference?)

lilboo

03-29-2008, 04:52 PM

Some people consciously choose to become gay at a point after birth in their life.

I don't think its that far of a stretch to think that this choice could be made subconsciously based on influences during a child's development.

This is where the choice comes in at:
When I was younger, I liked girls. I was never really all that attracted to them, but all I know is that I'm 'supposed to like girls'. That's pretty much it. Seeing a girl naked (like in a porn or a movie) never did anything for me. Ever. When I would watch these pornos, I would see that I'm watching the 10 inch dick pound the girl.. more then the girl. That was never a choice, when you watch something you just naturally watch what appeals to you more.

As I noticed that I'm paying more attention to the buldges of my male classmates, than the titties of my female classmates.. doesn't that say something?

I could very well decided to 'remain straight'..but would I be happy? Hell no. I probably wouldn't be able to really satisfy my wife since what I'd be doing to her...I would want being done to me.. :lol:...

I know lots of married men who ARE gay..but..they just never had the balls to come out of the closet. So they cheat on their wives with men because they are too afraid to come out.

The CHOICE is to come out of the closet or not. NOT the feelings. You can not help who you are attracted to, but if you are actually going to live your life according to how you are built..then that's your choice.

So NO, being GAY is NOT a choice. The only CHOICE that's made is to actually go along with it.

But I'm sure most of you would say "SEE OMG HE SAID CHOICE. SEE! IF ITS A CHOICE THEN MOST PEOPLE SHOULD CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT!!!111!"...Because I'm sure no one cares about other people's happiness, they just wanna make sure everyone is straight. The WORST THING IN THE WORLD would be for a child to see 2 men kiss.!!!

Hex

03-29-2008, 04:52 PM

Yes to abortion at any time provided there is a risk to the mother's health. A fully developed adult has more value to society than a newborn child.

Gay rights? I don't think there is a need for rights specific to gays.

Also, I can't help but laugh at ragin' Hex's rant. Grrrr!

Finally, I think being gay is a choice.

It's easy to make fun of when it doesn't affect you, isn't it? When you have someone call you a filthy $$$$$$ for holding your boyfriend's hand in public, then it makes one just a little bit bitter. But you don't have to worry about that. :roll:

Black rights? I don't think there need to be specific rights to blacks. Great argument.

crystalklear64

03-29-2008, 04:54 PM

Gay= Slavery. I see it now.

Hex

03-29-2008, 04:55 PM

Gay= Slavery. I see it now.

Substitute any minority. Rights are rights. I'll be the first to concede black people have gone through a lot worse, but the fact remains we're being denied rights on the basis of something that's genetic.

GuilewasNK

03-29-2008, 04:57 PM

I don't like the idea of abortion, if a better way can be found (giving up for adoption), I'd rather see that, but if it's legal, it's legal. I am more concerned with the fact that if a mother aborts a child it is her right, but if a father wants nothing to do with a child he still has to pay and he essentially has no rights. That makes no sense at all IMO.

My thoughts on gay rights is that they should have them. It's really as simple as that.

If you have a problem with it being called marriage then call it a union or whatever sets your closed mind at ease. Stigma against homosexuality is a social response due to religion more than anything. For example, homosexuality was never shunned in Japan until Christianity was introduced. Same with the Greeks.

crystalklear64

03-29-2008, 05:12 PM

Substitute any minority. Rights are rights. I'll be the first to concede black people have gone through a lot worse, but the fact remains we're being denied rights on the basis of something that's genetic.
Well, I don't agree with the genetic part as I've already said that I think it's a choice. Regardless, many of the complaints about rights are already covered in the constitution. How people choose to interpret them is their choice. So, even if some sort of law was passed concerning gay marriage, its still up to the churches whether or not they allow it. The same is true today. If you find a church willing to marry a gay couple, then congrats, you're married. The only thing you're denied is a marriage license in some states, and that number of states is slowly shrinking. You can only change laws, not people's feelings.

As for the military, I feel that their don't ask don't tell policy is sufficient. They want you for service, for the job you do, and your sexual orientation doesn't come into play. As a result, you are free to serve your country, the military respects your service enough to not care about being gay or straight, so you are expected to do the same.

Story about not choosing to be gay.
So in your case, you'd be someone who made a subconscious choice.

Hex

03-29-2008, 05:27 PM

So, even if some sort of law was passed concerning gay marriage, its still up to the churches whether or not they allow it.

If by which you mean religious marriage, yes. There's common law marriage, too, which is something i think should be universal. I could give a fuck about whether the churches accept it or not, it's up to them.

usickenme

03-29-2008, 06:04 PM

Just because you cannot see it with the naked eye, does not mean that it is not "viable." Look at in vitro fertilization methods. In these procedures, zygotes are created outside of the body and sustained for some time (up to days) in a petri dish where they may divide and develop into the morula and blastocyst stages; then they are introduced into the uterus where they further develop.

Your example about an identical twin does not prove anything about when life begins. It just shows that in vivo cloning is possible.

The standard of a birthday is not a rigorous scientific definition; it is simply convenient.

incorrect, the zygote is supported by the dish. But that is an interesting point. You have to conceded that these zygotes are supported and made possible technology.

about the twin thing, that is exactly my point. I am not saying when it begins only that is doesn't begin at conception.

A birthday is convenient for a reason, there is no disputing it.

BigT

03-29-2008, 06:11 PM

Zygotes are suported by a petri dish with an appropriate medium. Newborns are supported by parents and food provided by them. Without a petri dish, a zygote could survive on its own for a while (it's a small organism and needs few resources); wihout parental support (water and food), a newborn could only survive for a few days as well...

usickenme

03-29-2008, 06:16 PM

well now you are just speculating, so there is no need to continue.

leveskikesko

03-29-2008, 06:30 PM

I'm not really 100% supportive of the gay lifestyle as a Christian, but I believe it isn't the government's right to decide how people should live their lives.

As for abortion, I'm against it unless it could save a life. If it ever comes to something like that, I believe the choice should lie in the mother's hands.

Redie

03-29-2008, 07:38 PM

We were all a zygote and thus that means you buddy so ask if it was possible would you abort yourself. There is your answer.

Gays getting married is not a big issue. If they want to have the power to get divorce then let them wed be. The only thing I disagree on is a homosexaul getting married to be let in the United States.

Nobody really cares about those things besides people who is programmed to hate.

Now lets talk about

The Naszi party
Cutting of all funding from Israel
getting our troops out
Restoring our economy
Restoring Mother Russia
Restoring order in Pakistan
Cloning tinker Bell
The fight against death
The fight against Dr. Wily
The American revolution part Duex
The return of the Kings and Queens
The dumbfounation of society
How come there is so many old Stars rising from the grave.
Encasing Brasil in a Biodome along with the rainforests to preserve nature
Destroying the Black Hand

SpazX

03-29-2008, 08:36 PM

Subconscious choices? That's a new one. So now you can make choices without being conscious (one of the definitions of which is the ability to make choices)? There could be reasons why one is gay that are not biological and are also not conscious (so you could call them subconscious or unconscious), but they are, by definition, not choices.

crystalklear64

03-29-2008, 09:48 PM

Subconscious choices? That's a new one. So now you can make choices without being conscious (one of the definitions of which is the ability to make choices)?
I guess if you consider Nietzche new..

Redie

03-29-2008, 09:52 PM

Subconscious choices

Well yes we do make chioces in the womb. When I was in me moms belly I would kick her all the time and when I got out nothing really changed.

My mom would also have a craving for pasta and lasagna and to be honest I love eating that food. Thinking about that chicken feta chini that goes right threw me hmm hmm.

The answer is yes. About homosexauls that is basically by mistakes in there lives. Women also don't count no matter how Eddie Murphy manish they are but of course I am talking about back in the good old days not the neo family murphy the one that fought deamons and negotiated with Snake women.

Msut77

03-29-2008, 10:21 PM

Well yes we do make chioces in the womb. When I was in me moms belly I would kick her all the time and when I got out nothing really changed.

My mom would also have a craving for pasta and lasagna and to be honest I love eating that food. Thinking about that chicken feta chini that goes right threw me hmm hmm.

The answer is yes. About homosexauls that is basically by mistakes in there lives. Women also don't count no matter how Eddie Murphy manish they are but of course I am talking about back in the good old days not the neo family murphy the one that fought deamons and negotiated with Snake women.

Best.Post.Ever.

Liquid 2

03-29-2008, 11:10 PM

SpazX

03-29-2008, 11:16 PM

I guess if you consider Nietzche new..

How does one make a choice subconsciously?

sp00ge

03-29-2008, 11:20 PM

For what it's worth, marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege.

If it were a right, we would still have polygamists, we would have sickos marrying their daughters, incestuous marriages, etc.

That being said, I don't think gay people should be denied the privilege entirely, but only on a case by case basis (if a church doesn't want to marry gay couples).

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions are a legal institution. The only clear and fair answer is to separate the church and state aspects of marriage from one another. Make all "legal marriages" civil unions. If you want it to become a marriage, take it to your church to have your union blessed as a marriage.

That way, everyone can have the legal union and all of the benefits that it entails. If your church doesn't want to recognize and bless the union as a marriage, that's between you and your church and not the state's place to intervene.

Liquid 2

03-29-2008, 11:24 PM

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions are a legal institution. The only clear and fair answer is to separate the church and state aspects of marriage from one another. Make all "legal marriages" civil unions. If you want it to become a marriage, take it to your church to have your union blessed as a marriage.

That way, everyone can have the legal union and all of the benefits that it entails. If your church doesn't want to recognize and bless the union as a marriage, that's between you and your church and not the state's place to intervene.

Agreed.

CocheseUGA

03-29-2008, 11:30 PM

This thread is a complete aboration.

seanr1221

03-29-2008, 11:48 PM

lilboo

03-30-2008, 12:11 AM

bmulligan

03-30-2008, 01:42 AM

Let me get this straight, spooge- The Israel thread gets 86'd yet this one gets 4 pages? Something's wrong here......

There are no such things as gay rights. There are only individual rights. All rights begin and end with the freedom of the individual. We do not exist together, we are all seperate, individual people unto ourselves.

Why the fuck would you claustrophobitize a thread with two topics like this anyway. They should be two different threads.

sp00ge

03-30-2008, 02:06 AM

Let me get this straight, spooge- The Israel thread gets 86'd yet this one gets 4 pages? Something's wrong here......

Not quite.... This thread is a legitimate debate. The Israel thread was based on bigotry and prejudice with virtually nowhere positive to go. At least this thread is staying on course, providing points for both sides. That's why this thread is still open.

I did debate shutting this one down, solely based on the OP's apparent need to rabblerouse, judging by their only two created threads. But as the activity is showing, there's nothing really "wrong" with this one.

There are no such things as gay rights. There are only individual rights. All rights begin and end with the freedom of the individual. We do not exist together, we are all seperate, individual people unto ourselves. When you talk about individuality, yes. But on subjects of unions between two people, it does become gay rights. On an individual level, gays have the same rights as heteros. But that's not the topic at hand. It's gay couples rights that are being discussed and violated, as far as marriage/unions go.

And I fixed the title...

billyrox

03-30-2008, 02:19 AM

Abortion: Ok with it until there are signs of a heartbeat and such.

As for gay rights...hell yea they deserve just as many rights as us. It bothers the hell out of me when people say it's unnatural. You know, this one zoo has a gay penguin couple. Each year they find a rock shaped like an egg, and treat it as such. One year the zoo replaced the rock with a real egg and the 2 gay penguins raised the baby. Hey, THAT'S NATURE :whee:

interesting point. :) However, for argument's sake-animals do all kinda of things in nature. i was just watching the nature channel, and house finches are known to eat their offspring. (granted this is a very extreme example when comparing with something like gay rights)

but what if a colony of human being started doing this sometime in the future? could we condone their behavior because its happens in nature or do we draw the line? would we consider this act as unnatural? can we ever consider any act as unnatural?

lilboo

03-30-2008, 02:23 AM

billyrox

03-30-2008, 02:27 AM

You bring up an interesting point, but for that specific example I'm going to have to say 'No, we won't condone that' :lol: Only because it's harming other people's lives. ..Though, maybe people SHOULD do that, because when you compare a bunch of canibals to people whom just wanna spend their lives with their same-sex partner..it IS much easier to accept the gays.. :-k...

lol. nice point.

thrustbucket

03-30-2008, 02:30 AM

Thrust, I believe you mentioned you have a 3 year old. What happens in the event your child grows up to be gay. Or in your world, makes that choice to be gay. How would you react to that? Would you actually be a decent parent, or one of them pieces of shit parents that disowns their kid because of that? :-k

Actually I don't have any kids, I was just using that as an example.

But to answer your question, if my kid grew up to be gay, I would still love him/her the same. Ultimately it's their life, and they have to choose how to live it. I will love my child no matter what choices they make. Love for a child should be unconditional.

lilboo

03-30-2008, 02:34 AM

Actually I don't have any kids, I was just using that as an example.

But to answer your question, if my kid grew up to be gay, I would still love him/her the same. Ultimately it's their life, and they have to choose how to live it. I will love my child no matter what choices they make. Love for a child should be unconditional.

Though I disagree with some of the stuff you said in this thread, in the end that is the answer EVERYONE should have. :applause:

I think if those people whom are really against it, should end up having gay children. This way, if they see the light and SUPPORT their child..they would want their children to have all the privileges & rights as everyone else.

SpazX

03-30-2008, 03:07 AM

interesting point. :) However, for argument's sake-animals do all kinda of things in nature. i was just watching the nature channel, and house finches are known to eat their offspring. (granted this is a very extreme example when comparing with something like gay rights)

but what if a colony of human being started doing this sometime in the future? could we condone their behavior because its happens in nature or do we draw the line? would we consider this act as unnatural? can we ever consider any act as unnatural?

Well I would say that something being unnatural or natural really isn't relevant as to whether we should do it or not. Cars aren't natural, many medicines aren't natural (and many that are require unnatural alterations to be effective), but that isn't a reason not to use them, while many natural things, like cannibalism and hemlock, shouldn't be done/used simply because they are natural.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't point out when someone says that homosexuality isn't natural that it actually is, both for the reason that they are wrong and that people actually do equate natural with good and unnatural with bad. Anti-homosexual people like to use it in their rhetoric because of the way that people equate natural with good (like all the "all-natural" advertised shit) and they should be corrected so they can't exploit that (when for all intents and purposes whether homosexuality is natural or not probably isn't their concern either).

looploop

03-30-2008, 04:01 AM

Quintessence

03-30-2008, 05:49 AM

Abortion: only in cases where life of child and mother are threatened. Adoption is a wonderful thing for "unwanted" pregnancies regardless of their circumstances. Rape and incest are horrible, but why should the child pay the ultimate price because of them?

I agree with the above.

As for gay marriage I am against that, but as for certain other civil unions I am a little more open to.

daroga

03-30-2008, 09:04 AM

evanft

03-30-2008, 10:12 AM

The "I can't choose whom I'm attracted to" angle is kind of a slippery slope. Should consensual incestuous relationships be allowed? I don't see any other answer other than "yes" based on that criteria.

Well, there are these things called "reason" and "logic" that you can apply to each situation and determine whether something is acceptable or not. I mean, just throwing it out there.

dtcarson

03-30-2008, 11:04 AM

What's the difference between incestuous relationships and homosexual relationships? The only "logical" reasons I can think for being against either of them are":

* potential of genetically damaged offspring. Homosexual couples can't bear their own physical children without medical/scientific intervention; so if the incestual couple didn't have offspring either (one was sterile) this should be irrelevant. I'm also not sure of the increased risk, it varies of course by how close the relationship is (brother/sister, third cousins). And, of course, unrelated hetero couples can have disabled children as well. I have read statistics saying the risk is only increased a very small percentage for incestuous relationships. Besides, many of the more vocal gay rights voices also support abortion on demand, and the 'utility' theory of the worth of a baby, so it seems like the answer is already there--if an incestuous couple is going to have a disabled baby, who is not Worth as much as an actual person, well, just abort that sucker. Why the concern about fetuses when they're belonging to this type of couple?

* incestuous sex is "yucky". Which, of course, is how many millions of people have felt about homosexual sex for many decades. The response from the gay lobby, of course, is "Your reaction is emotional, we love each other, we're adults, we can't help whom we we're attracted to". All of which would apply to this side as well.

If we take childbearing out of it, why are gay marriage/civil unions to be desired, and incestuous relationships still to be avoided with a horrified glance?

I'm with daroga, seems to me most if not all of the arguments for gay rights/marriage/unions/relationships would have to be expanded to other types of relationships as well. That is, if we use reason and logic.

Javery

03-30-2008, 11:09 AM

This thread is unbelievable. Assuming most people here are under 35 I was really under the impression that the younger generation would be nearly 100% in favor of gay rights (since they are, you know, actual human beings) but I guess I give society too much credit. I can't even see the other side of the "argument" regarding this issue.

bmulligan

03-30-2008, 11:37 AM

There are no such things as gay rights. There are only individual rights. All rights begin and end with the freedom of the individual. We do not exist together, we are all seperate, individual people unto ourselves.

When you talk about individuality, yes. But on subjects of unions between two people, it does become gay rights. On an individual level, gays have the same rights as heteros. But that's not the topic at hand. It's gay couples rights that are being discussed and violated, as far as marriage/unions go.

And I fixed the title...

Unions (civil, or marriage)have nothing to do with whether or not an individual should get more or less rights than any other. In a society based on equal justice, belonging to a particular group should have no bearing on what rights you can possess or be denied. Anything other than that is State sponsored discrimination. The State telling an individual gay man whom he can or cannot marry is a denial of that right to every individual regardless if he is gay or not. "Rights" granted to groups in this manner are not rights, they are privileges.

Sorry to argue semantics, but in philosophical discussions such as this, definitions are more important than the emotional, pragmatic viewpoints that this topic seems to invoke.

billyrox

03-30-2008, 12:02 PM

Well, there are these things called "reason" and "logic" that you can apply to each situation and determine whether something is acceptable or not. I mean, just throwing it out there.

what do you base reason or logic on? just something you "intuitivly know"? or is it something that is completely relative? isn't this just a construct that our current society deems allowable? afterall, men having sex with men was something completely frowned upon in many cultures for thousands of years, but now it seems norm in our culture.

now, the ancient royal families used to allow incestial relationships to keep bloodlines pure. what if all the kids in our future generations wanted to start incestial relationships because they see couples on tv as normal? would you allow this?

bmulligan

03-30-2008, 12:09 PM

... afterall, men having sex with men was something completely frowned upon in many cultures for thousands of years, but now it seems norm in our culture.

now, the ancient royal families used to allow incestial relationships to keep bloodlines pure. what if all the kids in our future generations wanted to start incestial relationships because they see couples on tv as normal? would you allow this?

Apparently you don't remember those pesky greeks and romans and their love for little boys. And those 'royal' families liked their man-on-man relationships too. Jeez, you need to watch more movies. I blame that Abraham guy and his 'one' god above all others theory, and that moses guy with his commandments theory for the current trend of man-love hating.

billyrox

03-30-2008, 12:35 PM

Apparently you don't remember those pesky greeks and romans and their love for little boys. And those 'royal' families liked their man-on-man relationships too. Jeez, you need to watch more movies. I blame that Abraham guy and his 'one' god above all others theory, and that moses guy with his commandments theory for the current trend of man-love hating.

lol... actaully i haven't. i said "men having sex with men was frown upon in many cultures" but not all. the greeks did employ a social/educational system of men having sex with young boys. i dont think even that institutaion would fly in our current society even if you equated them .

haha, the moses movies. :)

daroga

03-30-2008, 01:03 PM

Well, there are these things called "reason" and "logic" that you can apply to each situation and determine whether something is acceptable or not. I mean, just throwing it out there.Yeah? By "reason" and "logic" I assume you mean "arbitrary personal guidelines."

What's the difference between first cousins or a brother and a sister that want to get married, or have a civil union, or whatever, and two homosexuals? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want? Shouldn't they be able to benefit from the tax laws, etc. If we're going to be consistent, and allow choice to be the deciding factor here, you can't not allow one and still allow the other.

Of course, there's no law that says we have to be consistent. It's just an offense to both "reason" and "logic."

Quick Edit: For the record, I see no reason why homosexual couples shouldn't benefit in the same way from the government as homosexual couples do. Homosexuality is offensive to me morally, but the government isn't in the business of safe guarding our morality.

GuilewasNK

03-30-2008, 01:28 PM

Unions (civil, or marriage)have nothing to do with whether or not an individual should get more or less rights than any other. In a society based on equal justice, belonging to a particular group should have no bearing on what rights you can possess or be denied. Anything other than that is State sponsored discrimination. The State telling an individual gay man whom he can or cannot marry is a denial of that right to every individual regardless if he is gay or not. "Rights" granted to groups in this manner are not rights, they are privileges.

Sorry to argue semantics, but in philosophical discussions such as this, definitions are more important than the emotional, pragmatic viewpoints that this topic seems to invoke.

That is pretty much what I was going to say. If one group of adults has a right do something and another group of adults doesn't have that same right, their rights are being infringed upon. It's really as simple as that.

looploop

03-30-2008, 01:43 PM

If we take childbearing out of it, why are gay marriage/civil unions to be desired, and incestuous relationships still to be avoided with a horrified glance?

I'm with daroga, seems to me most if not all of the arguments for gay rights/marriage/unions/relationships would have to be expanded to other types of relationships as well. That is, if we use reason and logic.

Childbearing should have no bearing on the rights accorded to people. There are countless heteros with no intent of having children though they could. There are countless people with mental disorders, physical disorders and diseases and disabilities who by these definitions are imperiling their future children. Should they too be accorded inferior benefits under the law? Unless there's some agenda to convey that to be barren or to be imperfect is a legal offense, the answer is no.

evanft

03-30-2008, 02:00 PM

Yeah? By "reason" and "logic" I assume you mean "arbitrary personal guidelines."

It's very easy to look at both sides of argument and then use basic reasoning and logic in order to determine which evidence has more weight, which arguments are more sound, and therefore which course of action is the most reasonable. Your argument used a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy, and therefore not valid.

What's the difference between first cousins or a brother and a sister that want to get married, or have a civil union, or whatever, and two homosexuals? *snip*

Again, you're using the slippery slope technique, but I'll go ahead and answer it anyway.

The most obvious problem with your argument is the point at which you've decided to start your slope. You've decided that a union between two people doesn't start on the slope to badsville until it becomes something other than a heterosexual male and female. This is, of course, is a completely arbitrary choice and makes the argument pretty much worthless. You could make an argument for tradition, but that's a logical fallacy.

You're also putting homosexuality in the same class as incest, which it isn't. The former is a generalized notion of the type of person someone is attracted to, while incest is an act that is perpetuated between individuals. You could make the argument with incest that the two people, assuming they're both consenting, would likely fit in each other's generalized attraction group, but even then you're talking about individuals inside a much larger group, not a group in of itself.

Franky, I think any two adults should be able to have sex provided both are in the mental, physical, and emotional state to consent to the act. Oftentimes in incestuous relationships, however, the ability of one of the participants to consent is in serious question, even when that person is an adult, and because of the close familial relationship, trying to classify the acts as "rape" under the law could make the law too broad or could prove a fruitless endeavor that does not cover enough situations in order to make the law effective. Hence, you have laws against incest, which, while they can be applied against two related people in a completely consensual sexual relationship, are actually meant to protect victims of sexual abuse within a family and can be especially effective when the victim is an adult, as many of the laws protecting children would not apply.

So that kinda covers the "Homosexualiy====>Incest" slope, but we're now left with the marriage question, which is really just a question of government regulation. Here's where things get a little wobbly. It would be nearly impossible to create some form of legal, state-recognized marriage that would cover everyone. The number of cultures and religions in our country prevents that. So, in reality, the best solution would to simply have no state-sponsored marriage at all. That allows everyone of consenting legal age to draw up their own marriage contracts with their own terms or to simply leave it as a nice ceremony that they have, whichever they feel is best for them. You're then left with the problem of insurance, next of kin rights, etc., but those issues would likely be resolved by simply filling out a form that says "This is my spouse:_______" whenever the question needs to be resolved. You can also get into the question of what government should and not be doing, if you wanted.

Homosexuality is offensive to me morally

It shouldn't be. If I may somewhat borrow your slippery slope technique for a moment; there is nothing morally wrong with two heterosexual people having consensual sex, so therefore there should be nothing wrong with two homosexual people having consensual sex. There really is no difference between the two acts. The only real argument one could fathom that would define one as morally superior as the other would have to come from religion, and using fairy tales is not a legitimate argumentative practice.

what do you base reason or logic on? just something you "intuitivly know"? or is it something that is completely relative? isn't this just a construct that our current society deems allowable? afterall, men having sex with men was something completely frowned upon in many cultures for thousands of years, but now it seems norm in our culture.

This is a variation on the "You can't judge something by your culture" or "It's good for their culture, so we can't judge." arguments that you often get from jackass anthropologists who can't wrap their heads around the fact that things really can be reasoned out to be "bad" or "good". These arguments of course lead to only one conlusion; there really is no such thing as right and wrong and that making judgements on people's behavior or its impact is completely subjective. This isn't true at all, though.

thrustbucket

03-30-2008, 02:17 PM

billyrox

03-30-2008, 03:15 PM

My ultimate view on this, as with most things, is that the government should stay out of it.

But I still think it's funny that many pro-gay rights people are disgusted by polygamy. You can't have it both ways. If you give rights to one group, you have to recognize and give rights to the other.

BTW- If you think that even half of polygamists marry or have sex with children under 18, you bought into the media lie and are wrong.

exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.

the future generations can choose anything from incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex with anything unusual (robots, animals, etc) , gender changes, whatever. anything can be rationalized and argued for

Access_Denied

03-30-2008, 03:18 PM

I'm totally pro-abortion at any time. If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her? Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse. (Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.) Also, what if the father is no longer there? We don't need any more bastard children in the world. I know that killing is wrong, but I'd rather do that than let a child go into an orphanage with no parents. Criticize me all you want, that's my view.

Also, who honestly cares what gay people do? They're not affecting you in any way. And having gay adoptions just helps those poor kids, why should you take away a child's happiness just because you think it's wong. If you really think that way, fuck you. People say that it's gross when gay people show affection. So what? It's just as gross when straight people do it. I don't care who you are, if I see you mauling somebody while I'm trying to eat lunch at McDonald's, it's fucking disgusting. And I WILL let you know.

My opinion on this all: the government needs to stay the fuck out.

daroga

03-30-2008, 03:20 PM

Evan, I think you missed the point. We're talking about specific individuals in all cases here. When we're talking about "gay rights" I assume we mean the benefits a civil union would carry as would be the case in a heterosexual marriage. In both those cases we're talking about a specific couple of people, not the sexual orientation at large. That would be the point where we need to include incestuous "marriages" to stay consistent. The difference is incest is still horrendously taboo while homosexuality is quickly become not to the majority. If there was a similar increased sympathy for incestuous couples in our country and they were looking for similar right to those of traditional heterosexual married couples, their case would be just as strong as the homosexual case is now.

There's obviously differences when "homosexuality" refers to a broad sexual orientation whereas incest tends to deal with a specific set of people. But in the context, we're zeroing in on specific people. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

And there is only one context when heterosexual sex isn't morally wrong: within the bonds of marriage. I'm sorry you're threatened by my moral and religious beliefs. But if you read closely I never used them as a basis for argument as you assumed. I only stated what was morally right and wrong to me. You seem to be assuming some sort of forcing of morals by that. For that, I'm sorry you misread me as well.

ADDITION EDIT: Your idea of no state-supported definition of marriage does make some sense to me, because of the slippery slope that does exist for this sort of thing. Would you suggest changing the tax laws to just being the same for every individual person at that point rather than recognizing any unions at all?

I'm totally pro-abortion at any time. If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her? Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse. (Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.)So, for anyone who's not going to be ultra successful we should just kill them? I think a lot of people prefer living in a less than desirable condition to death. You also seem to have no idea how many thousands of couples there are who can't have children for one reason or another just waiting to be able to adopt a child.

lilboo

03-30-2008, 04:13 PM

And there is only one context when heterosexual sex isn't morally wrong: within the bonds of marriage. I'm sorry you're threatened by my moral and religious beliefs. But if you read closely I never used them as a basis for argument as you assumed. I only stated what was morally right and wrong to me.

:applause:
I really wish there were more people whom were very heavily involved in their religion like you. Really. :applause:

You're a pastor, right? Or you're in training to become one..? Do me a favor, teach people to be like that. Teach people to believe and have faith in their religion, but to respect and leave other people alone :lol: Honestly, that is the moral of the story!!

I'm so happy I read that. Really :)

daroga

03-30-2008, 04:28 PM

:applause:
I really wish there were more people whom were very heavily involved in their religion like you. Really. :applause:

You're a pastor, right? Or you're in training to become one..? Do me a favor, teach people to be like that. Teach people to believe and have faith in their religion, but to respect and leave other people alone :lol: Honestly, that is the moral of the story!!

I'm so happy I read that. Really :)I will be in about 2 months.... assuming I pass my classes. ;)

There are so many people who bring such a horrible name to those who just don't believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Those people picketing the military funerals because "God's killing soldiers cause of all teh gayz!" The heck? I watched that Fox News piece on those people where the reporter just rips the woman a new one. That woman didn't know her Bible very well, nor did she know what most of it said.

I find it hard to believe that any of them are trying to actually reach out to people who live sinful lifestyles and hope that they turn from it for their spiritual well-being. If they are, they have no idea how to approach anything. If you make it very clear that you're a complete asshole, why would I ever listen to anything you have to say or assume you're even being partially truthful with me when you confess you're worried for me? It's more just hate-mongering I think.

There's a similar side to the abortion issue. It's not so much in the news recently, but the people bombing abortion clinics or killing doctors who perform them? So, let me get this straight. You're righting the wrongs of the murder of these children by... killing people? Isn't that the very thing you're trying to stop?

It's a difficult situation to agree with a position that has such vocal whack-jobs associated with it. You always have to qualify things like this, "Yes, we believe/teach that, but we don't do/condone these types of things about it."

Access_Denied

03-30-2008, 04:37 PM

So, for anyone who's not going to be ultra successful we should just kill them? I think a lot of people prefer living in a less than desirable condition to death. You also seem to have no idea how many thousands of couples there are who can't have children for one reason or another just waiting to be able to adopt a child.

Sometimes putting a kid up for adoption is worse. I know a few kids that have been adopted. Some of them have been through 15 or 16 families, and some of those families beat them. Some kids get neglected. And yes, sometimes the child would be better off alive. But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice.

Also, I realize that people are waiting for children to adopt. Well, there are millions of children waiting to be adopted, and there are more coming. Some of those children will find loving homes, but some won't. We don't need any more kids without homes, when we can't even handle the ones we have now.

daroga

03-30-2008, 05:02 PM

Sometimes putting a kid up for adoption is worse. I know a few kids that have been adopted. Some of them have been through 15 or 16 families, and some of those families beat them. Some kids get neglected. And yes, sometimes the child would be better off alive. But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice.

Also, I realize that people are waiting for children to adopt. Well, there are millions of children waiting to be adopted, and there are more coming. Some of those children will find loving homes, but some won't. We don't need any more kids without homes, when we can't even handle the ones we have now.Sadly much like puppies and kittens vs. adults dogs and cats, infants are much more "adoptable" than older children. A woman who is pregnant will have no trouble finding someone who would be excited to adopt her soon-to-be-born child. Many couples go to foreign countries to adopt largely because the waiting list for infants here is so long. Your argument doesn't really apply to abortion vs. adoption argument.

Even so, I daresay most children would prefer to be in an orphanage or foster homes than dead. You could test that theory though. Find a child who's upset with his lot in life because of those very situations and hold a gun to his head and ask him if he'd rather be dead. I think you'd find most wouldn't be too keen on that idea.

The Mana Knight

03-30-2008, 05:59 PM

My opinion on these two issues:

Abortion, I have no opinion really. If anything, I more so support the choice of the woman (I have my reasons for that).

As for gay rights, I personally have no problems with gay/same sex marriages at all. Not something I'd ever do (since I want a woman), but I don't have a problem with people doing it. I personally wish states or whatever wouldn't ban gay marriages and allow the same rights to gays. As long as they aren't hurting people, no problem.

Where my opinion is strong has to do with handgun control, but I already explained in another thread over that.

camoor

03-30-2008, 06:44 PM

exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.

:applause:

the future generations can choose anything from incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex with anything unusual (robots, animals, etc) , gender changes, whatever. anything can be rationalized and argued for

Putting incest and animal love in that list is such dirty pool. The other items in the list involve relationships between consenting adults. There is a clear line that can be drawn.

Oh - and by the way, if you've ever watched porn on a tv or computer you're already halfway to having sex with a :robot:

camoor

03-30-2008, 06:59 PM

The difference between a zygote and a newborn is large. But, then again, the differences between a newborn and a toddler and an adolescent are also large. Of course, I doubt that zygotes are capable of emotion, reasoning, and communication. But, the repetoire of newborns is also very limited. They don't start smiling with purpose until about 1.5 months. Their brains are still in the process of refining and myelinating connections. Their communication is pretty much limited to crying and they keep their hands clenched in fists with no capacity to grab or rake anything. (for more fun facts, check out a milestone chart).

The human genome has been sequenced. Unfortunately, it's complicated, and we're not sure what many of the genes actually do... But still, the actual molecules that form the famous double helix, wrap around histones, and then compress into chromosomes are what serves as a plan for our future growth. Also, having the correct amount and configuration of these chromosomes is crucial for the development of a zygote. Not uncommonly, things go wrong when DNA is copied and certain eggs and/or sperm may have faulty genetic material. Mother nature takes care of this by spontaneously aborting zygotes/fetuses with major genetic disorders (some say that about 40% of all fertilized eggs get spontaneously aborted, often so early that it is unknown to the mother). So, having the correct complement of DNA and surviving the early automatic checks does, in part, determine viability.

Sperm, by themselves, do not have the potential for further growth. They only have a haploid complement of DNA. Even if an empty egg is fertilized by a sperm and then the chromosomes are doubled to yield a diploid complement, no fetus will develop. Instead, one gets a complete molar pregnancy (an abnormal, quasi-cancerous growth within the uterus that contains no fetal tissue; see http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1047.htm )
A zygote with grossly normal DNA, will more likely than not develop into a newborn, if given the correct environment.

Thanks for the info, I knew that sperm didn't have all the info needed for the genetic blueprint but I thought they had more then what you described.

As with many moral issues, I see abortion as a grey shaded moral issue on a sliding scale starting at "the night after" and ending with "the moment of birth". To me, human sentience is not reached the moment the sperm touches the egg, rather it is many weeks later. Therefore I would not lose any sleep over abortions performed in this early time period. Late in the third trimester is hinky to me though (although if there were health complications I would readily support whatever the mother chose)

I believe that many conservative christians are dogmatic on the issue of abortion and refuse to look at it with anything other then a black-and-white perspective (IE it is wrong, period). Some radical christians even object to contraceptives because they kill sperm or female eggs.

It's interesting that these very same christians have a complex and nuanced view on other moral topics such as finances, violence, and the consumption of shellfish. The bible has strong and inflexible viewpoints on these topics, yet somehow those viewpoints are swept aside via verbal jujitsu in the pursuit of more expedient courses of action.

bmulligan

03-30-2008, 08:08 PM

daroga

03-30-2008, 08:49 PM

I have to admit that I don't sit around reading the bible for pleasure and haven't 'studied' any books since I was a wee lad. I don't for the life of me remember where exactly the bible says life begins at conception and not birth and that abortion was some mortal sin. Can we get some scholarship here for reference, please ?In Psalm 51, David says that he was sinful from birth, sinful from his conception. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks about God knowing us as he formed us in the womb.

Some incidental things come from the same words are used for unborn babies as are for infants, and conception and birth being spoken of as a unit ("She conceived and gave birth...")

With life established in the womb, an unborn child falls under the same protection of "You shall not murder" as you and I do.

dtcarson

03-30-2008, 09:03 PM

Why is incest dirty pool? Assuming it's between consensual adults; nonconsensual sex (between anyone) , or between those who don't understand, is wrong. Reference polygamy again (as in, that's another example of consensual sex that most gay rights spokespeople denigrate and somehow see as different.)

If we're overpopulated, we should start with all those people on death row, who've had their chance, and pissed on society's rules (the simple ones, like "don't dismember your neighbours"). Reversible sterilization at birth would even work.

"But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice."

Love it. Too bad the child can't have the choice to be born. I've said this before--in 90% of cases, the women 'chose' to have sex. (Yes, of course I'm excluding cases like rape or sexual abuse, or mentally challenged people.) Whether or not we agree that third graders should be getting detailed and graphic sex ed (and not just "This is the penis, this is the vagina, here's what can happen to and in the body during and after intercourse, here's how to be safe", but "This is a dildo, this is how to use it, let's study S&M and Furryism now"), I think most can agree that sex ed is important--both the hows and the whys, and the alternatives. It's a cliche, but abstinence does work every time it's tried. Thirteen year olds can be happy without putting out (or in) with everyone on the football team/cheerleading squad.

I haven't read the thread on gun control, but it would be interesting if there's an inverse relationship between support of an issue and its constitionality (ie, "right to life", and most here are at least ambivalent on abortion if not straight out pro "choice"; no actual "right to marriage,", yet most here are all for this 'right'; where does the right to bear arms stand.)

camoor

03-30-2008, 09:35 PM

daroga

03-30-2008, 09:57 PM

Incest has a high likelihood of resulting in children with severe health issues. Thus, there is a logical and humane reason for outlawing it.While I agree with you here (I'm doing a little to much "pro-incest" devil's advocating here for my own comfort), should we then outlaw anyone from procreating who has a chance of passing along fairly defective genes to their children? And if so, what's the line to be drawn there?

EDIT: And I've just got to say, we've got two fiercely debated and emotional topics shoved into one thread here for some reason, and nearly the whole of the replies have been civil and good for discussion. Let's keep it up :)

camoor

03-30-2008, 11:34 PM

While I agree with you here (I'm doing a little to much "pro-incest" devil's advocating here for my own comfort), should we then outlaw anyone from procreating who has a chance of passing along fairly defective genes to their children? And if so, what's the line to be drawn there?

EDIT: And I've just got to say, we've got two fiercely debated and emotional topics shoved into one thread here for some reason, and nearly the whole of the replies have been civil and good for discussion. Let's keep it up :)

Haha yeah that's a thornier question IMO, it's starting to get into eugenics territory. I love that movie Gattaca because it illustrates the moral issues inherent in designer kids and social engineering. At the same time I think it's only a matter of time before humanity starts taking responsibility of their genetic blueprint and resplicing it - once the tech is perfected and humanity is ready to evolve, then oh that will be an exiting time! (that I will prob never see :cry:)

On the health defect issue I saw this program about this lady that kept having children even though she had 4 in a row that died of this horrible cancer only a few years into life (her fifth was terminally ill and the show was mainly about him). She kept having kids! I mean - I felt super bad for her loss, but there is something to be said for avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering.

daroga

03-30-2008, 11:39 PM

Yeah, in that case you'd think adoption would be a better way to go emotionally. But who knows?

Kinda brings up an interesting thought. Incestuous couple wants to adopt children rather than try to test the gene pool. Should they be allowed a civil union?

lilboo

03-30-2008, 11:42 PM

Kinda brings up an interesting thought. Incestuous couple wants to adopt children rather than try to test the gene pool. Should they be allowed a civil union?

Sure, why not? I could say "That's creepy" but someone can say the same thing about me :lol:

BigT

03-31-2008, 01:21 AM

Incest has a high likelihood of resulting in children with severe health issues. Thus, there is a logical and humane reason for outlawing it.

What could the logical and humane reason be for outlawing voluntary polygamy or for that matter "robot sex" (as you phrase it)

If you look at the data, the effect of consanguinity (fancy term for incest) on the risk of genetic disorders in a child is often overstated. The overall risk for significant genetic disease caused by unions between first cousins is about 5%. This can be compared to the baseline risk of 2% for random mating.

The biggest problem is that autosomal recessive conditions (diseases which need a defective gene from each parent) have a higher incidence. This is because relatives tend to share a percentage of genes and thus have a higher chance of both having a copy of the defective gene that they can pass on to their offspring (here's where Punnett squares come in).

But still, 95 times out of a 100, a child produced by the mating of first cousins will be pretty much normal. So if you have a hot cousin... ;)

Ikohn4ever

03-31-2008, 01:22 AM

Sure, why not? I could say "That's creepy" but someone can say the same thing about me :lol:

Jesuth Christh

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 01:55 AM

exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.

...only to be replaced by newly constructed taboos and social prohibitions. There's no boundary to what we consider immoral/irresponsible, only creations.

Some older societies normalized homosexuality, but wasn't consistent at the time, and didn't remain the case from that moment on.

Like long hair on men: barely dangerous now, a visual indicator of an irresponsible heathen and dirty hippie 40 years ago, virtually unheard of 80 years ago, and something particularly typical 300 years ago.

Now, of course, some institutions remain constant: after all, in the absence of heterosexual couples, we'll cease to continue to exist. So there's little to be accomplished by trying to reduce/eliminate heterosexuality. But to act like the back-and-forth social and political negotiation is a one-way street is absurd, contrary to reality over very long periods of time, ignored how society is responsible for creating new moral ills as well as taking others off the list, is ultimately silly (not to mention a slippery slope argument, and virtually invalid as a result).

Good ol' ragtime music survived the early 20th century, when it was considered uncivilized negro music that would lead to the downfall of society, and encourage negroes to participate in the sorts of shiftless, irresponsible, and lazy behaviors that they were stereotypically known for. It was taking the big band era and stripping it down, which was seen as uncouth.

Meanwhile, today Jazz and its predecessors in the 20th century are considered very high culture in music. So it wasn't deciding one thing was bad and moving onto the next: social facts flow into and out of general appreciation over space and time, with a few constants.

thrustbucket

03-31-2008, 02:45 AM

I'm totally pro-abortion at any time.
I almost agree with where you are going at this point. I sort of feel that if a woman is allowed to knock off her kid before birth for frivolous reasons, why should it be illegal for her to preform a post-birth abortion too? I see almost no difference.

It does seem somewhat inconsistent to me. But the rest of what you said I find quite troubling.

If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her?
The very last thing society, and even the government, wants, is to force a mother to take care of a child she doesn't want. That has nothing to do with the issue here.

Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse.
How can anyone possibly think adoption would be worse than death? How would you feel if your mom didn't feel "up to" having a kid when she got knocked up with you? I guess you'd have to understand...

(Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.)
Tell that to the massive list of families in America waiting for babies to be born that are unwanted that they can adopt. Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).

Also, what if the father is no longer there? We don't need any more bastard children in the world. I know that killing is wrong, but I'd rather do that than let a child go into an orphanage with no parents. Criticize me all you want, that's my view.

So you are basically saying that given the choice of an orphanage, no father, or a bad father, you would hope your mom had the good sense to put you out of your misery, rather than have a shot at some type of life?

Wouldn't you prefer to be given the choice to live or die? You would honestly prefer someone make that for you? If it got bad enough, you could always kill yourself. But I find it very unlikely that you wouldn't like to at least have the chance to decide for yourself.

Following your line of logic, we should probably just exterminate all children in orphanages, have social services exterminate kids in "bad homes", and while we're at it, maybe we should just take everyone below the poverty line and throw them in a gas chamber for their own good. None of those kids/people have it as good as us, so they obviously shouldn't be alive. Right?

crystalklear64

03-31-2008, 06:32 AM

Johnathan Swift.

SpazX

03-31-2008, 11:37 AM

Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).

Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Obviously if you know you don't want a baby the quickest and easiest thing to do is get an abortion (which would usually be done pretty quickly after knowing you're pregnant) rather than going through the entire process of carrying the baby and then giving it up (which isn't an easy thing to do either). But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...

Msut77

03-31-2008, 11:41 AM

Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...

So thrust may sound a wee bit like a crazy person but that is actually a standard con talking point.

t0llenz

03-31-2008, 11:43 AM

Man, I miss like 2 days of checking out the forum and there's a massive thread about the two most divisive topics in American politics. Wow.

For the record, I (for the most part) oppose one of them and strongly support the other. Try to guess!

daroga

03-31-2008, 12:57 PM

Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Which of those isn't solved by adoption?

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 12:58 PM

Which of those is your choice to make for them, though?

Msut77

03-31-2008, 01:00 PM

Which of those isn't solved by adoption?

Uh it costs money to have a baby, plus lost income from taking off of work (or even possibly losing a job outright).

daroga

03-31-2008, 01:03 PM

Uh it costs money to have a baby, plus lost income from taking off of work (or even possibly losing a job outright).It also costs money to have an abortion. There's generally laws to keep people from getting fired simply because they're pregnant. Generally women take maternity leave to raise the child in the initial weeks after birth, not just to have the child. Unless there are complications, time off would be minimal in an adoption situation.

thrustbucket

03-31-2008, 01:27 PM

Which of those is your choice to make for them, though?

This is what I love about this whole thread/debate. When it comes to gays, the main response is "Why should you care? It doesn't affect you." But the entire notion of let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else completely flies out the window when it comes to aborting someone. Making someone dead is quite literally the most negative impact you can have on another person.

thrustbucket

03-31-2008, 01:30 PM

Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Obviously if you know you don't want a baby the quickest and easiest thing to do is get an abortion (which would usually be done pretty quickly after knowing you're pregnant) rather than going through the entire process of carrying the baby and then giving it up (which isn't an easy thing to do either). But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...

None of your reasons listed apply to adoption. And I don't believe it costs the mother anything for adoption. Mothers can often make a pretty dime off of it in this country.

I can think of countless situations where the quickest and easiest thing is to kill. Usually, the liberals are first to point out how wrong that answer is.

I know people that are waiting to adopt - there is nothing for the mother to lose other than 9 months of inconvenience. If you want to claim it costs mothers money to give their kids up for adoption, please provide evidence.

I would be perfectly ok with pro-choicers if they would just admit what you did, that killing is often the easiest and quickest solution and maybe we should employ it more often. At least then, they would be consistent.

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 01:44 PM

This is what I love about this whole thread/debate. When it comes to gays, the main response is "Why should you care? It doesn't affect you." But the entire notion of let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else completely flies out the window when it comes to aborting someone. Making someone dead is quite literally the most negative impact you can have on another person.

Two things:

1) We disagree on "people" and we disagree on "making someone dead."

2) I'm actually only circumstantially pro-choice. I am, as an individual, someone who could never have an abortion. I would not allow my wife to have an abortion. I loathe the idea of abortion. But I am not interested in telling other people that they must not have them, or have access to them. I wish they didn't, and I wish there were none. Ultimately, I think the "should it be legal/illegal" debate is pointless for two reasons:

1) It will never be illegal. Republicans love abortion as a tool for motivating their blocs. Its legality gives the GOP a lot of political leverage, really.

2) The conversation around abortion should be, IMO, about how to best reduce it as close to zero as possible. Making it illegal is not one of those solutions. Now, I actually like the fact that so many anti-choice proponents, such as yourself, speak out. I don't agree with much of the rationale, but perpetual shaming and making abortion a constantly "controversial" topic means it can not ever become a simple, shameless surgical procedure. I don't think it should be an easy decision - so the ranting and venom of the right serves a vital function here, IMO.

That said, looking at ways of reducing abortion is important. Whether it's condom distribution that works, abstinence education that works (it doesn't, for the record), encouraging contraceptives other than condoms (norplant and the other variants that folks use these days), encouraging responsible sex, elevating the felt power of women in order to make them feel confident about insisting on contraceptive use - whatever it could be, really. At the end of the day, legal or illegal is a pointless debate to have: you can find common ground, I believe, in seeking ways to reduce abortions via reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancies occurring, and keep abortion a safe and legal option that very few people use.

camoor

03-31-2008, 01:45 PM

camoor

03-31-2008, 01:48 PM

Tell that to the massive list of families in America waiting for babies to be born that are unwanted that they can adopt. Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).

How do you know this? Do you actually know anyone who has taken this route, and have you discussed the reasoning with her?

camoor

03-31-2008, 01:54 PM

If you look at the data, the effect of consanguinity (fancy term for incest) on the risk of genetic disorders in a child is often overstated. The overall risk for significant genetic disease caused by unions between first cousins is about 5%. This can be compared to the baseline risk of 2% for random mating.

The biggest problem is that autosomal recessive conditions (diseases which need a defective gene from each parent) have a higher incidence. This is because relatives tend to share a percentage of genes and thus have a higher chance of both having a copy of the defective gene that they can pass on to their offspring (here's where Punnett squares come in).

But still, 95 times out of a 100, a child produced by the mating of first cousins will be pretty much normal. So if you have a hot cousin... ;)

OK, so it's not as risky as it may be advertised. But last time I looked a 5% chance of significant genetic disease is more then double the baseline risk for random mating. With all the health issues people have already, I'm all for any measures that can cut health risks (especially those that cut them by more then half)

daroga

03-31-2008, 01:57 PM

We're talking about fetuses, not people. Save this arguement for the death penalty thread.Of course.

When does that switch flip?

thrustbucket

03-31-2008, 02:12 PM

Two things:

1) We disagree on "people" and we disagree on "making someone dead."

2) I'm actually only circumstantially pro-choice. I am, as an individual, someone who could never have an abortion. I would not allow my wife to have an abortion. I loathe the idea of abortion. But I am not interested in telling other people that they must not have them, or have access to them. I wish they didn't, and I wish there were none. Ultimately, I think the "should it be legal/illegal" debate is pointless for two reasons:

1) It will never be illegal. Republicans love abortion as a tool for motivating their blocs. Its legality gives the GOP a lot of political leverage, really.

2) The conversation around abortion should be, IMO, about how to best reduce it as close to zero as possible. Making it illegal is not one of those solutions. Now, I actually like the fact that so many anti-choice proponents, such as yourself, speak out. I don't agree with much of the rationale, but perpetual shaming and making abortion a constantly "controversial" topic means it can not ever become a simple, shameless surgical procedure. I don't think it should be an easy decision - so the ranting and venom of the right serves a vital function here, IMO.

That said, looking at ways of reducing abortion is important. Whether it's condom distribution that works, abstinence education that works (it doesn't, for the record), encouraging contraceptives other than condoms (norplant and the other variants that folks use these days), encouraging responsible sex, elevating the felt power of women in order to make them feel confident about insisting on contraceptive use - whatever it could be, really. At the end of the day, legal or illegal is a pointless debate to have: you can find common ground, I believe, in seeking ways to reduce abortions via reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancies occurring, and keep abortion a safe and legal option that very few people use.

I actually, this time, agree with most of what you say. I am not interested in more government regulation as the answer to just about any problem. I am interested in a changing culture.

I disagree that handing out condoms is the answer, but most of what you said here I do agree with.

We're talking about fetuses, not people. Save this arguement for the death penalty thread.

If you were killed when you were fetus, would you be any less dead now?

Semantics to me.

How do you know this? Do you actually know anyone who has taken this route, and have you discussed the reasoning with her?

No. Admittedly I was being extreme in trying to illustrate how wrong it is for abortion to be used as birth control.

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 02:59 PM

I disagree that handing out condoms is the answer, but most of what you said here I do agree with.

I don't know if it is or not; that was just an example.

The point here, I think, is to work this way:

1) Think about what could possibly reduce unwanted pregnancies (condoms, abstinence programs, sex ed, 'scared straight' programs, etc.). What are effective intervention strategies?

2) Test those hypotheses.

Of course, in the end you'd end up with social science research, which, it appears by your reaction to the other thread, is all dismissable as politically-driven and biased (;) - I kid, I kid. sorta.). But it's better to have social scientists testing out workable strategies to inform policy makers instead of relying on broad-based applications of unproven programs (e.g., faith-based initiatives) and then ignoring evidence that abstinence programs are, on their best day, unsuccessful, and on their worst, lead to a tiny increase in early intercourse (and everything bad that coincides with that). Not that it has bad intentions or is evil: but the foundation of abstinence-education currently rests on the idea that children need to know as little about sex as possible (other than that it's bad before marriage). Abstinence (as currently developed and implemented, not abstinence as an idea) education leads to more uninformed teens who are going to fuck anyway (they are teens), and the lack of knowledge compounds the problems we have. So the idea becomes thinking about what direction we move from here: how much detail should we give in sex ed classes? Should we now test a program that provides thorough information on sex, both performatively and scientifically, coupled with a pro-abstinence theme? Or should we abandon abstinence altogether?

It ultimately comes down to relying on individuals and politicians to get over their preconceived notions of how the world should work, humbly recognize if something is not working, and then modify it and try again.

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 03:02 PM

Both of these issues could be solved by three simple words: "More butt sex."

Also, BTW FWIW, IMHO, Blastocytes FTMFW!

daroga

03-31-2008, 03:34 PM

Should we now test a program that provides thorough information on sex, both performatively and scientifically, coupled with a pro-abstinence theme?I'd be inclined to lean toward a program like this.

myke, I wonder if you have any information on abstinence programs that led to increased sexual activity among teens, and if possible, what angles they were taking with said program. I'd be interested to read some of those things, and that's not something I'd ever seen documented (although, oddly enough, I don't spend an enormous amount of time seeking out effectiveness of anti-pregnancy programs for teens).

I do know that a lot of times free contraceptives makes the problem worse, or at least makes things really awful for some girls as the horny boys say, "Come on, we've got the condoms/birth control pills/whatever, we should just do it!" The pregnancies through misuse or failure are troubling, but more so to me are the unjust pressure and emotional damage that can do to a young girl (or guy, too. I suppose there's cases of the stereotype roles being reversed, but I'm inclined to think pressure normally originates from the male side of the couple).

GuilewasNK

03-31-2008, 03:34 PM

RAMSTORIA

03-31-2008, 03:39 PM

i honestly cant believe this thread is still going

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 03:41 PM

The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. and

(2) there would be less need for abortions because you can't get pregnant when you make a bank deposit in the back door. There is also no opportunity for accidents due to improper use of birth control or condoms.

In short, put it in the back door, it will make you say "ooooohhhh" and you won't get pregnant!

GuilewasNK

03-31-2008, 03:43 PM

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 03:51 PM

I'd be inclined to lean toward a program like this.

myke, I wonder if you have any information on abstinence programs that led to increased sexual activity among teens, and if possible, what angles they were taking with said program. I'd be interested to read some of those things, and that's not something I'd ever seen documented (although, oddly enough, I don't spend an enormous amount of time seeking out effectiveness of anti-pregnancy programs for teens).

I do know that a lot of times free contraceptives makes the problem worse, or at least makes things really awful for some girls as the horny boys say, "Come on, we've got the condoms/birth control pills/whatever, we should just do it!" The pregnancies through misuse or failure are troubling, but more so to me are the unjust pressure and emotional damage that can do to a young girl (or guy, too. I suppose there's cases of the stereotype roles being reversed, but I'm inclined to think pressure normally originates from the male side of the couple).

I don't research sex, but I have read evaluative studies of abstinence-education programs (at private schools) that were put in place before 2000. The overall % of sexually active teens was no different b/w abstinence and non-abstinence (I don't recall if the control group was "everyone else" or "everyone else in a typical sex ed course") groups. The same % of them were sexually active. The only positive finding of abstinence education was that the onset of first intercourse (ain't nothin' more romantic than scientific writing like that - but it's their phrase, for the record) was delayed by 15-18 months in the abstinence group. So they were still sexually active, but a good clip later than others. The downside was what I mentioned earlier: their lack of sexual knowledge put them at higher risk than those who were familiar with contraceptives and the like.

I also read recently that the % of under-18 girls who become parents per 100,000 has gone up in recent years by a small margin. That's not an indictment of abstinence education entirely, but it does again suggest that, at the very best, it offers little improvement over traditional means of sex-ed. I'd like to see more studies before claiming that abstinence makes things worse.

As for your final point, I think that's quite valid, and said something similar earlier (about empowering women to be less submissive in the bedroom). I don't know how easily that can be done in terms of programs; I hate to say it, but there was some Avril Lavigne song that gets at this (I think the chorus went along the lines of "Did you really think I was gonna give it up to you?") idea that isn't necessarily pro-or-anti abstinence, but pro-woman and emphasizes her own role in the decision to have sex. Mass culture (as bad as Avril may be) is going to reach millions more people than any study I read or write, so that's a potentially important source of education as well.

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 04:09 PM

Do I even need to elaborate on the folly of that statement?

We are talking about butt sex here, as a way to prevent abortions. So yeah please explain to me how one can accidently get pregnant by improperly using birth control or condoms when they only have butt sex. I'd love to know.

GuilewasNK

03-31-2008, 04:28 PM

We are talking about butt sex here, as a way to prevent abortions. So yeah please explain to me how one can accidently get pregnant by improperly using birth control or condoms when they only have butt sex. I'd love to know.

Well you weren't talking exclusivley about abortion. You went on a tangent yourself in your own post therefore I did as well...

"The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. "

What does that have to do with abortion?

My point is if there is improper use of a condom during anal sex disease should be a bigger concern than anything. You seemed to gloss right over that like it was nothing.

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 04:36 PM

Well you weren't talking exclusivley about abortion. You went on a tangent yourself in your own post therefore I did as well...

"The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. "

What does that have to do with abortion?

My point is if there is improper use of a condom during anal sex disease should be a bigger concern than anything. You seemed to gloss right over that like it was nothing.

Ehhhh, no...not really. You're wrong. This thread (see the title) is about two things: Gay rights, and Abortion.

My statements about butt sex were limited to those two contexts. I agree with your point about disease, but that is your tangent, not mine. I was staying on topic w/ the gay rights and abortion topics.

In conclusion, butt sex rules!

thrustbucket

03-31-2008, 04:58 PM

I don't research sex, but I have read evaluative studies of abstinence-education programs (at private schools) that were put in place before 2000. The overall % of sexually active teens was no different b/w abstinence and non-abstinence (I don't recall if the control group was "everyone else" or "everyone else in a typical sex ed course") groups. The same % of them were sexually active. The only positive finding of abstinence education was that the onset of first intercourse (ain't nothin' more romantic than scientific writing like that - but it's their phrase, for the record) was delayed by 15-18 months in the abstinence group. So they were still sexually active, but a good clip later than others. The downside was what I mentioned earlier: their lack of sexual knowledge put them at higher risk than those who were familiar with contraceptives and the like.

I also read recently that the % of under-18 girls who become parents per 100,000 has gone up in recent years by a small margin. That's not an indictment of abstinence education entirely, but it does again suggest that, at the very best, it offers little improvement over traditional means of sex-ed. I'd like to see more studies before claiming that abstinence makes things worse.

As for your final point, I think that's quite valid, and said something similar earlier (about empowering women to be less submissive in the bedroom). I don't know how easily that can be done in terms of programs; I hate to say it, but there was some Avril Lavigne song that gets at this (I think the chorus went along the lines of "Did you really think I was gonna give it up to you?") idea that isn't necessarily pro-or-anti abstinence, but pro-woman and emphasizes her own role in the decision to have sex. Mass culture (as bad as Avril may be) is going to reach millions more people than any study I read or write, so that's a potentially important source of education as well.

I accept your claim that abstinence is limited in success. This is one of those issues that I really don't have answers for. I just know that no one thing is the answer.

Kids need to be given good sex ed. But I think strictly handing out condoms all over the place out of the belief they are going to do it anyway, is much like handing out Fuzz Busters with Drivers Licenses for 16 year old's.

I ultimately put the responsibility on parents though. I think it's actually educating parents on the importance of educating their own kids is where society fails most. The fact that parents seem to want to put the burden on schools to teach this stuff seems one of the core problems.

daroga

03-31-2008, 05:22 PM

I ultimately put the responsibility on parents though. I think it's actually educating parents on the importance of educating their own kids is where society fails most. The fact that parents seem to want to put the burden on schools to teach this stuff seems one of the core problems.Thrust, I don't always agree with you or how you word things, but you get a special prize for this.

The breakdown of the family is causing all sorts of problems in this country, mainly because parents don't know how or don't care to be parents. Have a good time with your kids, sure. Be their friend, yes. But letting your child do whatever he may determine to be best all the time isn't a real great idea. You have life experiences for a reason, to help your children make good choices. They'll learn some things the hard way, yeah, and they'll throw your advice or rules out the window from time to time, but kids need some boundaries and need some guidance to grow up to be productive members of society. You don't have to be the greatest parent on earth; but you do need to try.

But I think you're dead on that sex ed needs to not be taboo to parents. Talk with your kids, teach them, help to clarify the things they hear in school from a teacher or a friend. I think they would go a long way in clearing of the teen pregnancy problem.

I would be interested to see some stats of which group is getting more abortions, high school girls and before, or college and thereafter. Obviously, there's a fertility span that's far greater on the one side, but they would be interesting stats to see on a time line.

SpazX

03-31-2008, 06:12 PM

I would be interested to see some stats of which group is getting more abortions, high school girls and before, or college and thereafter. Obviously, there's a fertility span that's far greater on the one side, but they would be interesting stats to see on a time line.

Here is a clusterfuck of CDC Statistics - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm?s_cid=ss5609a1_e

It looks like it's as recent as 2004.

From the table I looked at - Table 4 - they have the ages split into <15 (0.6%), 15-19 (16.5%), 20-24 (33.0%), 25-29 (23.0%), 30-34 (14.7%), 35-39 (8.4%), and >40 (3.2%) and 0.5% unknown.

So it's the college/graduated high school and started working age group that has the most abortions, which makes sense anyway as their reasoning for having abortions is cost, delaying parenthood until later, work/education, etc.

Abortions have been dropping (just like crime) as the family has been breaking down though. They've been declining since around 1990 with a sharp drop in 1994-1995 and has been steady/slowly dropping since then.

And around 86% in the first trimester, 60% within the first 8 weeks.

mykevermin

03-31-2008, 06:46 PM

The breakdown of the family is causing all sorts of problems in this country, mainly because parents don't know how or don't care to be parents. Have a good time with your kids, sure. Be their friend, yes. But letting your child do whatever he may determine to be best all the time isn't a real great idea. You have life experiences for a reason, to help your children make good choices. They'll learn some things the hard way, yeah, and they'll throw your advice or rules out the window from time to time, but kids need some boundaries and need some guidance to grow up to be productive members of society. You don't have to be the greatest parent on earth; but you do need to try.

I had a good conversation over many many beers Saturday night, where I (and you'd be proud of this, thrust! ;)) without any evidence whatsoever tried to argue that there's a possibility that poor parenting skills during the period of early development (a sort of "here, watch this TV" parenting style instead of "let me read to you every night" parenting style from birth though 3 years, based on Erik Erikson's stages of human development) is what could possibly lead to the development or diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. My premise was simply that fostering skills that emphasize or require concentration early on in life help later. But if TV or games are what a child experiences, they're more prone to passivity (since reading is more active on the participant than TV) and a complete disinterest when it comes time to apply themselves to a task like homework.

Which reminds me: as a pastor, daroga (this ain't a religious book), I can't help but wonder if you'd find any use as a consultant to parents in Annette Lareau's books "Home Advantage" and "Unequal Childhoods."

Also, data on abortions ain't gonna happen period due to the sensitivity of it, let alone data on teenage abortions. The best you could do is random sample all females over a certain age and pray that social desirability bias (giving the answer you think people want to hear, rather than the answer that is true) won't fuck things up too much. Which, unfortunately, it probably would.

daroga

03-31-2008, 06:57 PM

So, in a thread that was flame bait trying to stir crap up about abortion and gay rights we've all come to agree that parenting in the US needs to improve? Makes sense to me! ;)

Thanks for those book suggestions, myke. I'll take a look and see if either are in the library here to check out.

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 08:10 PM

I firmly beleive that Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead could teach all of america's youth the benefits of butt sex.

BigT

03-31-2008, 08:19 PM

So pittpizza,
Should schools be handing out enema bottles along with condoms? :)

pittpizza

03-31-2008, 09:08 PM

Now you're talkin!

Or perhaps dongs and those fake platic butts you see on halloween.

I can see the slogans now:

"Don't be a slut, take it in the butt!"
"Kids take too much loot, so take it in the poop shoot!"

SpazX

03-31-2008, 09:44 PM

I hope you get your wish pittpizza, my butt plug sales will skyrocket!

I think promoting oral would be a better idea though...

HumanSnatcher

03-31-2008, 10:42 PM

HumanSnatcher

03-31-2008, 10:48 PM

I hope you get your wish pittpizza, my butt plug sales will skyrocket!

I think promoting oral would be a better idea though...

Oh, but oral isn't sex! Bill Clinton said so! Oh noes!

heh

BigT

03-31-2008, 11:43 PM

billyrox

03-31-2008, 11:53 PM

HumanSnatcher

03-31-2008, 11:55 PM

nice point, though i dont think they are exactly the same ones

In some cases it is. But the principle is the same either way

billyrox

04-01-2008, 12:38 AM

similarities can be drawn. :) however, the same principle can be used for drastically different results depending on context/enviroment/modivation. it doesn't mean that a principle is always right/wrong because of the outcome from its prior application in the past.

Ikohn4ever

04-01-2008, 01:07 AM

In conclusion, butt sex rules!

I wonder if your fiancee feels the same way

speedracer

04-01-2008, 09:56 AM

Of course.

When does that switch flip?
That is for the individual and their god to decide. Freedom FTW.

the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
This.

t0llenz

04-01-2008, 10:07 AM

My views -- marriage is between two consenting adults. Traditionally, this has been between a man and a woman, but if two people of the same gender wish to come into a binding marital contract, then by all means they should be allowed to do so. For those who think same-sex marriage will lead to man-animal marriage...ponder this, in countries where same-sex marriage is illegal...we see (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm) man-animal (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21768663/) marriages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3004930.stm).

On abortion, I'm a bit more conservative. But, my views are two-fold. First, on case law...I strongly object to the Roe and Griswold decisions because I don't find their reasoning to be in a sound, constitutional basis. The Constitution does not prevent people from making foolish laws, it just prevents them from violating specific inalienable rights as outlined in this document. A right to privacy is not an inalienable right inherent in the Constitution and even if it were, it does not grant one the right to an abortion. Also of note is the fact that Roe only legalized first trimester abortions, subsequent legislation/decisions legalized the rest. You may disagree with some of the rhetoric, but read Rehnquist's dissent (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD.html) and you'll see where I'm coming from.

All of that said, I'm not here to discuss abortion law...but my views on the act itself. I don't find it to be necessary with the vast access to birth control we have today, we shouldn't be seeing the number of abortions we're seeing. Also, the disproportionate number of minority women seeking abortions is awful. We need to find ways to minimize abortions because until that happens, there can be no effective ban on the act. Yes, keep partial birth abortions illegal and the BAIPA is 100% fine with me (in fact, I think the BAIPA is important), but let's figure out ways to minimize them before trying to ban anything. How so? Make domestic adoption easier. As a person who comes from a family with 5 adopted siblings, let me tell you...it's not easy domestically. If you choose not to go through and be a foster parent, as my parents did not, it can take years to adopt domestically...plus, the biological parents have more rights than they really should. All 5 of my adopted siblings are from foreign countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador). On another note -- I know a family which adopted both domestically and through Russia...including travel expenses, translational expenses, etc, the Russian adoption cost less than the domestic adoption. Think about that. We need to do the following -- 1. take away any rights biological parents have to the children the moment the child is given up; 2. cut back on the paperwork; and 3. allow same-sex couples to adopt. Between these three things, it will cost a lot less to adopt and increase the amount of children adopted. Then we need to go on a national campaign to remove stigma's away from adoption as an option instead of abortion (films like Juno unintentionally help with this).

This needs to be coupled with better education in the schools with regards to sex. I think sex and drugs need to be taught about in the same vein -- tell them not to do it as little kids, tell them what the consequences can be if you do it when they're in middle school, then say nothing about it in high school. By high school, there's not much you can do to change their minds. Of course, this needs to be tailor-fit to the needs of the school. If you have a high school with a massive outbreak of VD or a ton of teen pregnancies, perhaps in high school you should discuss birth control and have big jars of condoms in your nurses' office. As I said, it has to be tailor fit to your school...but it needs to be better than what we have and I still think telling little kids to just "don't do it" is enough at first and then middle school discuss the possible consequences. Abstenince education doesn't work on it's own...it has to be coupled with something to help people realize the consequences and to help keep those who will do it anyway protected.

pittpizza

04-01-2008, 12:20 PM

I wonder if your fiancee feels the same way

That's none of your business!!!

I will tell you this though: You can't turn a ho into a housewife.

GuilewasNK

04-01-2008, 12:24 PM

Unless I missed someone else mentioning it earlier: I find it curious that the same people that say "If they let them there gayz marry, then we should let them there "cousins", man/woman-*animal*, or polygamous marry"; are the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Bit of a tangent, but it still amazes me people have hang-ups about "interracial" relationships. I actually had a girl tell me she thought I was great but couldn't date me because her father would flip is she dated a black guy (I have 1/4 German blood but I guess it isn't enough). Her father would have prefer a white man that beat her over me who would treat her right. Ridiculous.

pittpizza

04-01-2008, 12:33 PM

lanzarlaluna

04-01-2008, 12:45 PM

You can't turn a ho into a housewife.Hos don't act right. There's hos on a mission, and there's hos on the crackpipe.

daroga

04-01-2008, 12:50 PM

That is for the individual and their god to decide. Freedom FTW.So life is subjective?

Interesting. You realize what happens if you take that to its natural conclusion, right?

pittpizza

04-01-2008, 12:50 PM

Hos don't act right. There's hos on a mission, and there's hos on the crackpipe.

You can't take a ho to a HO-tell, because hos tell everybody, even the mayor, then reach up in the sky for the HO-zone layer.

Yous a ho. HO! Yous a ho. HO! Yous a ho. HO! I said that yous a ho!

lanzarlaluna

04-01-2008, 01:03 PM

daroga, if you want to see an abstinence-only program that doesn't work, come to Lubbock, TX. We have out of control teen pregnancy and teen STD rates, with the primary population being late middle school/early high school age. Teachers can be fired for discussion contraceptives, unless the students ask them about it. This has been a serious issue for years. A lot of the Ob/Gyn docs in town are very disturbed by the school district's insistence of abstinence-only. It's a big problem.

GuilewasNK

04-01-2008, 01:20 PM

Interacial couples deal with a lot of shit. Society as a whole looks down upon them, similar to how they look down upon children born out of wedlock or homosexual couples. I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that.

You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that? Society looks down on that? I wonder how Cheapy would feel about that?

pittpizza

04-01-2008, 01:35 PM

You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that? Society looks down on that? I wonder how Cheapy would feel about that?

Actually I mean what I said, no more, no less.

And I was referring to the society I live in (along with probably about 90% of the rest of CAGs).

speedracer

04-01-2008, 08:17 PM

So life is subjective? Interesting. You realize what happens if you take that to its natural conclusion, right?
No, but freedom is. That's the whole point.

And if you want to take "it" to its natural conclusion, don't forget every single issue under the sun. Economic, social, and every little bit of minutiae imaginable. Watch your step, you might sever a vein on Occam's razor trying to make a very negligible point.

daroga

04-01-2008, 08:41 PM

No, but freedom is. That's the whole point.

And if you want to take "it" to its natural conclusion, don't forget every single issue under the sun. Economic, social, and every little bit of minutiae imaginable. Watch your step, you might sever a vein on Occam's razor trying to make a very negligible point.That is a danger.

So, let me get this straight. Life isn't subjective, it's objective. But, "freedom" overrides that and my "freedom" can subjectively say when and where life begins (or ends as the case may be)?

Which freedom(s) are you referencing here?

speedracer

04-01-2008, 11:46 PM

So, let me get this straight. Life isn't subjective, it's objective. But, "freedom" overrides that and my "freedom" can subjectively say when and where life begins (or ends as the case may be)?
In this situation, yes.

Which freedom(s) are you referencing here?
The problem with this position is that honest men, patriots (in my opinion) can't trust partisans not to turn on them. Partisans will play against the rules whenever they can. They will muddy the water with bullshit like subjective/objective instead of educating themselves to see what the real issue is.

The first one is free.

Griswold v. Connecticut
Eisenstadt v Baird
Roe v Wade
Stenberg v Carhart
Casey v Planned Parenthood
Gonzalez v Carhart
Lawrence v Texas

Now, you tell me on who's side the objective is and where the subjective is. While you're at it, give me one good damn reason to trust "you" people. You read those opinions and then honestly present to your fellow Americans that these assholes wouldn't have us partying like it's 1799. It's not a slippery slope. I guaran-goddamn-tee you the day the keystone is chipped out, contraception will go back on the table immediately (each spermie is sacred!!!1!). At least one state will try to recriminalize homosexuality.

I'm sorry, but objective/subjective in this context is for the uninformed, the informed unethical, and fascists. I choose to believe you're uninformed.

bmulligan

04-02-2008, 12:03 AM

There are just too many goddamnned topics in this one threadd. Freedom, homo-love, marriage, abortion and buttsex is more than any one threaad should have to handle.

mykevermin

04-02-2008, 12:08 AM

homo-love

Don't let anyone ever tell you you're not classy. Not that it's true; I'm just sayin' don't let anyone tell you that.

BigT

04-02-2008, 12:16 AM

There are just too many goddamnned topics in this one threadd. Freedom, homo-love, marriage, abortion and buttsex is more than any one threaad should have to handle.

You forgot interracial relationships ;).

daroga

04-02-2008, 12:52 AM

I'm sorry, but objective/subjective in this context is for the uninformed, the informed unethical, and fascists. I choose to believe you're uninformed.Thanks!

You never answered my question, though. How does one's opinion on something objective change said objective thing? I have the freedom to think that China doesn't exist; that doesn't make me right. What if I want to think that people ages 11, 42, and 67 are not alive and therefore it's alright for me to "clean up" those age brackets? I think we'd say the objectively those people are alive, right? But does my opinion and my "freedom" allow me to do whatever the heck I please?

What you gave me were legal cases, which are all fine and good for establishing precedents and what the law allows. But I'm talking about deeper, more fundamental issues here. Were those interpretations of the laws and those legal decisions right?

I'm sorry that you fear that there might be objective truth that sits contrary to your subjective opinions, but there's really no need to lash out at people. It saddens me that you seem to be so uncertain about your position that you assume people who disagree with you are either ignorant or fascists.

greyzieoriental

04-02-2008, 03:30 AM

this whole topic gots to be april fools
JK

cindersphere

04-02-2008, 05:27 AM

Do these things really bother anybody. Really. Why does anyone care? It's kinda weirdly voyeuristic.

GuilewasNK

04-02-2008, 06:24 AM

Actually I mean what I said, no more, no less.

And I was referring to the society I live in (along with probably about 90% of the rest of CAGs).

You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.

speedracer

04-02-2008, 09:18 AM

...
You want a philosophy of abortion debate. I didn't realize that.

No thanks. Natural law arguments make me nauseous.

I'm sorry that you fear that there might be objective truth that sits contrary to your subjective opinions, but there's really no need to lash out at people.
There is no objective truth outside myself. Right?

daroga

04-02-2008, 09:28 AM

There is no objective truth outside myself. Right?So you define objective truth as "subjective"? You realize objective truth by its nature is universal, not personal, right?

pittpizza

04-02-2008, 10:14 AM

You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.

No, of course not! Why? Would you? What are you racist!?

Interacial couples deal with a lot of shit. Society as a whole looks down upon them, similar to how they look down upon children born out of wedlock or homosexual couples. I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that.

What in that post says "I would frown on my son falling in love with a Japanese woman"???????? You're making a big assumption here Guile, and you know what happens when you assume.

Learn to read statements in their narrowest contexts and you'll avoid misunderstandings like this in the future. I say what I mean, no more no less.

"I wouldn't want my child to have to deal with any of that" does not equal "I would frown..."

daroga

04-02-2008, 10:16 AM

Javery

04-02-2008, 10:33 AM

You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.

I think what he's saying is he wouldn't want that for his kid - not that he'd frown upon it. I have a son and I don't want him to be gay because he will have a harder life ahead of him (and as a parent you want nothing more than for your kids to be healthy, happy and not ever have to struggle). If my son is actually gay (he's 9 months so it's a little early to tell) I will support him 1,000,000% but I certainly don't wish it on him.

As for the interracial thing... maybe I'm just used to people of all backgrounds because I grew up just outside NYC but I don't even see it as an issue at all. My best friend married a white girl and their interracial kid is my goddaughter. Never once thought it was weird or even really thought about it. Actually this is the first time I've ever considered that there might be people out there who frown upon them as a couple/family. Hmmm....

speedracer

04-02-2008, 10:37 AM

So you define objective truth as "subjective"? You realize objective truth by its nature is universal, not personal, right?
Depends on how we approach it, right (if you get my meaning)?

I also realize that my previous posts have come across quite curt. I apologize for that.

The problem with an objective/subjective approach concerning this is that, as I crudely put, ultimately the arbiter is only me. There's little if any room for debate when that approach is used. How do you debate the philosophical objectivity/subjectivity of:

"Life begins at the point of conception."
"Life begins at the end of the first trimester."
"Life begins at the quickening." (to use the millenia old European standard)

?

You can't.

pittpizza

04-02-2008, 10:43 AM

pitt, Guile's issue was with your overtly vague "I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that."

My first impression of that is, "Since society hates it and will scorn them for it, I don't want my kids to even mess with that."

Vague to you maybe. See below.

I think what he's saying is he wouldn't want that for his kid - not that he'd frown upon it. I have a son and I don't want him to be gay because he will have a harder life ahead of him (and as a parent you want nothing more than for your kids to be healthy, happy and not ever have to struggle)....

Leave it to another attorney to read something correctly, based only on the words that the author uses, and not interject meaning, implications, or false assumptions and conclusions that are not present in the words themselves.

I wish everyone on CAG had these skills: to say what they mean, and read only the meaning that is on the face of the words, no more, no less.

I guess for most...shall we say...less critical readers, I need to spell things out more and pretty much assume that CAGs are going to interpret and read things into it that aren't there.

daroga

04-02-2008, 11:02 AM

Simply because one person understood what you vaguely stated in the way you meant it to be understood doesn't mean it wasn't vague.

Is it really that hard to say "Oh, yeah, let me clarify what I meant with that?" as opposed to insulting people and just dieing on the mountain of your original statement? It doesn't mean you were wrong before, nor does it mean that everyone lacks reading comprehension.

The problem with an objective/subjective approach concerning this is that, as I crudely put, ultimately the arbiter is only me. There's little if any room for debate when that approach is used. How do you debate the philosophical objectivity/subjectivity of:

"Life begins at the point of conception."
"Life begins at the end of the first trimester."
"Life begins at the quickening." (to use the millenia old European standard)

?

You can't.Yeah, I understand that. Would you like to take back your claim that the definition of "life" is objective then? Because it seems like your arguing the other side of that argument now.

And I, too, apologize if I've been short. :)

pittpizza

04-02-2008, 11:19 AM

Simply because one person understood what you vaguely stated in the way you meant it to be understood doesn't mean it wasn't vague.

How I meant it to be understood has nothing to do with it. The words used have everything to do with it. You can't know what goes on in my head, you can only see the words I put on the screen. If CAGs would just read the words, and then think about what only those words mean, like Jav, and every other critical reader, a lot less stupid misunderstandings would occur.

Is it really that hard to say "Oh, yeah, let me clarify what I meant with that?" as opposed to insulting people and just dieing on the mountain of your original statement? It doesn't mean you were wrong before, nor does it mean that everyone lacks reading comprehension.

No, and you're right. I didn't mean to be insulting and have no clue what your getting at with your mountain metaphor. But if just one CAG reads what I'm saying and takes it to heart, then their reading and writing will be improved, and it will help them in life and CAG as a whole.

You'll have to please excuse ME if I've been short, poor reasoning, logic, and reading comp are pet peeves of mine, amongst many others.

speedracer

04-02-2008, 11:26 AM

Yeah, I understand that. Would you like to take back your claim that the definition of "life" is objective then? Because it seems like your arguing the other side of that argument now.
When I go to Christmas dinner with my Roman Catholic Italian side of the family and ask aloud whether "life at conception" is objective, I would get a strong and rousing affirmative. It's not for me. It is for them.

It's like light. It's a wave and a particle.

camoor

04-02-2008, 11:27 AM

One problem I've always had with the "culture of life" is how that life is defined.

Was Shaivo really alive? Is the life of an unwanted fetus more important then the life of a soldier that is put on the line as a result of poorly accumulated and analyzed information (or more cynically, access to oil and dreams of controlling the middle east). What about the lives of all the animals that are killed and processed by agri-business, do they have a right to a life that is humane and an end that is dignified? If an elderly person lives in constant pain and desperation with no hope of recovery, is that really exemplary of the type of life that must be protected at all costs? Does the state really possess the right to keep that person alive against their will?

Based on the voting record of the "compassionate" christian voting bloc, they surely have a very unusual definition of life.

pittpizza

04-02-2008, 11:51 AM

When I go to Christmas dinner with my Roman Catholic Italian side of the family and ask aloud whether life is objective, I would get a strong and rousing affirmative. It's not for me. It is for them.

It's like light. It's a wave and a particle.

I think you two are asking the wrong question. Everyone would agree that "yes, life exists" but the rub is defining when it begins to exist, at least it is in the abortion debate, if that's still what you two are talking about.

GuilewasNK

04-02-2008, 01:02 PM

Learn to read statements in their narrowest contexts and you'll avoid misunderstandings like this in the future. I say what I mean, no more no less.

I can't do that. You know what happens when you assume. You yourself told me. Unless that was a fib...:lol:

Thanks for answering my question though.

pittpizza

04-02-2008, 02:14 PM

^ Sure no problem. I think it is (or hope it would be) evident that I'm a very open minded liberal. I have stated more than once that I hate racism, prejudice, and injustice.

Jav did sum it up well: while I wouldn't frown upon my son being ______ (<--insert discriminated against minority here), I would frown upon the fact that life will be harder on him because of it due to the less than open-minded society we live in.

speedracer

04-02-2008, 02:24 PM

I think you two are asking the wrong question. Everyone would agree that "yes, life exists" but the rub is defining when it begins to exist, at least it is in the abortion debate, if that's still what you two are talking about.
Right.

My religious side of the family: Conception. Period.
Me: When I say so, though I'm willing to cede to a point to strong objections of others.

Objective or subjective? Both.

Which is the beauty of the freedom to choose for one's self.

daroga

04-02-2008, 03:29 PM

Right.

My religious side of the family: Conception. Period.
Me: When I say so, though I'm willing to cede to a point to strong objections of others.

Objective or subjective? Both.

Which is the beauty of the freedom to choose for one's self.Not to be a semantic jerk, but that's simply impossible. If objectivity is involved at all, someone is right, someone is wrong. What you've laid out are two subjective opinions, both held very strongly. If one is actually objective, that would make the subjective dissension wrong.

Just for clarity's sake, I'd recommend that you stop using "objective" in this sense, unless you mean what the word means, a truly universal, unquestionable truth. You can't blend relativity and objectivity in the way you have above.

That's right folks, this thread is now going in a new direction: definitions and language use. Hold on tight!

camoor

04-02-2008, 03:59 PM

Not to be a semantic jerk, but that's simply impossible. If objectivity is involved at all, someone is right, someone is wrong. What you've laid out are two subjective opinions, both held very strongly. If one is actually objective, that would make the subjective dissension wrong.

Just for clarity's sake, I'd recommend that you stop using "objective" in this sense, unless you mean what the word means, a truly universal, unquestionable truth. You can't blend relativity and objectivity in the way you have above.

That's right folks, this thread is now going in a new direction: definitions and language use. Hold on tight!

Agreed. If you wanted to be a purist, you could argue that all observations with the exception of Descartes' famous saying are subjective. However there are a set of empirical laws such as gravity and the existence of matter in solid/liquid/gas form that most people accept as objective truths.

In modern parlance, 'life' is one of the most subjective concepts in the dictionary.

SpazX

04-02-2008, 04:05 PM

Well, to clarify, I don't think the debate is really about when "life" exists, since obviously even the sperm and egg independently are "alive". It's about when human life begins to exist. We, as a society, obviously don't really mind taking the lives of anything other than humans, so that's not really a point of contention.

I'd hope that nobody is so deluded to think that a zygote isn't alive, it just isn't a human yet (according to those who think that) and therefore people think that it's justifiable to end that life for whatever various reasons they do in the same way that it's justifiable to end the lives of the other things that we kill everyday.

EDIT: And as far as the semantics go, "life" like any other word, is an invention of humans and so is by definition subjective. When we apply something we made up (the word/concept "life") to the objective reality that we did not make up, it has to be subjective. Reality is not divided up into into categories as our minds and language are.

billyrox

04-07-2008, 07:29 PM

its only the beginning. more taboos being broken.

society is so progressive now... :roll:

anything can be rationalized.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7334649.stm

lilboo

04-07-2008, 07:34 PM

See. If it was a brother & sister or cousins.. I'm a bit more OK with that. Moms/Sons + Dads/Daughters just make me nervous.

Though, if that's how they feel, then who cares. But I kinda do agree that these couples shouldn't reproduce due to a kid being retarded or messed up :( I wouldn't mind if the adopted, though.

JJSP

04-07-2008, 08:18 PM

thrustbucket

04-07-2008, 09:42 PM

There's a guy out in front of the grocery store next door to work right now collecting signatures to help "define" marriage to be between a man and a woman. He asked if I'd like to sign his petition to give "marriage" a definition.

I told him it already had one - a commitment between two people who love each other, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) disagrees with you.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Websters (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage)disagrees with you.
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Cambriage dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=100628&dict=CALD) disagrees with you.
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this

Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=marriage&gwp=13) disagrees with you.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Those are all the first definitions given. Of course, they address any and all interpretations of it further down the list, but you get the point.

Soooo, I guess you should have told the guy that he was already right, and you'd happily take his place collecting signatures to change the definition.

daroga

04-07-2008, 10:05 PM

SpazX

04-07-2008, 10:47 PM

God damn, I imagine nobody even read my last reply to this thread (not that I really expect everyone to) as it applies to what you just said thrust. Words are defined by those who use them, they have no objective significance.

The fact that every one of those dictionaries (besides cambridge, since it only has one definition) has the definition of marriage also in an extralegal and/or same-sex context should be enough to show you that, especially since 2 out of those 3 are a subset of the same 1st definition, but I guess definition 1a1 is superior to definition 1a2. I know you recognized that there was more than one definition, but why you think that one is somehow more right than the others is beyond me.

If you define marriage by legality then does your definition change when you cross the border of Massachusetts? Can you hop back and forth over the state line and chant "man and woman", "two consenting adults", "man and woman", "two consenting adults"?

Msut77

04-07-2008, 11:20 PM

thrust/daroga

http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/6355

camoor

04-07-2008, 11:38 PM

I think there's a difference between how something is defined and how you want something defined.

See thrust's post above.

At the time of America's founding, a man as defined in the US Constitution did not mean everyone, just the non-slaves (slaves were considered 1/3 of a man)

Definitions do change, see Msut77's post.

thrustbucket

04-08-2008, 12:30 AM

The fact that every one of those dictionaries (besides cambridge, since it only has one definition) has the definition of marriage also in an extralegal and/or same-sex context should be enough to show you that, especially since 2 out of those 3 are a subset of the same 1st definition, but I guess definition 1a1 is superior to definition 1a2. I know you recognized that there was more than one definition, but why you think that one is somehow more right than the others is beyond me.

Dictionary's usually order the different definitions of a word based on how often it's used. In other words, how common it is. The first one being the most common use by the majority of it's uses.

Also, the other definitions besides the first, are often called alternative definitions. So yes, alternative definitions of things fit quite nicely with alternative lifestyles, don't you think?

thrust/daroga

http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/6355

Big shocker there. Ooooh, look how progressive and sophisticated Oxford is. :roll: