Abortion and gay rights
- Thread starter sandaz93
- Start date
I support abortion only during the first trimester.
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.
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.
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)?
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
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)?
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='HotShotX']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)? 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[/quote]
Ditto. I am for both. Also if anyone is against abortion tell if you are a male or a female.
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)?
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[/quote]
Ditto. I am for both. Also if anyone is against abortion tell if you are a male or a female.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
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.
Seriously though, I must be psychic because I knew your opinion on these issues just by reading the title of your thread.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor']
Seriously though, I must be psychic because I knew your opinion on these issues just by reading the title of your thread.[/quote]
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.
Seriously though, I must be psychic because I knew your opinion on these issues just by reading the title of your thread.[/quote]
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.
ElwoodCuse
CAGiversary!
aborations for all
[quote name='HotShotX']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)? 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[/quote]
QFT. You nailed it.
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)?
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[/quote]
QFT. You nailed it.
[quote name='mac101010']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.[/quote]
.. disgusting? Haha, wow. I could stoop to your level and infer than munching carpet is revolting, but I won't go there.
Oops.
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?
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.
.. disgusting? Haha, wow. I could stoop to your level and infer than munching carpet is revolting, but I won't go there.
Oops.
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?
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.
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.
I think "gay rights" has a different connotation for every person on earth. As stated above, I'd need elaboration on that.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='sandaz93']
I am not a homophobic person, this is just my opinion.[/quote]
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.
I am not a homophobic person, this is just my opinion.[/quote]
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.
[quote name='javeryh']Because some people differentiate between "child" and "potential child" but in a perfect world I can see where you are coming from.[/quote]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.
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
Banned
[quote name='daroga']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='ananag112']I am for both. Why should the government tell people how to live their lives?[/QUOTE]
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 prettying 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.
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
ing 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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
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
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
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/quote]
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.
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.[/quote]
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']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".[/QUOTE]
Please explain your grand leap in logic.
Please explain your grand leap in logic.
[quote name='sandaz93']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.[/QUOTE]
You're always welcome to an opinion, but why?
[quote name='mac101010']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.[/QUOTE]
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 thein 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?
[quote name='HotShotX']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)? 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[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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".
[/QUOTE]
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.
I am not a homophobic person, this is just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
You're always welcome to an opinion, but why?
[quote name='mac101010']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.[/QUOTE]
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
in 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?[quote name='HotShotX']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)?
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[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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".
[/QUOTE]
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.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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".[/quote]
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 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".[/quote]
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor']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.[/quote]
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...
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.[/quote]
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...
[quote name='thrustbucket'] 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 ing good reason to do it, just like taking any life.[/quote]
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.
ing good reason to do it, just like taking any life.[/quote]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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='BigT']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...[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[quote name='usickenme']not quite. Actually a newborn is completely viable outside the womb, just not very long. (Hours probably) but a zygote- no way.[/quote]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.
BigT, I appreciated your post above. The abortion issues causes all sorts of problems in consistency and logic that it makes my head spin.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']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...[/quote]
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.
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']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.[/QUOTE]
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 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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']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.[/QUOTE]
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 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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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 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.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we all choose to live a lifestyle where people look down on it. It was an amazing day when I chose mine
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!
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 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.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we all choose to live a lifestyle where people look down on it. It was an amazing day when I chose mine
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='lilboo']Yes, we all choose to live a lifestyle where people look down on it. It was an amazing day when I chose mine
[/QUOTE]
Well I'm happy for you, and I am also proud of you that you could identify it as a CHOICE.
[/QUOTE]
Well I'm happy for you, and I am also proud of you that you could identify it as a CHOICE.
Wait, you thought I was serious?thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='lilboo']
You really do think that gays actually choose this? Do you really? :lol:[/QUOTE]
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.
You really do think that gays actually choose this? Do you really? :lol:[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/quote]
Disability? You can just miles of off. How the 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 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 ing 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 ing 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.
Disability? You can just
miles of off. How the 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 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 ing 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 ing 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.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='usickenme']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.[/quote]
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.
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.[/quote]
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.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']Disability? You can just miles of off. How the is it a disability? [/quote]
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.
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....
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.
However, I might think less of you for your hateful intolerant attitude.
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.
miles of off. How the is it a disability? [/quote]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.
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.Who the
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....
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".As for your post about "normalcy" above, who's to say homosexuals or transegendered people aren't normal unless you don't
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.
Your right, I wouldn't. And if you met my schizophrenic friend on medication, you would think he was normal too.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
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.
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']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. [/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor']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.[/quote]
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.
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
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.
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.
bread's done