paullud
Veteran Expediter
Bought another one. This seems to be a recurring theme.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Gay discrimination
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Bought another one. This seems to be a recurring theme.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Here's an interesting article that goes along with that train of thought. Although there may not be one identifiable homosexual gene, there may be several factors that make up the recipe.
I believe it would have to be something outside of the genetic makeup. Why? Because you have identical twins with the same genes yet one is gay and the other isn't. They looked at a lot of that in the 90's when they doing all kinds of tests. Google will have hundreds of pages on it.
Talk about a non-argument argument. That supports your relative that you are emphatic about supporting just like the pro death camp uses pretty phrases and ignoring facts to support their desire for death to innocents. Doesn't alter the truth though.
No... ask anyone of them..there nice people ...they Dont bite..you won't turn gay by talking to them....what you think there lying to you..facts...who knows better of there gay..then a gay person ...quit trying to tell them why there gay!...and what truth is being altered ...curious??
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Then again the true freedom that you seek has never existed in all of human history ... There is no scientific proof it it ever existed ....why seek it? Can't lose something you have never had
As I've said before, I went to school and later worked with gay people. They were as pleasant as anyone else. The point was that you can't say people are born gay just because admittedly gay people say they were born gay. As mentioned, that's anecdotal evidence not scientific. I don't need or want to know anything about their gay life but I have no problem with them having their life. I'm fine with knowing about their work life, school life, hobbies life and any other parts of their life and will share the same with them if they choose. I won't share my physical life with them either and doubt they are interested beyond knowing there's someone that matters.
I did and do support partnership equality and civil unions giving the same rights of survivorship, medical decisions, insurance benefits, property rights, etc. as anyone else. I don't and won't support "marriage" because that's a union between a couple not a pair. It's also unnecessary to achieve their goals of the rights mentioned above. The comment about truth has to do with the pro death movement.
I did and do support partnership equality and civil unions giving the same rights of survivorship, medical decisions, insurance benefits, property rights, etc. as anyone else. I don't and won't support "marriage" because that's a union between a couple not a pair. It's also unnecessary to achieve their goals of the rights mentioned above. The comment about truth has to do with the pro death movement.
Some are nice, some are not. Some are weird, beyond the obvious abnormality, some are not. Some are good people some are not. ALL are abnormal. It would not surprise me to find that some of them bite too. As do otherwise normal people do.
I'm not the one who is guilty of "complete ignorance and a total lack of understanding about what the debate is really about" here - you are.
The debate is not about whether life begins at conception, because that doesn't make any difference, really. For the sake of argument, let's agree that it does. The question is whether an exception to the 'sanctity of life' should be made in the case of unwanted pregnancies, just as it is in other cases. Exceptions are made for self defense and combat, and [arguably] capital punishment, so the claim that life is sacred doesn't wash - the only debate is about which exceptions are valid. Even in cases of conjoined twins, where separation means the loss of one to save the other, the sacredness of life is overruled. You cannot say it's ok to kill in some cases, then say that life is sacred - can't have it both ways.
The debate is about who has the right to control a woman's reproductive capabilities, period.
PS the hostility and condescension is getting tiresome, already. I don't appreciate [nor deserve] being called ignorant, brainwashed, etc, simply because you disagree. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I'm also capable of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, which gives me a perspective you will never have, and that makes a helluva difference, IMO.
Actually it is, but I'll let your statement stand on its own, because it's the epitome of those who believe warm and fuzzy intentions always trump unintended consequences. It's a remarkable sentiment.
Last edited:
They are not unintended consequences if those orchestrating this intend for these things to happen.
I don't see doing the right thing as warm and fuzzy- it's just the right thing to do. I may be wrong about it, but I have to go with what I believe, and **** the consequences.
Why is it that defending the institution of marriage, at it has been defined for thousands of years, makes a person "anti-gay"? That makes little sense.
Do you believe science has found ALL the answers to everything already? [Or anything, for that matter] There's so much more that remains to be discovered, and the thing is, they're not likely to find things they aren't even looking for. I don't think there's a whole lot of heavy research in this area, and even if there was, it can take a very long time to make new discoveries.
Science has just found the gravitational waves that confirm the Big Bang theory, and they've been looking for a long time for them.
The more we learn, the more we find we don't know, lol.
Called those who defend the institution of marriage, anti-gay, is about as smart as calling those who disagree with Barry's communist rule a racist.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Did you take that argument from the famous Supreme Court case I know you are but what am I?
Yes, it makes all the difference in the world. If one were to kill a baby that was just sitting there doing baby stuff it is murder. There is no exception in the law to kill a baby just because it becomes inconvenient so the debate is CLEARLY about when you believe life begins.
Unless there has been a sudden increase in babies that have been killing or beating people that the news isn't reporting we can just throw self defense as a reason for abortion out the window because it had no point being brought up.
I never mentioned conjoined twins. We can say it is OK for an innocent person to protect themselves because they are protecting themselves from someone that is trying to kill them. Again unless there is a ruthless gang of killer babies running around it just makes absolutely no sense to bring up self defense when talking about abortion.
I know you have been told to think that is what the debate is about but it just isn't true, kind of like gay marriage being for "equal" rights. It's propaganda at it's finest because they don't want to debate the truth because it sounds really bad and doesn't make for great slogans like "My body, my choice".
Really? That coming from the person that decided to resort to name calling simply because she didn't agree.
I think that you are very capable of thinking for yourself and the fact that you have made a career out here in a male dominated environment including making it work with a company like Swift proves that. I just think that you are doing a very poor job of actually looking at or thinking about the situation and are just repeating what you hear/read because it lines up with what you want to believe. You have a history of using liberal propaganda as evidence and seem to just repeat everything they say without really thinking about it. FYI being able to experience an unwanted pregnancy has little to do with when you think life begins. Granted an unwanted pregnancy might make you think abortion is OK because you don't want to deal with an unwanted burden so you get what you want, but that isn't what the debate is about.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
And the anti choice camp doesn't use "pretty phrases"? You know, like "innocent babies" instead of fetus? and those photos of adorable already born babies they always use, because the truth would not be nearly so persuasive?
The argument is really pretty persuasive: gays don't claim to have been so since birth, but every last one of them 'knew' they were different from their peers & friends at an early age [long before they knew anything about gender, or sex, or attraction], they just didn't know how, or why. By adolescence, if not before, they understood: their friends and peers begin wanting to do strange & crazy things, like holding hands with and kissing girls, when they could be playing baseball instead! Many of them try being like their friends, assuming the pleasure will make itself apparent, but it doesn't. Most remain confused, ["Am I just a really late bloomer?"] until the moment when they realize that they do feel the same desires - just for other boys, instead of girls.
And there's not a single one who felt happy about it, either.
It may be anecdotal, but when it's been repeatedly described by so many of the people who experienced it, it's pretty persuasive.
Do you believe science has found ALL the answers to everything already? [Or anything, for that matter] There's so much more that remains to be discovered, and the thing is, they're not likely to find things they aren't even looking for. I don't think there's a whole lot of heavy research in this area, and even if there was, it can take a very long time to make new discoveries.
Science has just found the gravitational waves that confirm the Big Bang theory, and they've been looking for a long time for them.
The more we learn, the more we find we don't know, lol.
We would agree if what you wrote was for global warming science.
My point was that many gays say it is factual that they are born that way and currently there is nothing that indicates that. Oddly enough, the science for this is like global warming.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Science has just found the gravitational waves that confirm the Big Bang theory, and they've been looking for a long time for them.
The more we learn, the more we find we don't know, lol.
They think that they might have found them but it has not been reviewed and other scientists are pretty skeptical that they found these waves that happened in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second 14 billion years ago.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app