Gay discrimination

[cheri1122]

Did you take that argument from the famous Supreme Court case I know you are but what am I?

Snappy comeback - NOT.Just more condescension, in a most immature form.



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.

Nope. You'd like it to be, but it's not. That debate is irrelevant, when 'life' is sacred sometimes, but not others.



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 it the window because it had no point being brought up.

How can anyone so purposefully misrepresent the words they read? Self defense is just one exception to the 'life is sacred' mantra that you claim as reason for making abortion illegal, but the very fact that exceptions exist refutes your argument. Life is sacred. Except when...



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 if killer babies running around it just makes absolutely no sense to bring up self defense when talking about abortion.

I didn't say you mentioned conjoined twins - I mentioned them, as another example of when the 'life is sacred' mantra gets tossed out the window. Because if that were true, both the lives would be sacred, not one more than the other.



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".

This is the best one: no one has ever told me to think it, I've never seen or read or heard it anywhere else, either. The argument [that once you make exceptions, the debate is only about which exceptions are valid] is entirely my own. It is what I think, not what anyone told me to think, because AFAIK, no one else is saying it. [If they are, I missed it.] But it makes sense to me: when you allow exceptions, you can no longer consider the rule inviolable. If life isn't sacred in every case, [or it is, but you'll overlook that], then the argument is solely about when it is or isn't.



Really? That coming from the person that decided to resort to name calling simply because she didn't agree.

That didn't happen. If you perceive name calling, it was not prompted by mere disagreement.



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

Making a career in a male dominated environment doesn't prove I'm capable of thinking for myself, it just proves I don't let the ******** get me down, especially when I know they're wrong.
When you say that I just repeat 'liberal propaganda' instead of thinking for myself, you are very wrong.
Since you seem to think I mentioned self defense in the context of needing to use it against murdering babies, [really?!] and insist you didn't mention conjoined twins [and don't see why I did] I'm not at all surprised.

 

[paullud]

Making a career in a male dominated environment doesn't prove I'm capable of thinking for myself, it just proves I don't let the ******** get me down, especially when I know they're wrong.

My thinking is that it takes much more cunning and mental ability to figure out how to make it work rather than just accepting what you are told.

When you say that I just repeat 'liberal propaganda' instead of thinking for myself, you are very wrong.

You use the phrases/statements that they do and never seem to have a different view other than what they preach.

Since you seem to think I mentioned self defense in the context of needing to use it against murdering babies, [really?!] and insist you didn't mention conjoined twins [and don't see why I did] I'm not at all surprised.

Not at all surprised about what? The statement makes no sense. You brought up self defense as a way to say that killing people to defend yourself is OK so abortion is OK. The subjects are completely different and one has no influence or bearing on the other, unless you are trying to defend yourself against a gang of psycho killer babies. So the point is that self defense has nothing to do with abortion and we can't use it to claim that we don't value human life or that abortion is fine simply because we allow people to defend themselves.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[LDB]

And there's no more discrimination any more either because it's affirmative action. Those brilliant liberals have a way of fixing everything wrong with society.

 

[cheri1122]

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

You are correct that the science needs to be reviewed, but the fact is that they've been looking for waves that would show the pattern of distortion for a very long time, and didn't find it. Newer instruments are capable of catching much smaller images, and there is the exact pattern they predicted would be created by the Big Bang.
No, it isn't the final conclusive proof, it's just one more brick in the wall - but it's a major brick, and that wall's getting pretty solid.

 

[cheri1122]

My thinking is that it takes much more cunning and mental ability to figure out how to make it work rather than just accepting what you are told.

Except that some people told me I could do it, lol.



You use the phrases/statements that they do and never seem to have a different view other than what they preach.

You and the other s use the same phrases/statements as "they" do [it's always 'innocent' babies, lol], so what? Never have a different view? I just gave you one: the slippery slope. I haven't seen/heard/read that one in the media, it's my own thoughts on the subject.



Not at all surprised about what? The statement makes no sense. You brought up self defense as a way to say that killing people to defend yourself is OK so abortion is OK. The subjects are completely different and one has no influence or bearing on the other, unless you are trying to defend yourself against a gang of psycho killer babies. So the point is that self defense has nothing to do with abortion and we can't use it to claim that we don't value human life or that abortion is fine simply because we allow people to defend themselves.

It makes a great deal of sense: once you permit exceptions to a rule, you can no longer claim that rule is inviolable.
There are numerous exceptions to the rule that life is sacred, so that blows your argument away. The debate is strictly on when life is sacred, now - too late to claim it is an inviolable rule. Without that, what have you got to compel women to continue with an unwanted pregnancy?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

My thinking is that it takes much more cunning and mental ability to figure out how to make it work rather than just accepting what you are told.

Except that some people told me I could do it, lol.



You use the phrases/statements that they do and never seem to have a different view other than what they preach.

You and the other s use the same phrases/statements as "they" do [it's always 'innocent' babies, lol], so what? Never have a different view? I just gave you one: the slippery slope. I haven't seen/heard/read that one in the media, it's my own thoughts on the subject.



Not at all surprised about what? The statement makes no sense. You brought up self defense as a way to say that killing people to defend yourself is OK so abortion is OK. The subjects are completely different and one has no influence or bearing on the other, unless you are trying to defend yourself against a gang of psycho killer babies. So the point is that self defense has nothing to do with abortion and we can't use it to claim that we don't value human life or that abortion is fine simply because we allow people to defend themselves.

It makes a great deal of sense: once you permit exceptions to a rule, you can no longer claim that rule is inviolable.
There are numerous exceptions to the rule that life is sacred, so that blows your argument away. The debate is strictly on when life is sacred, now - too late to claim it is an inviolable rule. Without that, what have you got to compel women to continue with an unwanted pregnancy?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Just curious based on what was written, are you saying abortion is ok right up to birth?

 

[layoutshooter]

Fact:

Life begins at conception

Abortions KILLS a living being

Abortion, requires death to be effective

Conception ALWAYS ends in death. whether that be "natural" or man made.

Homosexuals do NOT further the survival of the species.

Homosexuals are genetic dead ends

There are NO valid arguments to the above.

Red Route one is real

Only fools believe other wise.

 

[cheri1122]

Just curious based on what was written, are you saying abortion is ok right up to birth?

Absolutely not. I believe it should be allowed only until the point of viability, which is around 24 weeks. 20 weeks is acceptable, because nearly all abortions occur within the first 12-14. When they are later, there's usually a good reason.
I'd like to see it become rare, though, which means better sex education for teens [abstinence only is a dismal failure] and more access to contraceptives. With the wave of Tea Party conservatives elected in the last mid terms, it's going in the opposite direction. The party that decries excessive regulation keeps proposing new ones, when it comes to reproductive rights, sigh.

 

[layoutshooter]

Reality sucks.

 

[layoutshooter]

It IS amazing, that the LiBeRaLs, the "believers" in Science, don't believe in it. Sheeple follow, PEOPLE do not.

 

[layoutshooter]

One either believes in the lord god of science or one is a HiPPoCrit.

 

[paullud]

Just curious based on what was written, are you saying abortion is ok right up to birth?

I believe that things like the morning after pill or an abortion up to a heart beat are OK. I would also include later term abortions when the mother's life is at serious risk as being acceptable since it fits into saving a life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[paullud]

You use the phrases/statements that they do and never seem to have a different view other than what they preach.

You have not asked my opinion and I haven't fully expressed it. What phrases/statements do you see me using that are right out of the right wing playbook? I don't believe that life begins at conception and support use of the morning after pill so my thoughts don't line up.

You and the other s use the same phrases/statements as "they" do [it's always 'innocent' babies, lol], so what? Never have a different view? I just gave you one: the slippery slope. I haven't seen/heard/read that one in the media, it's my own thoughts on the subject.

Some of the phrases or views might be the same because abortion has very few points to make pro or against. The idea is not changing the entire thing to some BS debate about women's rights. If I told you that I thought abortion is just fine until birth but that women shouldn't be allowed to get one then we can have a women's rights debate.

It makes a great deal of sense: once you permit exceptions to a rule, you can no longer claim that rule is inviolable.
There are numerous exceptions to the rule that life is sacred, so that blows your argument away. The debate is strictly on when life is sacred, now - too late to claim it is an inviolable rule. Without that, what have you got to compel women to continue with an unwanted pregnancy?

That is a liberal talking point that liberals believe carries a lot of weight in the debate but you can't reasonably compare self defense to abortion. We are dealing with someone protecting themselves and somehow comparing that to ending a life that poses no threat, completely different topics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Turtle]

Too much of a stretch. There is nothing that scientifically can be proven that they are exclusively "born gay". They try to convince people of that, and it was researched completing numerous genetic tests, but they found no proof. None. Not even a little bit.

When you say, "None. Not even a little bit," that's not entirely accurate. There's actually quite a bit.

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.

As the article Pilgrim linked alludes, there is no single, definitive genetic marker for sexual orientation. If you look at the order of things, you'll see there won't be one, either. The DNA doesn't even determine what sex we are, much less our orientation, it's the hormones released during fetal development that does that.

All fetus blueprints begin as female (which is why men have nipples). Then, at just the right time, a certain amount and type of hormones are produced and distributed that develop the primary sex characteristics, as well as set the table for secondary sex characteristics. The timing, dosage and duration of these hormones is critical. An over-simplified example is, let's say the hormones are produced and distributed over a 5 day period of fetal development. If the timing is perfect and it starts exactly at the right time and with the full dosage on Day One, gradually waning until the end of Day Five, you're one hunnert percent male. If the dosage is off or the timing a little late, more of your female blueprints remain.

Because survival of the species is paramount, and we use sex to do that, it stands to reason (and scientific evidence keeps pointing in that direction) that your sex, your sex drive, and your sexual orientation are all determined primarily during the hormonal development states of fetal development.

When things are out of whack just a little bit, it accounts not only for homosexuality, but gender dysphoria (and, for that matter, metrosexuals). It accounts for why on a scale of 0-6, with 0 being like totally straight and 6 being like totally gay, that many people fall somewhere in between. It also explains the identical twin differences, as that's genetics, not hormones, and we know that identical twins (as well as fraternal twins) each receive different amounts of hormones during fetal development. If homosexuality were genetic, then straight parents couldn't produce gay offspring, unless the same exact random genetic mutation kept occurring for every gay person, which is an impossibility.

Everything about us is built in layers. Even our brains are in layers. The base of our brain and the brain of reptiles are virtually identical, and performs the same functions in both. Evolution didn't discard the reptilian brain, it simply built upon it when it added the limbic brain to the reptilian brain. The limbic brain is found in all mammals. On top of that, found only in primates, is the neocortex.

Our sexual biology is the same way, where the DNA lays the chromosomal base, then various hormones lay on more layers. By the time you're born the layers are all there and in place. After that, environment will tweak the layers, but they aren't going to add, remove or change any layers.

 

[Turtle]

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.

Well, now we're back to the big question that you have yet to answer. Why NOW? Why, after more than 5500 years, is it so critical that it happen now, right now, in this epoch of human history, in this era of societal development? How is this going to ensure the survival of society? A simple "It's the right thing to do," isn't going to even begin to answer that question. "It's the right thing to do," is an emotional want, not an argument for change, much less for such a profound change.

Why is it that what has worked for society for all of recorded human history is now, suddenly, wrong? In order to answer why "it's the right thing to do," you MUST be able to explain why it was so wrong for more than 5500 years, why it didn't work, and why society was worse because of it. Good luck with that.

PS you said that traditional marriage has worked very well for all of recorded history, but with the divorce rates where they are, it doesn't look like it works that well for half the people who do it.

That's the emotional argument of using the exception to disprove the rule, because looking at all of recorded history through the lens of a snapshot in time is not only short-sighted, but incorrect. Please don't tell me you are using the current divorce rates as justification for same-sex marriage. The fact is, divorce in any kind of significant numbers is a relative recent phenomenon. Even going back to the liberal Greco-Roman days, the ancient Athenians liberally allowed divorce, but it was still exceedingly rare, due to social and familial pressures and traditions. In religion, divorce is considered an affront to God, and thus is only allowed under certain circumstances. Even after the Reformation, when marriage became mostly a civil contract, divorce was considered to be against the public interest. Why is divorce against the public interest? Because society works best with marriage. In the US we currently have large numbers of divorce, and, you know, we're just doing a bang up job societally. "Till death do us part" serves society. Divorce does not.

Ironically, as soon as people started marrying for luv is when divorces started happening with disturbing frequency. The takeaway from that is as soon as people start doing selfishly for themselves rather than what is best for society, everybody loses. There's a liberal viewpoint you can wrap your head around. So, again, why, exactly, is allowing same-sex marriage the right thing to do?

 

[Maverick]

When you say, "None. Not even a little bit," that's not entirely accurate. There's actually quite a bit.

As the article Pilgrim linked alludes, there is no single, definitive genetic marker for sexual orientation. If you look at the order of things, you'll see there won't be one, either. The DNA doesn't even determine what sex we are, much less our orientation, it's the hormones released during fetal development that does that.

All fetus blueprints begin as female (which is why men have nipples). Then, at just the right time, a certain amount and type of hormones are produced and distributed that develop the primary sex characteristics, as well as set the table for secondary sex characteristics. The timing, dosage and duration of these hormones is critical. An over-simplified example is, let's say the hormones are produced and distributed over a 5 day period of fetal development. If the timing is perfect and it starts exactly at the right time and with the full dosage on Day One, gradually waning until the end of Day Five, you're one hunnert percent male. If the dosage is off or the timing a little late, more of your female blueprints remain.

Because survival of the species is paramount, and we use sex to do that, it stands to reason (and scientific evidence keeps pointing in that direction) that your sex, your sex drive, and your sexual orientation are all determined primarily during the hormonal development states of fetal development.

When things are out of whack just a little bit, it accounts not only for homosexuality, but gender dysphoria (and, for that matter, metrosexuals). It accounts for why on a scale of 0-6, with 0 being like totally straight and 6 being like totally gay, that many people fall somewhere in between. It also explains the identical twin differences, as that's genetics, not hormones, and we know that identical twins (as well as fraternal twins) each receive different amounts of hormones during fetal development. If homosexuality were genetic, then straight parents couldn't produce gay offspring, unless the same exact random genetic mutation kept occurring for every gay person, which is an impossibility.

Everything about us is built in layers. Even our brains are in layers. The base of our brain and the brain of reptiles are virtually identical, and performs the same functions in both. Evolution didn't discard the reptilian brain, it simply built upon it when it added the limbic brain to the reptilian brain. The limbic brain is found in all mammals. On top of that, found only in primates, is the neocortex.

Our sexual biology is the same way, where the DNA lays the chromosomal base, then various hormones lay on more layers. By the time you're born the layers are all there and in place. After that, environment will tweak the layers, but they aren't going to add, remove or change any layers.

Exactly.....if you think in terms of science and the ape theory.

Utter nonsense....if you don't.

 

[Turtle]

Exactly.....if you think in terms of science and the ape theory.

Utter nonsense....if you don't.

I think in terms of reality, not fantasy.

 

[davekc]

When you say, "None. Not even a little bit," that's not entirely accurate. There's actually quite a bit.

As the article Pilgrim linked alludes, there is no single, definitive genetic marker for sexual orientation. If you look at the order of things, you'll see there won't be one, either. The DNA doesn't even determine what sex we are, much less our orientation, it's the hormones released during fetal development that does that.

All fetus blueprints begin as female (which is why men have nipples). Then, at just the right time, a certain amount and type of hormones are produced and distributed that develop the primary sex characteristics, as well as set the table for secondary sex characteristics. The timing, dosage and duration of these hormones is critical. An over-simplified example is, let's say the hormones are produced and distributed over a 5 day period of fetal development. If the timing is perfect and it starts exactly at the right time and with the full dosage on Day One, gradually waning until the end of Day Five, you're one hunnert percent male. If the dosage is off or the timing a little late, more of your female blueprints remain.

Because survival of the species is paramount, and we use sex to do that, it stands to reason (and scientific evidence keeps pointing in that direction) that your sex, your sex drive, and your sexual orientation are all determined primarily during the hormonal development states of fetal development.

When things are out of whack just a little bit, it accounts not only for homosexuality, but gender dysphoria (and, for that matter, metrosexuals). It accounts for why on a scale of 0-6, with 0 being like totally straight and 6 being like totally gay, that many people fall somewhere in between. It also explains the identical twin differences, as that's genetics, not hormones, and we know that identical twins (as well as fraternal twins) each receive different amounts of hormones during fetal development. If homosexuality were genetic, then straight parents couldn't produce gay offspring, unless the same exact random genetic mutation kept occurring for every gay person, which is an impossibility.

Everything about us is built in layers. Even our brains are in layers. The base of our brain and the brain of reptiles are virtually identical, and performs the same functions in both. Evolution didn't discard the reptilian brain, it simply built upon it when it added the limbic brain to the reptilian brain. The limbic brain is found in all mammals. On top of that, found only in primates, is the neocortex.

Our sexual biology is the same way, where the DNA lays the chromosomal base, then various hormones lay on more layers. By the time you're born the layers are all there and in place. After that, environment will tweak the layers, but they aren't going to add, remove or change any layers.

I don't disagree with the information, but it still appears as scientific theory at this point.

 

[asjssl]

Just in...Fred Phelps has died...*** taps**

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[RLENT]

Fact:

Homosexuals do NOT further the survival of the species.

This is not necessarily true - unless one is looking at furthering the survival of the species from strictly the likelihood of the act of procreation (which is a rather simplistic view of what all might constitute the furtherance of "survival of the species") ... and even then it's questionable in this day and age, given the advances of science.

Looking at the broader context of survival - in terms of things that help the species to continue to survive - it is quite easy to see how the assertion made above is not necessarily true at all. Here's but a single an example:

Alan Turing was a mathematician who helped crack the Nazi's Enigma Code and his work was credited with shortening the war ... and he was a homosexual.

He's also considered to be "one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the modern era" but he was jailed because of his sexual orientation and ended up committing suicide because of the persecution.

Who knows what contributions to society that brilliant mind may have made if his life hadn't ended prematurely.

As near as I can tell there are only three possibilities with respect to Mr. Turing:

1. What he did helped the survival of the species.

2. What he did, did not help the survival of the species.

3. What he did made no difference to the survival of the species.

Which possibility above do you subscribe to ?

Or is there another possibility that I have missed ?

Homosexuals are genetic dead ends

Again, this is not necessarily true in this day and age, given modern science.

The only way that it could be true from a technical perspective is if homosexuality caused inviability of the reproductive cells (sperm, egg)

As far as I have heard, it doesn't.

There are NO valid arguments to the above.

If that is true, then refute what I have asserted above ... and show me how what I said is untrue or false. Should be a pretty simple matter I would think.

The premise that homosexuals do not contribute to the survival of the species and that they are genetic dead ends is, in my opinion, actually rather dehumanizing - regardless of whether or not one personally considers that some of the acts they might engage in to be immoral or disgusting.