Homophobia

[bdog1321]

Hello, I am here to express my irritation of being labeled a homophobe. I know I won't be taken seriously but I'll do it anyways. :] Today I was called a homophobe by one of my friends, and this is about the fifty-billionth time I have been called such. I just ask, do you know what a phobia is? A phobia is not just simply a fear, even if it was such homophobe would be a mislabel, but phobia in the psychological sense (homophobia is, in actuality, a mental disorder) means an irrational fear of something ordinary(which gay people are not, research says that a prevalent reason for people being gay is a hormonal imbalance, prompting the thought that it is not right, and that there actually IS something wrong with it, because there is an IMbalance) that induces uncontrollable panic attacks(that 99.9999999% of people that share my opinion do NOT experience) or anxiety attacks, paralyzing the person with fear and requiring them to vacate the premises, or for the gay person to leave.
Calling me, a person who does not agree with the ideal of being gay, a homophobic, would be in error, because I do not suffer from anxiety attacks when confronted with gay people. I am not remotely afraid of them, and neither are most people who think like me. You can say that my...not really dislike, but different attitude toward gay people is born out of my fear of them, but you would be wrong, and you could not even say so without being a psychologist and diagnosing me. So, unless you are referring to someone who has a mental disorder characterized by anxiety attacks caused by gay people, do not label people as homophobes because it really, really, irks them.
Flame me if you like, just correcting a common misconception.

[Hatchet Klown]

We care, 99.9999999% of the time.

This just isn't one of them.

[Wizzy`]

Go bdog! :coolpunk:

[R G]

Which makes me wonder, is there such a thing as a hetrophobe?

[Wizzy`]

Which makes me wonder, is there such a thing as a hetrophobe?

I'm afraid of all people. Doesn't matter if you're gay straight or black.

[Hatchet Klown]

Wizzy is even afraid of himself. That's why he doesn't have any mirrors in his house.

[Wizzy`]

Wizzy is even afraid of himself. That's why he doesn't have any mirrors in his house.

As funny as it sounds, it's true. Shouldn't joke about phobias. :(

[Matt 34.5]

Homophobe.

[Unforgottner]

Flame me

Wouldn't that make you a flamer?

[bdog1321]

How? Lol this is probably some pun I don't understand.

[Matt 34.5]

Wouldn't that make you a flamer?

You're confusing the Flamee with the Flamer

But good attempt on using his phobia against him.

[Sinyra]

flamer= word for flamboyant gay guys.

and as annoying as being called that must be, what would you prefer to be called? Homophobe is now part of the common nomenclature so regardless of not being PC, i think you'll have to deal with it your whole life. sorry man.

[Wizzy`]

flamer= word for flamboyant gay guys.

and as annoying as being called that must be, what would you prefer to be called? Homophobe is now part of the common nomenclature so regardless of not being PC, i think you'll have to deal with it your whole life. sorry man.

Is anyone else tired of girls using the word "dude" and "man"?
I say we start a petition! :angry:

[uniquinous]

bdog - given your dislike, and given multiple friends calling you a homophobe, I can't help but wonder if there are specific things you do which prompt such language. In the most extreme sense of the word, you are correct in saying that a phobia can produce panic attacks, among other things. That's not the meaning of the word, not is it the colloquial meaning of the term homophobe. It more specifically refers to fear of homosexuals, be it visible fear, or suppressed fear.

Here's what I'd like to know: Despite what you think of homosexuality, if you were at a party and knew that several guys there were homosexual, would that matter to you at all? Would that make you feel uncomfortable in any way? Or would you equate them to, say, some uglier girl there: around but not interested? If such a guy were to come up to you and start flirting, would you be disgusted or flattered?

[Wizzy`]

Here's what I'd like to know: Despite what you think of homosexuality, if you were at a party and knew that several guys there were homosexual, would that matter to you at all? Would that make you feel uncomfortable in any way? Or would you equate them to, say, some uglier girl there: around but not interested? If such a guy were to come up to you and start flirting, would you be disgusted or flattered?

I don't mind gay people. I don't mind if they're trying to hit on me..it's never happened..but i'm just saying. If a guy hits on you, you can't just say no, go away? You gotta be like "O_O OMG U R WEEEEEIRDDDDD"...Like uniq said..they're basically ugly girls. Who cares.

[uniquinous]

Like uniq said..they're basically ugly girls. Who cares.eh, for the record, I didn't say gay guys = ugly girls. eh... was asking how he perceives them. I think you understood me Wiz, just wanted to clarify.

[Wizzy`]

eh, for the record, I didn't say gay guys = ugly girls. eh... was asking how he perceives them. I think you understood me Wiz, just wanted to clarify.

=P
Yeah, I understood what you meant..but I could also see how some people would say "uniq considers gay people ugly girls!"..so yeah.
Record for the.

[Sith Happens]

http://image.blingee.com/images12/content/output/2007/7/24/70693391_b7197bec.gif

[Godmic18]

I don't like hanging out with yuppies. Does that make me a Yuppiphobe? No. Unless you are actually afraid of homosexuals in the sense that you are gripped by fear, just shrug off the insult and call your friends another word for a British cigarette just to be a little ironic.

[bdog1321]

bdog - given your dislike, and given multiple friends calling you a homophobe, I can't help but wonder if there are specific things you do which prompt such language. In the most extreme sense of the word, you are correct in saying that a phobia can produce panic attacks, among other things. That's not the meaning of the word, not is it the colloquial meaning of the term homophobe. It more specifically refers to fear of homosexuals, be it visible fear, or suppressed fear.

Here's what I'd like to know: Despite what you think of homosexuality, if you were at a party and knew that several guys there were homosexual, would that matter to you at all? Would that make you feel uncomfortable in any way? Or would you equate them to, say, some uglier girl there: around but not interested? If such a guy were to come up to you and start flirting, would you be disgusted or flattered?

No. I have a bisexual, and a lesbian friend. It doesn't bother me, I just don't agree with it. I like them as people, I see past their homosexuality and like their personality. They accept that, so we are friends.

[uniquinous]

the the first one male or female?

[bdog1321]

Male. I'm not like most guys, seeing two girls together doesn't turn me on. That's not why the lesbian is my friend.

[Sith Happens]

Homophobia is the fear of homosexual people. So given you have 2 friends that are homosexuals, you aren't really a homophobe.

I don't like hanging out with yuppies. Does that make me a Yuppiphobe? No. Unless you are actually afraid of homosexuals in the sense that you are gripped by fear, just shrug off the insult and call your friends another word for a British cigarette just to be a little ironic.

qft.

[uniquinous]

well, if those are the people who call you homophobe more than others, it sounds more like you don't understand them than anything else

[bdog1321]

Actually, neither of them have called me a homophobe. We just don't discuss it because they know my views and I know they're bi and lesbian, and it hasn't interfered yet, so why should we make it an issue? It's two straight guys that call me it for the most part.

[uniquinous]

and what is it that you do that prompts them to call you that?

[Wizzy`]

Male. I'm not like most guys, seeing two girls together doesn't turn me on. That's not why the lesbian is my friend.

Bdawg, we are exactly the same. Except.. you're a superfan..and I smoke bud..

[Godmic18]

The word gets tossed around quite a bit lately. Are they calling you a homophobe in serious discussion or in jest? In jest it really doesn't matter. Actually either way it doesn't matter.

[bdog1321]

Both, god. and Uniq, they call me a homophobe on the prerequisite that I am republican.

[Sinyra]

Is anyone else tired of girls using the word "dude" and "man"?
I say we start a petition! :angry:

sorry you feel that way dude. :spiteful:

[Sith Happens]

Why was this thread made?

[Godmic18]

Both, god. and Uniq, they call me a homophobe on the prerequisite that I am republican.

Ah. So they're idiots. Got it.

[bdog1321]

Bdawg, we are exactly the same. Except.. you're a superfan..and I smoke bud..

/highfive. Yay bud?

[Sinyra]

Both, god. and Uniq, they call me a homophobe on the prerequisite that I am republican.

that is stupid. I know a republican who is gay. two actually.

[bdog1321]

that is stupid. I know a republican who is gay. two actually.

Lol where do you live? In York there's about two republicans in my entire school.

[Wizzy`]

sorry you feel that way dude. :spiteful:

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Articles/20080331/425.the.incredible.hulk.033108.jpg

[Sith Happens]

I'm Republican, and homophobia isn't part of the job.

[bdog1321]

Tell that to the people I go to school with. x.x

[Sith Happens]

Then, they're idiots who don't understand the base of the Republican party.

[Godmic18]

Tell that to the people I go to school with. x.x

Give me phone numbers. :*orc:

[Sinyra]

Lol where do you live? In York there's about two republicans in my entire school.

in Oregon. I go to U of O and it's one of the most liberal schools in the country. however, we have very active political clubs so there is a vocal if not major republican presence. There are also a ton of gay/bi/bicurious people, black people are more rare then gay people at u of o. at least it feels that way.

anyways,....

on another note, Christian, (yeah, i know, funny) was kicked out of his house for being gay because his parents are mormon and thier church told them too and he is also disliked in the gay community for being republican. Rough deal.

[bdog1321]

Give me phone numbers. :*orc:

Get in line :D

[Sith Happens]

Why are there Republican clubs at a Liberal school?

[Wizzy`]

in Oregon. I go to U of O and it's one of the most liberal schools in the country. however, we have very active political clubs so there is a vocal if not major republican presence. There are also a ton of gay/bi/bicurious people, black people are more rare then gay people at u of o. at least it feels that way.

anyways,....

on another note, Christian, (yeah, i know, funny) was kicked out of his house for being gay because his parents are mormon and thier church told them too and he is also disliked in the gay community for being republican. Rough deal.

Aren't you kind of going against your "beliefs" if you are gay, republican, and Mormon?

[Sith Happens]

You can be gay and Republican. But, mormons are pretty anti-gay.

[bdog1321]

in Oregon. I go to U of O and it's one of the most liberal schools in the country. however, we have very active political clubs so there is a vocal if not major republican presence. There are also a ton of gay/bi/bicurious people, black people are more rare then gay people at u of o. at least it feels that way.

anyways,....

on another note, Christian, (yeah, i know, funny) was kicked out of his house for being gay because his parents are mormon and thier church told them too and he is also disliked in the gay community for being republican. Rough deal.

Wow that's ridiculous, people shouldn't be essentially excommunicated from their families no matter if they like guys or girls. Here is the line | and here are those parents x

[Wizzy`]

Aren't most republicans against gay rights?

edit: my grandfather stopped talking to my uncle for 10 years when he told him he was gay.

[Sinyra]

Aren't you kind of going against your "beliefs" if you are gay, republican, and Mormon

no because he is not mormon. his family is. he's been excommunicated. Had to sign this paper thing that basically said, i will not go to heaven. However, there are people who are evangelical christian who are gay and don't feel they are going against their beliefs. I guess it comes down to an interpretation of the bible and which parts people take verbatim.

[Sith Happens]

Not gay rights, gay marriage. Most Republicans are Conservative, and sort of Anti-gay, but most have no problem with gay people. Doesn't bother them, so why should they care. They just care about gay marriage.

[Sinyra]

or gay people raising kids. that another huge issue.

[Wizzy`]

It's so funny how different people can be in the same religion and have different beliefs.
Yet if all those religions suddenly disappeared, chaos may ensue.

I'm all for gay marriage, gay rights, gay whatever. If you give two gay males a child, or even two gay females a child..you can NOT expect them to grow up normally.
Yeah, you can ask "What is normal anyway?" normal is not thinking having two of the same sex parents is normal.
I guess you could go the other way and say normal is thinking having two of the same sex parents is normal..
Meh..People are bad.

[Sith Happens]

True, and it being taught in school. Most Republicans are Christian though.

[bdog1321]

Aren't most republicans against gay rights?

edit: my grandfather stopped talking to my uncle for 10 years when he told him he was gay.

Nah man we just think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mostly just marriage.
And yeah Sith, being labeled a homophobe in school is like being convicted of a crime. People talk about you.

[Sith Happens]

There's a split in the Republican party between Conservatives, and the newer Republicans. The Conservatives are all anti-gay Marriage, but I'm Republican and I have no problem with gay marriage. It's mostly just Religion.

[Godmic18]

Why are there Republican clubs at a Liberal school?

There are republican clubs at every major school regardless of overwhelming liberal bias or not. It just happens and also makes the school look a little better.

Aren't you kind of going against your "beliefs" if you are gay, republican, and Mormon?

No. It doesn't. Republican != anti-gay pro Christian. It has to do with the way he feels the government should be run. I'm not sure how the Mormon church justifies their actions.

[bdog1321]

Right there are social and fiscal republicans, a gay republican would be a fiscal republican and a social liberal.

[Sith Happens]

Mormons believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Most are Conservatives.

[Godmic18]

True, and it being taught in school. Most Republicans are Christian though.

Around 40 percent of documented Liberals are Christian. Probably more.

[Sinyra]

Why are there Republican clubs at a Liberal school?

sorry, didn't see this earlier, Oregon is known as one of the most politically active schools in the US so I guess that would be why. We also have a communist club and, irony of ironies, an anarchy club.

[Sith Happens]

Around 40 percent of documented Liberals are Christian. Probably more.

I was just bringing it up because a lot of Christians have a problem with gay marriage.
Edit: A lot of Conservative Christians****

[bdog1321]

sorry, didn't see this earlier, Oregon is known as one of the most politically active schools in the US so I guess that would be why. We also have a communist club and, irony of ironies, an anarchy club.

So....an organization for those who want to overthrow all organizations?

[Godmic18]

I was just bringing it up because a lot of Christians have a problem with gay marriage.

Truth. California just realized that.

[Sith Happens]

Well, because basically all of the central valley and down south are republicans.

[Sinyra]

So....an organization for those who want to overthrow all organizations?

haha. exactly. meat and i make fun of them all the time. we know a girl who's in it, she the biggest hypocrite I know. in most aspects of her life, so i suppose it's to be expected.

[Wizzy`]

haha. exactly. meat and i make fun of them all the time. we know a girl who's in it, she the biggest hypocrite I know. in most aspects of her life, so i suppose it's to be expected.

Is it savanna? sorry sav.

[Sith Happens]

I saw that coming.

[Sinyra]

haha. burn. and i hardly need to say this but no.

[Wizzy`]

haha. burn. and i hardly need to say this but no.

It was just such a good setup to say that..I didn't mean to offend her, but it probably will...because even I'd get offended by that.

[Jeffery]

Hello, I am here to express my irritation of being labeled a homophobe. I know I won't be taken seriously but I'll do it anyways. :] Today I was called a homophobe by one of my friends, and this is about the fifty-billionth time I have been called such. I just ask, do you know what a phobia is? A phobia is not just simply a fear, even if it was such homophobe would be a mislabel, but phobia in the psychological sense (homophobia is, in actuality, a mental disorder) means an irrational fear of something ordinary(which gay people are not, research says that a prevalent reason for people being gay is a hormonal imbalance, prompting the thought that it is not right, and that there actually IS something wrong with it, because there is an IMbalance) that induces uncontrollable panic attacks(that 99.9999999% of people that share my opinion do NOT experience) or anxiety attacks, paralyzing the person with fear and requiring them to vacate the premises, or for the gay person to leave.
Calling me, a person who does not agree with the ideal of being gay, a homophobic, would be in error, because I do not suffer from anxiety attacks when confronted with gay people. I am not remotely afraid of them, and neither are most people who think like me. You can say that my...not really dislike, but different attitude toward gay people is born out of my fear of them, but you would be wrong, and you could not even say so without being a psychologist and diagnosing me. So, unless you are referring to someone who has a mental disorder characterized by anxiety attacks caused by gay people, do not label people as homophobes because it really, really, irks them.
Flame me if you like, just correcting a common misconception.
Homophobes are afraid of gay people.

You obviously are. You are also ignorant and a bigot.

Congrats. It is not that people are mislabelingyou. It is that you are an idiot.

[Medemia]

I use to work in an office where we managed the federal funds for AIDS funding. We'd have meetings in our office and when certain people walked into the office, I would hide behind my desk and shake in fear hoping they would hurry up and get to the meeting room.

I'll back bdog here. Homophobe is a widely irrational name used to try to belittle those who do not approve of the lifestyle. It isn't fear. It is conviction against an action, not a hatred against a person. If they would rather say homobigot, that may be closer but it is better to make your foe look scared, cowardly, or irrational.

[uniquinous]

Both, god. and Uniq, they call me a homophobe on the prerequisite that I am republican.well then it sounds like you made this thread cuz you don't understand a joke...

Nah man we just think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mostly just marriage.you may not be homophobic, but you are prejudiced. Aside from gender issues, what does marriage mean to you (if anything)?

[Sinyra]

med, i love ya but the word foe is kinda melodramatic.

question: do you consider yourself open minded? because I've got a friend who hates being called closed minded because it implies that she is a bigot, and she isn't, however she is very conservative. So i guess my question should be, do you care if/when you're called closed minded?

[Wizzy`]

Aside from gender issues, what does marriage mean to you (if anything)?

Love between a man and a woman. It's in the bible, it must be true. /sarcasm

[Sinyra]

med, i love ya but the word foe is kinda melodramatic.

question: do you consider yourself open minded? because I've got a friend who hates being called closed minded because it implies that she is a bigot, and she isn't, however she is very conservative. So i guess my question should be, do you care if/when you're called closed minded?

[Sinyra]

! damn lag.

[meat.eater]

It's actually called the "anarchy student union." It's the dumbest thing in the world.

At any rate, I dont have a problem with gay marriage, really, but there's a better alternative. I just don't see that alternative happening, and I'd rather allow gays to be legally attached sooner than later, so I'm generally in favor of it.

[Jeffery]

I use to work in an office where we managed the federal funds for AIDS funding. We'd have meetings in our office and when certain people walked into the office, I would hide behind my desk and shake in fear hoping they would hurry up and get to the meeting room.

I'll back bdog here. Homophobe is a widely irrational name used to try to belittle those who do not approve of the lifestyle. It isn't fear. It is conviction against an action, not a hatred against a person. If they would rather say homobigot, that may be closer but it is better to make your foe look scared, cowardly, or irrational.
You hide and are afraid.

Nice phobia med.

[meat.eater]

Love between a man and a woman. It's in the bible, it must be true. /sarcasm

To many people, a marriage is a sanction between man, woman, and God.

[Wizzy`]

What's the difference between being married and being together for the rest of your lives? Is there really any less of a love connection in your relationship?

I know, I know..everyone loves to be married, and its the point of it..

But still. Love is love.

[meat.eater]

What's the difference between being married and being together for the rest of your lives? Is there really any less of a love connection in your relationship?

I know, I know..everyone loves to be married, and its the point of it..

But still. Love is love.

A marriage is a legal document recognized by the state. Being together isnt.

[Medemia]

med, i love ya but the word foe is kinda melodramatic.

question: do you consider yourself open minded? because I've got a friend who hates being called closed minded because it implies that she is a bigot, and she isn't, however she is very conservative. So i guess my question should be, do you care if/when you're called closed minded?

There are those who consider the other side enemy so foe worked there. I don't consider the other side the enemy but have met the militant anti-gay as well as the anti-Christian and they would definitely say foe is too soft.

There are things I am open-minded on but when it comes to things that are clearly weighed upon in the Bible, I side with it and there is no swaying so you can call me closed-minded there. I am actually ok even being called.

A friend of mine said that having an open mind is like having an open mouth. You open it to put something in, not walking around with your mouth gaping allowing anything to fly in.

Edit:
You hide and are afraid.

Nice phobia med.

Oh, I forgot to put my sarcasm tags on again. My bad.

[Wizzy`]

A marriage is a legal document recognized by the state. Being together isnt.

Meh....

[meat.eater]

It's a lot more than just "meh..." It's the reason this entire argument/ Prop 8/ Measure 35 exists...

[bdog1321]

You hide and are afraid.

Nice phobia med.

Midol, anyone? You're a bitter berk, aren't you? And yes Uniq, I am prejudiced. I think everyone is to some extent. Aside from gender issues, I consider marriage a statement: "hey, we're lovers and we're going to reproduce to start a family." I disagree with gay marriage fundamentally because they cannot reproduce, and therefore it violates my perception of marriage.

[Godmic18]

Midol, anyone? You're a bitter berk, aren't you? And yes Uniq, I am prejudiced. I think everyone is to some extent. Aside from gender issues, I consider marriage a statement: "hey, we're lovers and we're going to reproduce to start a family." I disagree with gay marriage fundamentally because they cannot reproduce, and therefore it violates my perception of marriage.

That's the religious definition. Not the state one. Technically gay marriage should be allowed with the division of church and state as you get benefits for being legally married by law.

[meat.eater]

Midol, anyone? You're a bitter berk, aren't you? And yes Uniq, I am prejudiced. I think everyone is to some extent. Aside from gender issues, I consider marriage a statement: "hey, we're lovers and we're going to reproduce to start a family." I disagree with gay marriage fundamentally because they cannot reproduce, and therefore it violates my perception of marriage.

Marriage and reproduction aren't even close to the same thing. I know dozens and dozens of married couples who do not have children. Or have adopted children. Are you fundamentally against them, too?

[meat.eater]

That's the religious definition. Not the state one. Technically gay marriage should be allowed with the division of church and state as you get benefits for being legally married by law.

No, it's not even a religious definition. I'm not religious and I still agree with the religious definition in representation of those who have the freedom to be religious. The religious definition also has little to do with reproduction, it simply has to do with the term "marriage" being a sanction of man, woman and God. Many churches would allow gay marriage, many would disallow; depends on the interpretation of the bible.

[bdog1321]

Marriage and reproduction aren't even close to the same thing. I know dozens and dozens of married couples who do not have children. Or have adopted children. Are you fundamentally against them, too?

Do they plan on having them?

[uniquinous]

medemia, there are people who are irrationally afraid around homosexuals. This isn't a made up term, but rather, one that describes how one man will react to a gay man near him, let alone flirting with him.


yes Uniq, I am prejudiced. I think everyone is to some extent. Aside from gender issues, I consider marriage a statement: "hey, we're lovers and we're going to reproduce to start a family." I disagree with gay marriage fundamentally because they cannot reproduce, and therefore it violates my perception of marriage.So do you feel that a heterosexual couple that knows they are infertile or doesn't want kids should not be allowed to marry?

Do you feel that couples that reproduce and start a family without a marriage ceremony or being recognized by the state is in fact married by your definition anyway?

[meat.eater]

Do they plan on having them?

Some do, other don't. Some people simply do not want to have kids; it's much easier to be fiscally stable without dependents. Or they simply don't want children. Some are faced with a medical imperfection (I guess you could call 2 male appendages a "medical imperfection" in the process of making a child, no?) and choose to adopt or not to have children (even if artificial means are possible).

The world isn't so black any white. So my question still stands: Are you fundamentally against a married man and woman who choose not to have children? How do you feel about couples who do have children but never get married?

[bdog1321]

Infertile....It's like the abortion argument. IMO, rape victims should be able to get them, so I guess being infertile is one of my exceptions on marriage. I think there should be a different type of bonding for couples who do not want kids...not with any less rights, however. For the last part, I would perceive them to be married. I guess that's just me.
EDIT: meat, I believe I answered those questions in this post I just put up.

[uniquinous]

here's another question:

What is the term for a couple who decides they love each other very much and want to monogamously spend the rest of their lives with each other? Is there not a term for that?

EDIT: oh i see, there are exceptions for people who just can't have babies because... why? why do heterosexual couples get exceptions but not homosexual couples?

[bdog1321]

Lovers? Or are you getting at a married couple? Sorry...I'm sick and a little thick ATM.

[Jeffery]

Lovers? Or are you getting at a married couple? Sorry...I'm sick and a little thick ATM.
Well, if having kids is a requirement for marriage, why not also require abortions for all single mothers?

[Godmic18]

No, it's not even a religious definition. I'm not religious and I still agree with the religious definition in representation of those who have the freedom to be religious. The religious definition also has little to do with reproduction, it simply has to do with the term "marriage" being a sanction of man, woman and God. Many churches would allow gay marriage, many would disallow; depends on the interpretation of the bible.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marraige

I don't see god or religion anywhere in that definition until towards the end when it mentions the requirement of a civil or religious ceremony.

[savanna]

Bdog:
You dont understand them.
you didnt explain as of why people call you that, i mean, you must SAY things about it to get people to believe the fact that you dont like gay people.
you dont understand them.
and people fear, what they dont understand.


and second of all, abortion.. people have their own decision for their own body.
rape victims, or someone how accidentally got pregnant. some women dont want children. they arent ready for it. now, they can go through, and have the child, then put it up for adoption, but they go through the 9 months, and a bond grows. lets say they dont have a job, cant pay for anything, and dont have a permanent resident.
are you saying that they shouldnt be allowed to get an abortion?

[Godmic18]

The rape victim argument is a compelling one, but the majority of abortions are not done for rape victims.

[bdog1321]

1% is for rape + incest combined.
Jeff, didn't say that. Thanks for the words they were tasty.
Savanna, really don't want to get into an abortion debate on christmas eve. Maybe tomorrow?
EDIT: and sorry, really, but I understand gay people considering I have a Lesbian friend. I have looked at the arguments from both sides, and concluded as I've told you. I do not say things that prompt others to label me as a homophobe, they bring it up a lot with me, because people here like to have debates. When they learn my views on it, (some even before) they call me a homophobe.

[savanna]

youd rather fight about it on christmas?
:huh:

How can someone else make decisions like that for people?
its personal choice.

[Sith Happens]

People who are against and for gay marriage are the exact same. You have no argument besides it's right, or god dictates in. Since neither one can be fully proven, it's a useless argument.

youd rather fight about it on christmas?
:huh:

How can someone else make decisions like that for people?
its personal choice.

Proving my point. Gay people have a right to decide whether they want to get married. Straight people have no say.

[bdog1321]

I mean I'm busy wrapping and writing up christmas cards! Lol.

[savanna]

PS
youd rather let people how have sex with their own family get an abortion, rather then a poor woman who has no way to feed or take care of one?
twisted.

[bdog1321]

I meant forced incest.... And if she has no way to take care of the kid, why have one? It's her fault. REALLY though. I have to go. Will return! Later.

[Take a Look]

Savanna wtf are you talking about? !LOL!

[Faulty Logic]

Hello, I am here to express my irritation of being labeled a homophobe. I know I won't be taken seriously but I'll do it anyways. :] Today I was called a homophobe by one of my friends, and this is about the fifty-billionth time I have been called such. I just ask, do you know what a phobia is? A phobia is not just simply a fear, even if it was such homophobe would be a mislabel, but phobia in the psychological sense (homophobia is, in actuality, a mental disorder) means an irrational fear of something ordinary(which gay people are not, research says that a prevalent reason for people being gay is a hormonal imbalance, prompting the thought that it is not right, and that there actually IS something wrong with it, because there is an IMbalance) that induces uncontrollable panic attacks(that 99.9999999% of people that share my opinion do NOT experience) or anxiety attacks, paralyzing the person with fear and requiring them to vacate the premises, or for the gay person to leave.
Calling me, a person who does not agree with the ideal of being gay, a homophobic, would be in error, because I do not suffer from anxiety attacks when confronted with gay people. I am not remotely afraid of them, and neither are most people who think like me. You can say that my...not really dislike, but different attitude toward gay people is born out of my fear of them, but you would be wrong, and you could not even say so without being a psychologist and diagnosing me. So, unless you are referring to someone who has a mental disorder characterized by anxiety attacks caused by gay people, do not label people as homophobes because it really, really, irks them.
Flame me if you like, just correcting a common misconception.


Homophobe is simply a generally accepted colloquialism that hasd nothing to do with the literal intent of the word. We use words like this in every day speech. ("That's gay" no its not, it has no sex therefore it cnat be gay.... but it means dumb, wack off, stupid, etc.)

So. You dont like gay people or at the least dont agree with it... fine.

I could go into a rant on how a lot of the consequential minds of our collaborative history were homosexual, but that seems to be pointless....

So instead I'm going to say that if you hate being judged incorrectly in a category, why judge them incorrectly by grouping them into a category?

Seems like Faulty Logic to me....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Sith Happens]

I meant forced incest.... And if she has no way to take care of the kid, why have one? It's her fault.

I actually agree with this, although I do think a woman should have the right to abortion. It's still her fault.

[Take a Look]

[Pope] Humanity must be saved from homosexuals
Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

The pope was delivering his end-of-year address to senior Vatican staff.

His words, later released to the media, emphasised his total rejection of gender theory.

Pope Benedict XVI warned that gender theory blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

Gender theory

Gender theory explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender, and how people perceive their biological identity.

Gay and transsexual groups, particularly in the United States, promote it as a key to understanding and tolerance, but the pope disagreed.

When the Roman Catholic Church defends God's Creation, "it does not only defend the earth, water and the air... but (it) also protects man from his own destruction," the pope said.

"If tropical forests deserve our protection, humankind... deserves it no less," the 81-year-old pontiff said, calling for "an ecology of the human being."

It is not "outmoded metaphysics" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman," he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's sumptuous Clementine Hall.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

'Rock festival'

The pope uses his traditional end-of-year speech to offer his Christmas greetings and say a few words about what he considers the important issues of the day.

This year, Pope Benedict also deplored the tendency to depict the Catholic church's World Youth Day, which he attended in Sydney earlier this year, as mere spectacle.

He stressed that the event should not be considered a "variant of modern youth culture, as a kind of ecclesiastical rock festival with the Pope as the star," but as the fruition of a "long exterior and interior path".

---------

The Pope Has Spoken!

[savanna]

I meant forced incest.... And if she has no way to take care of the kid, why have one? It's her fault. REALLY though. I have to go. Will return! Later.

you JUST PROVED MY POINT.
most women dont have sex with the idea that they are going to get pregnant.

LETS SAY. you and your girlfriend. shits tough. you dont have money. low paying job. your girl has no money. your squatters on property, living in random houses and properties every few weeks. no where to go. nothing to do.
then your girl becomes pregnant. you dont have money. a house. no way to get it, hell, what are you going to do? you have money, but very little. not enough for medical costs, food, supplies, to care for it.
she knows she cant care for it. when she has the baby, its going to be late in the year. cold. and you dont know what to do. you dont even have your life on track, how would you take care of a child?
you couldnt. if you cant take care of yourself, you cant take care of a small child, or even a pregnant girl.

[Sith Happens]

Then don't have sex.

[Faulty Logic]

you JUST PROVED MY POINT.
most women dont have sex with the idea that they are going to get pregnant.

LETS SAY. you and your girlfriend. shits tough. you dont have money. low paying job. your girl has no money. your squatters on property, living in random houses and properties every few weeks. no where to go. nothing to do.
then your girl becomes pregnant. you dont have money. a house. no way to get it, hell, what are you going to do? you have money, but very little. not enough for medical costs, food, supplies, to care for it.
she knows she cant care for it. when she has the baby, its going to be late in the year. cold. and you dont know what to do. you dont even have your life on track, how would you take care of a child?
you couldnt. if you cant take care of yourself, you cant take care of a small child, or even a pregnant girl.


I hate religion.....


How can a perverted archaic system to establish political power be used as a moral compass?

[Take a Look]

You get condoms for free

[bdog1321]

None of these circumstances, which, by the way, are the EXTREME MINORITY, 97 or 96% of abortions are for convenience, are enough to me to commit murder, which I perceive abortion as. Now Merry Christmas and Happy Hanuka everyone! Later.

[Sith Happens]

I hate religion.....


How can a perverted archaic system to establish political power be used as a moral compass?

Because religion gives humans morals, something to drive their life forward knowing if they do something horrible they'll spend eternity in hell. Without religion we would all be lost, and I'm not even religious.

[meat.eater]

So you'd rather set up a "different" sanction for people who dont believe what you believe? That's not really how America works. People are allowed to believe and determine what a "marriage" means for themselves. Just like religious folk take it one way, and homosexuals take it a different way. The key isn't isolating one of them, it's finding a middle ground.

Which is why I believe that Civil Unions should be the norm for every couple choosing to join legally (and with love, of course :)), and marriages should be entirely for religious folk (I can assure you, many non-religious folks get married.)

Is this going to happen in the next 30 years? Probably not. And I'd rather not deny homosexuals their right to those legal contracts for 30 years (or however long it takes for it to happen). So I vote yes. Which I also think will spark more change in how the system works, in general.

They key here, is. Nobody get's do "decide" what marriage means. Every person is allowed to have their own definition. Which is why it should NOT be the the norm.

[savanna]

okay. tell people to not have sex. you boys think about sex everyday. and people sometimes dont think about what they are doing.
condoms break.
its a fact.

[Sith Happens]

The key here, is. Nobody get's do "decide" what marriage means. Every person is allowed to have their own definition. Which is why it should NOT be the the norm.

My point exactly

okay. tell people to not have sex. you boys think about sex everyday. and people sometimes dont think about what they are doing.
condoms break.
its a fact.

Yeah, they do. I'm not against abortion, but it's still the womans fault if she had consensual sex.(The man too of course) Any way you look at it, that fact is still there.

[Faulty Logic]

Then don't have sex.

thats the stupidest thing ever..... outlaw a very viable method for preventing unwanted births and continuing degeneration of a trend in order to prove a moral point on chastity? Are you seriously thinking that?

Make it Government regulated so it helps fund the econ.

[savanna]

My point exactly



Yeah, they do. I'm not against abortion, but it's still the womans fault if she had consensual sex.(The man too of course) Any way you look at it, that fact is still there.

its also the mans fault.. :p
he supplies the seed!

[bdog1321]

So you'd rather set up a "different" sanction for people who dont believe what you believe? That's not really how America works. People are allowed to believe and determine what a "marriage" means for themselves. Just like religious folk take it one way, and homosexuals take it a different way. The key isn't isolating one of them, it's finding a middle ground.

Which is why I believe that Civil Unions should be the norm for every couple choosing to join legally (and with love, of course :)), and marriages should be entirely for religious folk (I can assure you, many non-religious folks get married.)

Is this going to happen in the next 30 years? Probably not. And I'd rather not deny homosexuals their right to those legal contracts for 30 years (or however long it takes for it to happen). So I vote yes. Which I also think will spark more change in how the system works, in general.

They key here, is. Nobody get's do "decide" what marriage means. Every person is allowed to have their own definition. Which is why it should NOT be the the norm.

Of course. Having the "different," sanction, is the way I think of marriage for myself, which is how America works. Even though it is my belief, if I had the power to change it, I would not, because it would cause too many problems. So, like the idea of Communism, this one of my beliefs cannot be implemented successfully.
And Savanna, the man has a body too, without which the Female cannot have a child. So the baby is part of the dad, as well. This is why I believe the man should have some say in the abortion.

[Sith Happens]

thats the stupidest thing ever..... outlaw a very viable method for preventing unwanted births and continuing degeneration of a trend in order to prove a moral point on chastity? Are you seriously thinking that?

Make it Government regulated so it helps fund the econ.

No, way to take what I said completely out of context. We were talking about an extremely poor couple barely making ends meet, not the entire world. I don't expect people to not have sex, but if you're that poor and barely surviving you need to be the responsible person and put responsibility before pleasure.

its also the mans fault.. :p
he supplies the seed!

I said that.

[Take a Look]

Actually Boys think about sex every 5 minutes. Fact is that you're a Lesbian, that and that alone shapes your opinions, makes you blind from the truth!

Quote me biachs

[meat.eater]

Sav, while I'm generally pro choice as well, the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child" (something that is rather a lost art in America/Canada/Some urban Europe) comes to mind for that situation. We have a very strict stipulation that mother and father (provided they are present) are the ONLY ones who get to raise the child; to make them subsequent beings of themselves; This doesn't really exist anywhere else in the world.
Frankly, it's a lot less financially stipulating if a village raises a child, so I don't know why that's so dead around here.

[meat.eater]

Of course. Having the "different," sanction, is the way I think of marriage for myself, which is how America works. Even though it is my belief, if I had the power to change it, I would not, because it would cause too many problems. So, like the idea of Communism, this one of my beliefs cannot be implemented successfully.
And Savanna, the man has a body too, without which the Female cannot have a child. So the baby is part of the dad, as well. This is why I believe the man should have some say in the abortion.

Of course, bdog. But there's a difference between having your own belief and disregarding the beliefs of others. They are just as much allowed as you are to define what marriage means to them, gay or straight, black or white, man or woman. So you can't really define it for them and be "anti-gay marriage" (or anti-anything marriage; be it man and woman who dont desire to have children, for example) overall. It's just not productive. Do you see what I'm saying?

[bdog1321]

Meat, I don't know whether you go to school anymore or not, but in my school, they are trying to take the job of raising me from my parents. So now, apparently it takes a school to raise a child. /sarcasm. And I see what you're talking about. Maybe I was too specific....After listening to what you and others said I think the non-child bearing couples should be allowed the same marriage as regular.

[Faulty Logic]

Because religion gives humans morals, something to drive their life forward knowing if they do something horrible they'll spend eternity in hell. Without religion we would all be lost, and I'm not even religious.

Religion was invented by the weakest members of the tribal society of hunter gatherers during the agricultural revolution to maintain social status thus attaining them a slot in the Darwinian order of evolution.

The weakest couldnt hunt and needed food so they made up stories about why we're here and since everyone wanted a good bedtime story they got popular..... yeah... moral compass based off of common tribal laws found everywhere? The ten commandments are in every culture in their own fashion....

stay home next time

[Take a Look]

Wtf are you talking about? Don't give me that medieval shit.

[savanna]

i get what your saying :p
but when a women has a child, a lot of the time, they see it, what came from them, and they want it to be theres. dont wanna give it up.
and now, people are like oh its not my freakin spawn, why do i gotta pay for it?
so its like, mom doesnt wanna give it up, community says it isnt their problem.

[Excaliber]

okay. tell people to not have sex. you boys think about sex everyday. and people sometimes dont think about what they are doing.
condoms break.
its a fact.

Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences.

Condoms say that they are effective 99% of the time for a reason. If yours breaks then it is still your fault for taking the risk. Take responsibility for your actions, not the easy way out by abortion. If you have sex without worrying about getting pregnant then you are already hopeless.

[Sith Happens]

Religion was invented by the weakest members of the tribal society of hunter gatherers during the agricultural revolution to maintain social status thus attaining them a slot in the Darwinian order of evolution.

The weakest couldnt hunt and needed food so they made up stories about why we're here and since everyone wanted a good bedtime story they got popular..... yeah... moral compass based off of common tribal laws found everywhere? The ten commandments are in every culture in their own fashion....

stay home next time


Why are you attacking me for entering into this? Where the hell did you hear that religion was made by tribal leaders? People making up stories for food? Seriously? You need to chill, I was just making a point that if there was no religion life would be a lot worse.

Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences.

Condoms say that they are effective 99% of the time for a reason. If yours breaks then it is still your fault for taking the risk. Take responsibility for your actions, not the easy way out by abortion. If you have sex without worrying about getting pregnant then you are already hopeless.

Exactly.

[meat.eater]

Wtf are you talking about? Don't give me that medieval shit.

I don't think you've contributed anything anywhere since you joined these forums. I'm not saying that to insult you or make you a better poster (God help us), but you may want to internalize what it is you talk about and discover if you actually matter in a conversation.

If you don't, don't talk.

[Faulty Logic]

Why are you attacking me for entering into this? Where the hell did you hear that religion was made by tribal leaders? People making up stories for food? Seriously? You need to chill, I was just making a point that if there was no religion life would be a lot worse.



Exactly.


Attacking your lack of comprehension.... religion is a spiritual institution... NOT a political infrastructure to be used to help govern a mass of people..... that directly defies the point of a spiritual bond...which is individual...


All of the rules/laws of "religion" are found in any tribal society to some extent of the degree in the bible b/c they make sense for the furtherance of the tribe.

[savanna]

Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences.

Condoms say that they are effective 99% of the time for a reason. If yours breaks then it is still your fault for taking the risk. Take responsibility for your actions, not the easy way out by abortion. If you have sex without worrying about getting pregnant then you are already hopeless.


so force a woman who cant take care of it, to handle it?
thats not right.
"well put it up for adoption."
read what i said earlier.
shit happens.
its better than having pure innocence freezing and starving in a bundle cause mommy and daddy cant care for it.

[Sith Happens]

Attacking your lack of comprehension.... religion is a spiritual institution... NOT a political infrastructure to be used to help govern a mass of people..... that directly defies the point of a spiritual bond...which is individual...


All of the rules/laws of "religion" are found in any tribal society to some extent of the degree in the bible b/c they make sense for the furtherance of the tribe.


No, you misunderstood. Religion should NOT govern a body of people, but I do disagree with religion being a faulty moral compass. I'm not religious what-so-ever, I don't believe in god but I still go to church because I like the community there. Church and state are seperate entities entirely.

so force a woman who cant take care of it, to handle it?
thats not right.
"well put it up for adoption."
read what i said earlier.
shit happens.
its better than having pure innocence freezing and starving in a bundle cause mommy and daddy cant care for it.

If you can't handle the responsibility, don't have sex. It's that simple.

That's a really easy thing to say until you become sexually active (not trying to take a stab at you, as I dont know your situation). Sex is a natural human desire--"Id" of the Id, Ego, Superego.

So yeah, on paper, it's easy to preach abstinence. It's not really easy to teach it in practice when you factor in human nature. Kind of like communism.

I agree, but if you know you're not going to be able to handle taking care of a kid, don't have one. Stop it before it becomes and issue, and if it does get an abortion or give it up for adoption. I'm NOT against abortion, I just think people need to take preventative action if they can't handle a child.

[meat.eater]

Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences.

Condoms say that they are effective 99% of the time for a reason. If yours breaks then it is still your fault for taking the risk. Take responsibility for your actions, not the easy way out by abortion. If you have sex without worrying about getting pregnant then you are already hopeless.

That's a really easy thing to say until you become sexually active (not trying to take a stab at you, as I dont know your situation). Sex is a natural human desire--"Id" of the Id, Ego, Superego.

So yeah, on paper, it's easy to preach abstinence. It's not really easy to teach it in practice when you factor in human nature. Kind of like communism.

[Take a Look]

I don't think you've contributed anything anywhere since you joined these forums. I'm not saying that to insult you or make you a better poster (God help us), but you may want to internalize what it is you talk about and discover if you actually matter in a conversation.

If you don't, don't talk.

WTF?!?!?!? Where did that came from!!! SORRY THAT MY POSTS DON'T SAVE THE WORLD LIKE YOURS DO! !LOL! DUMMY

[Godmic18]

This conversation has shifted from being a homophobe to gay rights and gay marriage as well as the fantastdiddlyastic topic of abortion. I can see the jump from the topic to gay marriage, but I'm pretty sure gay people don't have to worry much about abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[meat.eater]

Thanks for proving my point.

[bdog1321]

That's a really easy thing to say until you become sexually active (not trying to take a stab at you, as I dont know your situation). Sex is a natural human desire--"Id" of the Id, Ego, Superego.

So yeah, on paper, it's easy to preach abstinence. It's not really easy to teach it in practice when you factor in human nature. Kind of like communism.

Well you'd be right according to Freud's psychoanalytic approach, but there are others with just as plausible explanations. I agree with Excaliber though, even though you are right meat that sex is a primal drive of the human brain, it can be controlled. That is why we were given frontal lobes, which allow us to reason.

[Excaliber]

so force a woman who cant take care of it, to handle it?
thats not right.

Then why did she get pregnant in the first place? She has only herself to blame.

[Take a Look]

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine!?!?!?!?! LOL!

[savanna]

ONCE AGAIN
your stupid
WOMEN DONT HAVE SEXING WANTING A CHILD (well, some couples do.)
so your saying its their fault?
stand high on your little pedestal and dont even think about being in their shoes.
you dont care aobut them and what they go through, your just sitting there like well its their fault so make them suffer.
put yourself in their shoes. on the other side of the mirror.

[Sith Happens]

Thanks for proving mine!?!?!?!?! LOL!

The adults are talking, hush child.

ONCE AGAIN
your stupid
WOMEN DONT HAVE SEXING WANTING A CHILD (well, some couples do.)
so your saying its their fault?
stand high on your little pedestal and dont even think about being in their shoes.
you dont care aobut them and what they go through, your just sitting there like well its their fault so make them suffer.
put yourself in their shoes. on the other side of the mirror.

That wasn't the point. Sex is to have kids, that's the reason for it. And if a woman gets pregnant it is her fault, wanting a kid or not.

[Godmic18]

WOMEN DONT HAVE SEXING WANTING A CHILD (well, some couples do.)

This is my favorite post ever.:cool:

[bdog1321]

ONCE AGAIN
your stupid
WOMEN DONT HAVE SEXING WANTING A CHILD (well, some couples do.)
so your saying its their fault?
stand high on your little pedestal and dont even think about being in their shoes.
you dont care aobut them and what they go through, your just sitting there like well its their fault so make them suffer.
put yourself in their shoes. on the other side of the mirror.

How about you put yourself in the place of an unborn child? Would you like to have been aborted? This is America. No matter WHAT kind of environment the child is born into, in this country it has the opportunity to better itself. The unborn child can also feel pain.

[Sith Happens]

How about you put yourself in the place of an unborn child? Would you like to have been aborted? This is America. No matter WHAT kind of environment the child is born into, in this country it has the opportunity to better itself. The unborn child can also feel pain.

Now we're just getting into humanitarian rights.

So here's the game winning question:

Is it worse to have a woman suffer through pregnancy and child birth, or to kill and unborn fetus?

[savanna]

uh?
sith, your bringing the religious aspect into it. Sex is pleasure.
catholics believe its just to have kids.
theres more than one reason for it.
so if you have a girl that your getting down with, each time you do it, you want a baby?
daaaaaayyyyuuuumm

[Faulty Logic]

No, you misunderstood. Religion should NOT govern a body of people... I don't believe in god but I still go to church because I like the community there.

Then that applies to any community of people you trust... I dont go to church... I teach Martial Arts. I'm put on a pedestal by the kids and parents... I'm no longer just a teenager I'm a teenager who's in the spotlight... if I mess up it looks bad on the school....

so... instead of saying its church and the idea of going to hell how about mention the fact that regular interactions with those who hold the same social facade as you make sure you stay on top of you game enough to pass a social test of wearing the facade thus ensuring you become a really good liar and live double lives, or you dont partake in those activities which would jeopardize your reputation with those you associate with.

And by using that premise you can go into my thesis about religion and any social clique being no different than the foulest gang, the only difference lies in the view of what is moral, which then gets into who decides morals? is it popular vote or is it by precedent, but what if the precedent is wrong?

[meat.eater]

Well you'd be right according to Freud's psychoanalytic approach, but there are others with just as plausible explanations. I agree with Excaliber though, even though you are right meat that sex is a primal drive of the human brain, it can be controlled. That is why we were given frontal lobes, which allow us to reason.

A lot of people reason to have sex with the woman or man they love. Sex isn't entirely primal, there is plenty of reasoning within it.

The notion of pro-life, like much other policy, is aimed at controlling large bodies of people into a specific set of ideals (affirmative action is another one, for example). Which just is NOT pragmatic. A pro-life ideal is personal, much like the notion of marriage. If YOU are pro-life, then don't have an abortion. But why should policy get to decide what someone else does with their body, be they pro-life like you are, or pro-choice, or giving up for adoption.

A lot of right wing social policy tried to tell people what is okay to believe. Which is where it crosses the line with me, and I'm rather conservative myself.

[Sith Happens]

uh?
sith, your bringing the religious aspect into it. Sex is pleasure.
catholics believe its just to have kids.
theres more than one reason for it.
so if you have a girl that your getting down with, each time you do it, you want a baby?
daaaaaayyyyuuuumm

No, I didn't mean that's the moral reason, I meant primal reason.



Then that applies to any community of people you trust... I dont go to church... I teach Martial Arts. I'm put on a pedestal by the kids and parents... I'm no longer just a teenager I'm a teenager who's in the spotlight... if I mess up it looks bad on the school....

so... instead of saying its church and the idea of going to hell how about mention the fact that regular interactions with those who hold the same social facade as you make sure you stay on top of you game enough to pass a social test of wearing the facade thus ensuring you become a really good liar and live double lives, or you dont partake in those activities which would jeopardize your reputation with those you associate with.

And by using that premise you can go into my thesis about religion and any social clique being no different than the foulest gang, the only difference lies in the view of what is moral, which then gets into who decides morals? is it popular vote or is it by precedent, but what if the precedent is wrong?




Again, being around people you like does not dictate my social interactions with other people. I like the people at the church I attend, they're a great group of people. They even know I don't believe in god and they still let me attend and go to events. You're right about morals though, no one can decide what is truly right and wrong. But, by your logic are you mean to religious people? I mean, when you get down to it religion is just fear and a scape goat. If you do bad things, you go to hell and enjoy eternal damnation, but if you're good you enjoy a life of pleasure and enjoyment. It's just one big conspiracy my friend.

But all in all, we can't really change much. Religion will always be here, and aetheists will always be there too.

[bdog1321]

Sex is not for pleasure. If it were we would not be talking here today. We have made it into something that it is not, Savanna, something that it should not be, according to nature. And Sith, I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that suffering of almost ANY kind is preferable as opposed to murder.

[savanna]

sex has multiple.. reasons to it.
child making, pleasure, love, lust

[Excaliber]

ONCE AGAIN
your stupid
WOMEN DONT HAVE SEXING WANTING A CHILD (well, some couples do.)
so your saying its their fault?
stand high on your little pedestal and dont even think about being in their shoes.
you dont care aobut them and what they go through, your just sitting there like well its their fault so make them suffer.
put yourself in their shoes. on the other side of the mirror.

I'm stupid for taking full responsibility for my actions? The purpose for sex organs is for reproduction. Plain and simple. It is no coincidence that pregnancy occurs from having sex. If you have sex and get pregnant it is your fault. Not mine. I feel no sympathy for someone who can't take responsibility for their pregnancy. I did not get them pregnant. Don't pawn your irresponsibilities off on me.

I'm not standing on any "pedestal". You are condemning me for respecting responsibility.

[meat.eater]

That wasn't the point. Sex is to have kids, that's the reason for it. And if a woman gets pregnant it is her fault, wanting a kid or not.

ENTIRELY false, if you ask me. And a lot of other people. And the kicker is, you dont get to decide what I think if false. Sex is about a lot more than reproduction, and frankly, on the opposite side to what Sav said, sex is about a lot more the "pleasure."

Freud would hate you.

[bdog1321]

Lol you have fun now :P really have to go now. I'll check back tomorrow and find another 20 pages of this. Bai bai now.

[Excaliber]

ENTIRELY false, if you ask me. And a lot of other people. And the kicker is, you dont get to decide what I think if false. Sex is about a lot more than reproduction, and frankly, on the opposite side to what Sav said, sex is about a lot more the "pleasure."

Freud would hate you.

I'm on winter break now and hearing you mention Freud and all of these psychology terms make me feel as if I never left.... :(

[Godmic18]

You're all fired. The thread is about homophobia not dead babies and sex you sick freaks!

[savanna]

Sex is not for pleasure. If it were we would not be talking here today. We have made it into something that it is not, Savanna, something that it should not be, according to nature. And Sith, I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that suffering of almost ANY kind is preferable as opposed to murder.

that statement.
makes you look like a total asshole.
you dont read what i say.
i said sex has multiple purposes.
what if that mother goes crazy, huh?
mothers kill their babies all the time.
they cant take care of it.
the stress.
the pressure. depression.
when its in the womb and only a few weeks old, like, new new, its not even considered a human yet.
im sorry. but its a womans decision. your a man. you cant get pregnant.
you dont understand the decisions the woman has to make.
your not in their shoes.
your saying ew if they had sex make her have it cause its immoral to kill it.

[meat.eater]

I'm stupid for taking full responsibility for my actions? The purpose for sex organs is for reproduction. Plain and simple. It is no coincidence that pregnancy occurs from having sex. If you have sex and get pregnant it is your fault. Not mine. I feel no sympathy for someone who can't take responsibility for their pregnancy. I did not get them pregnant. Don't pawn your irresponsibilities off on me.

I'm not standing on any "pedestal". You are condemning me for respecting responsibility.

"Purpose" is a very tricky word. The purpose of your mouth is to eat, but a lot of people do more than eat with it. The purpose of your lungs is to breathe oxygen, but a lot of people breathe a lot more then oxygen. Not everything has a defined purpose.

If you're trying to convince me that the purpose of my sexual organ is solely to reproduce, you'd also be wrong. People reproduce without their sex organs all the time.

[savanna]

I'm stupid for taking full responsibility for my actions? The purpose for sex organs is for reproduction. Plain and simple. It is no coincidence that pregnancy occurs from having sex. If you have sex and get pregnant it is your fault. Not mine. I feel no sympathy for someone who can't take responsibility for their pregnancy. I did not get them pregnant. Don't pawn your irresponsibilities off on me.

I'm not standing on any "pedestal". You are condemning me for respecting responsibility.

hahaha.
go read my scenerio a couple pages back.
lets say your girlfriend/wife/whatever gets pregnant.
YOU dont want it. YOU dont have the ability to take care of it. and neither does she.
YOU are responsible for it.
whatr you gonna do?
bet your gonna think twice about your it.

[meat.eater]

Sav, sav, sav. This isn't really directly about abortion, it's about the definition of intercourse. Which, while they are related (as is sex and gay marriage), don't take it so personally. People thinking differently than you should not come as such a shock.

[savanna]

im just pissed about excalibutts last post.
hmmph.
:mad:

[Sith Happens]

ENTIRELY false, if you ask me. And a lot of other people. And the kicker is, you dont get to decide what I think if false. Sex is about a lot more than reproduction, and frankly, on the opposite side to what Sav said, sex is about a lot more the "pleasure."

Freud would hate you.

I'm not denying sex is driven by other purposes. It's to show someone how much you love them, but the underlying reason, the basic primal instinct branded in our brains is to reproduce. And that is not something you can argue with.

Sav, sav, sav. This isn't really directly about abortion, it's about the definition of intercourse. Which, while they are related (as is sex and gay marriage), don't take it so personally. People thinking differently than you should not come as such a shock.

This is why I hate debates. Someone always thinks you're attacking them personally, or takes it way too personally and it just becomes a flame fest.

[Faulty Logic]

No, I didn't mean that's the moral reason, I meant primal reason.



Again, being around people you like does not dictate my social interactions with other people. I like the people at the church I attend, they're a great group of people. They even know I don't believe in god and they still let me attend and go to events. You're right about morals though, no one can decide what is truly right and wrong. But, by your logic are you mean to religious people? I mean, when you get down to it religion is just fear and a scape goat. If you do bad things, you go to hell and enjoy eternal damnation, but if you're good you enjoy a life of pleasure and enjoyment. It's just one big conspiracy my friend.

But all in all, we can't really change much. Religion will always be here, and aetheists will always be there too.

I'm agnostic in the Protagoras sense.

If you are around law abiding citizen every week, it will be difficult to rationalize wrong doings (as seen by these people) b/c you want their trust.... and dont say you dont b/c the reason you associate with them is because you want a bond and a bond is formed off of trust... it is hard to foster trust with an undercurrent of deceit therefore making it very implausible that you would be able to get away with doing immoral acts.

[Excaliber]

that statement.
makes you look like a total asshole.
you dont read what i say.
i said sex has multiple purposes.
what if that mother goes crazy, huh?
mothers kill their babies all the time.
they cant take care of it.
the stress.
the pressure. depression.
when its in the womb and only a few weeks old, like, new new, its not even considered a human yet.
im sorry. but its a womans decision. your a man. you cant get pregnant.
you dont understand the decisions the woman has to make.
your not in their shoes.
your saying ew if they had sex make her have it cause its immoral to kill it.

When a baby is considered to be human is an opinion that varies from person to person. Please don't base your argument on that. If a woman gets pregnant when she can't handle it, then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. End of story. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Pregnancy shouldn't be a surprise.

Don't bring in your BS about how men don't understand the decision women have to make. There should be no "decision". Don't get pregnant if you can't support a child.

Yes I am saying that if a girl gets pregnant, then she should have it. If she got pregnant then it is her fault.

[Sith Happens]

I'm agnostic in the Protagoras sense.

If you are around law abiding citizen every week, it will be difficult to rationalize wrong doings (as seen by these people) b/c you want their trust.... and dont say you dont b/c the reason you associate with them is because you want a bond and a bond is formed off of trust... it is hard to foster trust with an undercurrent of deceit therefore making it very implausible that you would be able to get away with doing immoral acts.

True, I agree with you on most points. We're basically on the same side except you're a communist! :rolleyes:

Now we're just getting into humanitarian rights.

So here's the game winning question:

Is it worse to have a woman suffer through pregnancy and child birth, or to kill and unborn fetus?

Again, the question that will end this argument.

[meat.eater]

When a baby is considered to be human is an opinion that varies from person to person. Please don't base your argument on that. If a woman gets pregnant when she can't handle it, then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. End of story. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Pregnancy shouldn't be a surprise.

Don't bring in your BS about how men don't understand the decision women have to make. There should be no "decision". Don't get pregnant if you can't support a child.

Yes I am saying that if a girl gets pregnant, then she should have it. If she got pregnant then it is her fault.

Saying "dont have sex if you cant support a child" is kind of like saying "dont drive a car if you don't want to get in a crash." Sure, it's still a true statement, but that's not going to stop people from driving everywhere.

Sex is just a part of life. People think they can entirely control it, for whatever reason, but you really can't. It's on the same instinctual level as eating or sleeping.

[Faulty Logic]

Yes I am saying that if a girl gets pregnant, then she should have it. If she got pregnant then it is her fault.



Yes I am saying that if a girl gets pregnant, then she should have it. If she agreed to partake in activities that resulted in or brought her into a circumstacne where she was able to get pregnant then it is her fault.

fixed

[savanna]

When a baby is considered to be human is an opinion that varies from person to person. Please don't base your argument on that. If a woman gets pregnant when she can't handle it, then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. End of story. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Pregnancy shouldn't be a surprise.

Don't bring in your BS about how men don't understand the decision women have to make. There should be no "decision". Don't get pregnant if you can't support a child.

Yes I am saying that if a girl gets pregnant, then she should have it. If she got pregnant then it is her fault.

thank god you have no say in what goes on in the government.
phew!
"a women shouldnt have gotten pregnant in the first place."
ONCE AGAIN
WOMEN DONT ALWAYS HAVE SEX WITH THE INTENT OF GETTING PREGNANT.
and what happens if the womens health is not good, and the baby could kill her?
"MAKE HER HAVE IT ANYWAY CAUSE THE SLUT GOT PREGNANT!"
sorry, im just saving you a post, i practically already know what your gonna say.

[Excaliber]

hahaha.
go read my scenerio a couple pages back.
lets say your girlfriend/wife/whatever gets pregnant.
YOU dont want it. YOU dont have the ability to take care of it. and neither does she.
YOU are responsible for it.
whatr you gonna do?
bet your gonna think twice about your it.

I wouldn't be getting anyone pregnant.
If by some chance I was irresponsible and the sex didn't involve some form of contraceptive and my significant other got pregnant then I would be at fault. Regardless of my situation, I would encourage my other to go through with the pregnancy because that abides by my moral standards. My life would be over but I got what I deserved by irresponsibility. It wouldn't come as a shock. I wouldn't try to pawn my responsibility off on others. It would be no one's fault but my own.

[meat.eater]

Again, the question that will end this argument.

That's not the winning question at all... that has very little relevance. Having a child is a lot more than suffering through childbirth...

Sav, your emotional connection to this issue isn't really helping, because you're responding almost entirely emotionally. It's easier for him to respond to an emotional outbreak than it is to a calm discussion.

[Sith Happens]

thank god you have no say in what goes on in the government.
phew!
"a women shouldnt have gotten pregnant in the first place."
ONCE AGAIN
WOMEN DONT ALWAYS HAVE SEX WITH THE INTENT OF GETTING PREGNANT.
and what happens if the womens health is not good, and the baby could kill her?
"MAKE HER HAVE IT ANYWAY CAUSE THE SLUT GOT PREGNANT!"
sorry, im just saving you a post, i practically already know what your gonna say.

He has his beliefs you have yours. Why are you just yelling and kicking to get your way like a little kid?

That's not the winning question at all... that has very little relevance. Having a child is a lot more than suffering through childbirth...

I meant to sav's and Ex's argument. And it has complete relevance, sav says the woman should be able to get an abortion, Ex says no. So, kill and unborn child, or have it in horrible circumstances.

[Excaliber]

Saying "dont have sex if you cant support a child" is kind of like saying "dont drive a car if you don't want to get in a crash." Sure, it's still a true statement, but that's not going to stop people from driving everywhere.

Sex is just a part of life. People think they can entirely control it, for whatever reason, but you really can't. It's on the same instinctual level as eating or sleeping.


thank god you have no say in what goes on in the government.
phew!
"a women shouldnt have gotten pregnant in the first place."
ONCE AGAIN
WOMEN DONT ALWAYS HAVE SEX WITH THE INTENT OF GETTING PREGNANT.
and what happens if the womens health is not good, and the baby could kill her?
"MAKE HER HAVE IT ANYWAY CAUSE THE SLUT GOT PREGNANT!"
sorry, im just saving you a post, i practically already know what your gonna say.

The overall message I am trying to portray is responsibility. If you are having sex just be responsible and know what the possibly consequences are. Use contraceptives to limit the chances of negative repercussions.

My question for you sav is: Why didn't think hypothetical woman not use some form of contraceptive? There are methods available for both men and women.

[savanna]

I wouldn't be getting anyone pregnant.
If by some chance I was irresponsible and the sex didn't involve some form of contraceptive and my significant other got pregnant then I would be at fault. Regardless of my situation, I would encourage my other to go through with the pregnancy because that abides by my moral standards. My life would be over but I got what I deserved by irresponsibility. It wouldn't come as a shock. I wouldn't try to pawn my responsibility off on others. It would be no one's fault but my own.

HAH! so your saying that people ONLY get pregnant when they dont use contraceptives?! FAIL! my mom was using birth control AND my dad used a condom, and i was born.
i almost killed my mother when she had me.

[Sith Happens]

So you would rather not exist?

[Excaliber]

HAH! so your saying that people ONLY get pregnant when they dont use contraceptives?! FAIL! my mom was using birth control AND my dad used a condom, and i was born.
i almost killed my mother when she had me.

That is extremely hard to believe. I won't even bother researching the statistical chance of that happening because the decimal would be so infinitesimally small that it almost 0.

However, if that is the case then I guess you have to look at the fact that your parents didn't take the easy way out. Your mother could have had you aborted and you wouldn't be here now.

[bdog1321]

that statement.
makes you look like a total asshole.
you dont read what i say.
i said sex has multiple purposes.
what if that mother goes crazy, huh?
mothers kill their babies all the time.
they cant take care of it.
the stress.
the pressure. depression.
when its in the womb and only a few weeks old, like, new new, its not even considered a human yet.
im sorry. but its a womans decision. your a man. you cant get pregnant.
you dont understand the decisions the woman has to make.
your not in their shoes.
your saying ew if they had sex make her have it cause its immoral to kill it.

I keep trying to get off, and you're making it very hard to not log back on and do this. STOP USING THE EXTREME MINORITY. THE EXTREME MINORITY IS NOT A BASE FOR AN ARGUMENT. Most abortions are NOT on depressed, overstressed women. they are for convenience.
EDIT: God really. I made this thread about homophobia, and an analogy I used turned it into 10 pages of abortion. Back to the topic, or let it die please. Or close it, meat?

[Sith Happens]

Can you link bdog?

[savanna]

want my mom to call you?
she didnt even know she was pregnant for like 2 months after.

my mom DIDNT want to abort me.
i was her 3 child, she had a house, money to take care of me, she was shocked she was pregnant, but had me anyway.
she was happy to have a little baby girl, she had two boys.

[Faulty Logic]

That is extremely hard to believe. I won't even bother researching the statistical chance of that happening because the decimal would be so infinitesimally small that it almost 0.

However, if that is the case then I guess you have to look at the fact that your parents didn't take the easy way out. Your mother could have had you aborted and you wouldn't be here now.

regardless of whether or nit it is true, statistic mean nothing to the individual b/c that only plays towards our tendency to feel invincible as one of the majority, no matter how large the majority, anything short of 100% means you incur a probability of being a part of the minority. Statistics mean nothing to the individual.

[Sith Happens]

want my mom to call you?
she didnt even know she was pregnant for like 2 months after.

my mom DIDNT want to abort me.
i was her 3 child, she had a house, money to take care of me, she was shocked she was pregnant, but had me anyway.
she was happy to have a little baby girl, she had two boys.

She was in a situation where she could take care of you and provide for you, which is what we're saying. Don't have a kid unless you can provide for them.

[Godmic18]

http://modmycomments.com/x/celeb-quotes/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

[Excaliber]

regardless of whether or nit it is true, statistic mean nothing to the individual b/c that only plays towards our tendency to feel invincible as one of the majority, no matter how large the majority, anything short of 100% means you incur a probability of being a part of the minority. Statistics mean nothing to the individual.

If statistics mean nothing then you might as well say that if you have sex, then you will get pregnant. Right?

[bdog1321]

Can you link bdog?

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

[Excaliber]

want my mom to call you?
she didnt even know she was pregnant for like 2 months after.

my mom DIDNT want to abort me.
i was her 3 child, she had a house, money to take care of me, she was shocked she was pregnant, but had me anyway.
she was happy to have a little baby girl, she had two boys.

Having your mom say the same things as you would do no good.

[savanna]

She was in a situation where she could take care of you and provide for you, which is what we're saying. Don't have a kid unless you can provide for them.

EXACTLY.
but you dont always PLAN a kid.
sometimes they just happen.
YOUR LAST SENTENCE: what if they GET pregnant? and cant take care of it? well then, dont have it.

[Excaliber]

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

The 93% of abortions mention above is what I am against. Just to make myself clear. The convenience abortions are the results of irresponsibility.

[savanna]

Having your mom say the same things as you would do no good.

want to know why it wouldnt do any good?
Because your a stubborn little shit who doesnt look any further than past your own nose.

im pretty sure i know how i was born, i kind of asked and was told the entire story.

[Excaliber]

EXACTLY.
but you dont always PLAN a kid.
sometimes they just happen.
YOUR LAST SENTENCE: what if they GET pregnant? and cant take care of it? well then, dont have it.

Then put it up for adoption. Don't just kill it.

[Sith Happens]

EXACTLY.
but you dont always PLAN a kid.
sometimes they just happen.
YOUR LAST SENTENCE: what if they GET pregnant? and cant take care of it? well then, dont have it.

Again, I'm not against abortion so I don't know why you're preaching to me. All I'm saying is THINK before you have sex, I understand people love each other and lust is a pretty damn strong emotion, just if you can't handle the responsibility of a kid, don't have one.

[Faulty Logic]

If statistics mean nothing then you might as well say that if you have sex, then you will get pregnant. Right?

No read closer. They incur a probability. what I'm saying is that using statistics to diminish an argument by its implausibility is absurd.

[savanna]

im pretty sure you only read half the things i post.
most women? dont want to give up something that came from them? its harder than you think.

[Faulty Logic]

im pretty sure you only read half the things i post.
most women? dont want to give up something that came from them? its harder than you think.
You know presonally?

How can you say he doesnt understand unless you understand which means youve had a kid or have had an abortion/miscarriage etc.

I like you, but your logic sucks.

[Excaliber]

No read closer. They incur a probability. what I'm saying is that using statistics to diminish an argument by its implausibility is absurd.

You just said that statistics meant nothing to the individual.
I responded.
No grey area.

[Sith Happens]

You know presonally?

How can you say he doesnt understand unless you understand which means youve had a kid or have had an abortion/miscarriage etc.

I like you, but your logic sucks.



Agreed. It's just like gay marriage, you can't argue for or against it unless you're homosexual yourself. You have no premise to do so without being homosexual.
Edit: You can, there's just no point. Much like this debate heh.

[Excaliber]

im pretty sure you only read half the things i post.
most women? dont want to give up something that came from them? its harder than you think.

You are talking yourself in circles. If you don't want to give up your child then have it. Where is the debate?

[Faulty Logic]

You just said that statistics meant nothing to the individual.
I responded.
No grey area.

I said statistics mean nothing to this individual b/c you incur a probability meaning that statistics of 99% isnt 100% we tend to believe we are of the 99% but there is one person per 100 that it happens to.... to that person their sense of security in stats were false, therefore using an argument that lies on the stats is inherently wrong b/c it automatically excludes the minority.

[Godmic18]

Where is the debate?

This isn't a debate. This is an argument. Neither side will convince the other that they are wrong so it is just a heated waste of time that has taken over an entire thread.

[Sith Happens]

I said statistics mean nothing to this individual b/c you incur a probability meaning that statistics of 99% isnt 100% we tend to believe we are of the 99% but there is one person per 100 that it happens to.... to that person their sense of security in stats were false, therefore using an argument that lies on the stats is inherently wrong b/c it automatically excludes the minority.



It doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it not 100% true.

This isn't a debate. This is an argument. Neither side will convince the other that they are wrong so it is just a heated waste of time that has taken over an entire thread.

Agreed, but I am enjoying myself.

[bdog1321]

This isn't a debate. This is an argument. Neither side will convince the other that they are wrong so it is just a heated waste of time that has taken over an entire thread.

Eh, what can ya do? Let's just count ourselves lucky they don't live near each other, or we'd have a brawl on our hands.

[Faulty Logic]

Agreed. It's just like gay marriage, you can't argue for or against it unless you're homosexual yourself. You have no premise to do so without being homosexual.
Edit: You can, there's just no point. Much like this debate heh.

But as Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it"

I can change "say" to "do". As long as it doesnt threaten physical safety, I will defend our right to do what you will.

[Godmic18]

Eh, what can ya do? Let's just count ourselves lucky they don't live near each other, or we'd have a brawl on our hands.

Eh. I'd watch it on YouTube.:cool:

[Excaliber]

I said statistics mean nothing to this individual b/c you incur a probability meaning that statistics of 99% isnt 100% we tend to believe we are of the 99% but there is one person per 100 that it happens to.... to that person their sense of security in stats were false, therefore using an argument that lies on the stats is inherently wrong b/c it automatically excludes the minority.



I agree with the clarification. But statistics aren't completely useless. They influence people's decisions. They probably shouldn't because as like you said, people think that they are always part of the majority.

[Sith Happens]

But as Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it"

I can change "say" to "do". As long as it doesnt threaten physical safety, I will defend our right to do what you will.

Very true, I like that quote as well.

[bdog1321]

Eh. I'd watch it on YouTube.:cool:

Screw youtube, you could make a feature length film with this crap.

[Faulty Logic]

It doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it not 100% true.



Agreed, but I am enjoying myself.

which means, ...by your second half to the post i quoted.... that its worthless b/c in application the purpose is to apply to all, laws dont apply to the majority they apply to all, so a law based off of an argument that applies to only the majority is inherently flawed.

[savanna]

im not reading all the posts i just missed, cause im tired of fighting and all, but..
i could technically throw out another contraversial subject and watch the fighting boom :p

[Sith Happens]

which means, ...by your second half to the post i quoted.... that its worthless b/c in application the purpose is to apply to all, laws dont apply to the majority they apply to all, so a law based off of an argument that applies to only the majority is inherently flawed.



I agree, but laws aren't statistics. And this is my last post, good argument everyone. Go team!

[Faulty Logic]

I agree with the clarification. But statistics aren't completely useless. They influence people's decisions. They probably shouldn't because as like you said, people think that they are always part of the majority.

But people DO use statistics as evident in your argument ubi supra, so now YOU'RE talking in circles =P.

[savanna]

im going to throw it out there;
Would abortion be acceptable if you knew the child you were going to have was going to die within six months to a year of having it?

[Magician]

Homophobia: You're all gay!

[Excaliber]

im going to throw it out there;
Would abortion be acceptable if you knew the child you were going to have was going to die within six months to a year of having it?

What would be the circumstances of such a condition?

[Faulty Logic]

im going to throw it out there;
Would abortion be acceptable if you knew the child you were going to have was going to die within six months to a year of having it?

why?
what about a day? a minute? ZOMG a second!?

pointless.

Time does not change the value of a life is the argument used by pro life b/c it is still "murder" and the other side "pro-choice" already believes in abortion for supposed full life living babies so of course theyd say yes.... you fail.

[savanna]

what im saying is
when a couple has a child, its such a severely important thing. losing it.. its heart breaking.
people go crazy because of it. having it be born, then die without them having a say in it.
would it be easier if they abort it, then see if they want to try again?
or adoption. if the wife isnt capable of producing a healthy baby.

[Faulty Logic]

what im saying is
when a couple has a child, its such a severely important thing. losing it.. its heart breaking.
people go crazy because of it. having it be born, then die without them having a say in it.
would it be easier if they abort it, then see if they want to try again?
or adoption. if the wife isnt capable of producing a healthy baby.

I know what you're saying. Re-read what I said... your scenario only lends to persuading the prolifers which still see it as murder so its moot.

[savanna]

faulty, my statement was mainly to exc. :p
i agree with you

[meat.eater]

Look, the fact is there's very little argument that can be presented to the claim "If you dont want to have kids, don't have sex." That is undeniably true.

The problem is that the world (and myself) isnt so black and white. One HAS to consider the tribulations of human nature when applying the law. It simply is not pragmatic to apply political policy that deals with extremes or what could be determined as "ideal" situations. Because of this, I will never be pro-life.

[savanna]

i agree with meat.
everything isnt black and white.
theres always underlying color, to everything.

[meat.eater]

Also, I like to point out to bdog that while the ramifications of this thread are ultimately an interesting discussion, your definition of the word "homophobic" is not.

You took the word as defined clinically, meaning that pertains to something ordinary and results in "attacks" of sorts. But the suffix itself is actually Greek, I think, and is simply translated in English to "fear of," which is much more vague and much more applicable. I think someone who is perhaps "homophobic" (also keep in mind our definitions in english are only as valid as how society interprets them) does not suffer from homophobia.

As modern psychology would tell us, every emotion is ultimately bracketed into happiness, sadness, fear and love (and maybe guilt? I dont remember, it's been a while). And that even emotions of disgust--which is a big one, most people confuse this with anger even though anger is hardly a stand alone emotion unless it is in a righteous matter in the face of injustice--or misunderstanding (as I think applies to you with homosexuals) can be bracketted into fear. Whether or not you directly feel the forward action of being afraid doesn't change the psychological impulse--often fear is SEVERELY suppressed.

[Match Strike]

i agree with meat.
everything isnt black and white.
theres always underlying color, to everything.

http://www.cushcity.com/images/0245431051.jpg

15 pages in 4 hours. Good job TAO.

OP: Can I just call you a bigot instead?

[The Butcher]

http://www.cushcity.com/images/0245431051.jpg

15 pages in 4 hours. Good job TAO.

OP: Can I just call you a bigot instead?

Homey don't play that.

[Wizzy`]

SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Dark7]

http://www.cushcity.com/images/0245431051.jpg

15 pages in 4 hours. Good job TAO.

OP: Can I just call you a bigot instead?

that made me LOL hard, btw i love gay people... less competition for us striaght guys eh?

[savanna]

OP: Can I just call you a bigot instead?


im not sure what that means >.>

[iceman2001]

@Bdog

I haven't met you, nor do I really know much about your interactions with gay people. Therefore, I really don't think it's fair without more information for me to call you a homophobe. However, I don't agree with your anaylsis on what being a homophobe consists of. In short, you can still be a homophobe even if you don't get panic attacks every time you see a gay person.
Homophobia is the fear of homosexual people. So given you have 2 friends that are homosexuals, you aren't really a homophobe.



qft.

I have two black friends.....am I not racist ;)

Actually having gay friends probably is a good indicator that you aren't a homophobe. However, it isn't an absolute indicator on whether you are or are not.

[Warcow]

research says that a prevalent reason for people being gay is a hormonal imbalance, prompting the thought that it is not right, and that there actually IS something wrong with it, because there is an IMbalance

You are either hilariously misinformed or just generally ignorant and pull facts from your ass to defend your prejudice view. Any research there is on the topic is preliminary, and most of it is in direct opposition with other findings. There is some limited support for small differences in brain structure, but there is no way for now of knowing which if either is causal of the other. In addition, none of the research we've begun to gather even remotely begins to explain cultural homosexuality such as practiced by the Greeks and other societies.

Yes, you probably are a homophobe in many ways. No, there is no currently known biological basis for your bigotry. Any evidence for your claim on hormone imbalance is something I would love to see.

Here is a tidbit that you'll probably enjoy, the majority of supposedly heterosexual men who hold prejudice against homosexual men tend to show more arousal when exposed to homosexual pornographic material. (Yes I can provide numerous peer reviewed psych articles on this matter)

Enjoy your ignorance. (I didn't read the whole thread due to lack of time, hopefully someone brought this up before me.)

[Kyir]

You are either hilariously misinformed or just generally ignorant and pull facts from your ass to defend your prejudice view.

Or C, all of the above.

[Greed]

I have two black friends.....am I not racist ;)

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

[Jeffery]

Right up there with bonzai kittens.

[uniquinous]

Regarding the issue of marriage:
Lovers? Or are you getting at a married couple? Sorry...I'm sick and a little thick ATM.Let me expand and rephrase. Say you (or some random other guy) has had his share of relationships. All of them have been long lasting, some involved sex, etc. One day this guy realizes that the girl he is with is "the one" - that he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. They have no desire to reproduce, but he wants to say he will be with her thick and thin, in sickness and health, so long as they both shall live. Clearly there is a difference between this relationship, and one of his previous lovers. So, what would you call the term for what this couple wants to do? Is that not marriage? If not, what is it?
----------------------------

Regarding religion:
Because religion gives humans morals, something to drive their life forward knowing if they do something horrible they'll spend eternity in hell. Without religion we would all be lost, and I'm not even religious.This just... isn't true. I remember I found some research paper for the Christian thread which showed atheism in developed nations correlated to lower crime (and higher education) than theism, specifically in regards to social issues. I can try to find the paper again if you really want, but since it's late, I'll just point out my belief that science says otherwise.
--------------------------------

Regarding abortion:
I wouldn't be getting anyone pregnant.
If by some chance I was irresponsible and the sex didn't involve some form of contraceptive and my significant other got pregnant then I would be at fault. Regardless of my situation, I would encourage my other to go through with the pregnancy because that abides by my moral standards. My life would be over but I got what I deserved by irresponsibility. It wouldn't come as a shock. I wouldn't try to pawn my responsibility off on others. It would be no one's fault but my own.I like meat's example of "if you don't want to get into a car crash, never drive". I couldn't help but notice you ignored it. Let's apply it here. Let's say you decided to engage in intercourse in a responsible manner by using contraception, and for whatever reason your partner still got pregnant. Do you 'deal with the irresponsibility'? Let me use meat's example: if you as a safe driver were exhibiting full responsibility on the road, but someone else blew a red light and harmed you, did you "get what you deserved" because, hey, you could have avoided it by not driving? I hope you see the silliness of that argument.

The biggest problem I see with pro-life arguments, is that they tend to point to events which are unchangeable in the past. Can you stand before a scared pregnant woman and say "well too bad you should have prevented what happened in the past"? The argument inherently denies the present situation. Sure, no sex = no pregnancy, but what happens if the starting point is "already pregnant"? Suddenly the pro-life argument doesn't work, or most often reverts back to "well you shouldn't have done something in the past". Well, again, that's true, but you do anything about the past. So, given pregnancy, Excalibur, what do you tell a woman standing before you?

In an earlier post (I forgot to quote), you mentioned that abortion was the largest form of irresponsibility. I disagree. Tossing a baby in a dumpster, bringing a baby to term with an addiction in place already, or a severe avoidable congenital malformation, or AIDS, or a number of other things, is much more irresponsible.

That wasn't the point. Sex is to have kids, that's the reason for it.I believe that most people getting abortions didn't have sex for that reason. That most strongly suggests they're doing it for other reasons.

How about you put yourself in the place of an unborn child? Would you like to have been aborted? This is America. No matter WHAT kind of environment the child is born into, in this country it has the opportunity to better itself. The unborn child can also feel pain.Depends on the stage. A fetus generally doesn't feel pain - it's a clump of cells, no different than a tumor in many ways. We talk about a 40 week pregnancy from the time of last menstruation to delivery. Did you know that on average, the first 2 weeks are pre-fertilization? The next 2 weeks, the clump of cells needs to make its way down to the uterus and start implanting. Yes, an entire month can go by without the microscopic clump even being embedded in the uterus. By week 4, it's three layers of cells.

Do you know why the cutoff for abortion is 24 weeks? That's the stage where a fetus has a (small) chance of viability. Before that, it can't survive on its own. A cancerous tumor is living tissue, and many have nerves. Do you think they care when they are removed?

Agreed. It's just like gay marriage, you can't argue for or against it unless you're homosexual yourself. You have no premise to do so without being homosexual.yeah, much like equal rights for blacks. Damn Lincoln - HE HAD NO PREMISE!

[TheBlazedAce]

yeah, much like equal rights for blacks. Damn Lincoln - HE HAD NO PREMISE!
First of all, I agree with ALL of your points. And I think they are well explained.

And this doesn't in any way contradict what you said, but just to point out:

The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the south. The whole point, the only reason lincoln in fact enacted it, was to cripple the south as much as possible in the upcoming civil war.

Now, he did it in his mind to save the country. Still, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to say he intended it to free slaves, nor did that actually do so.

Just a little historical truth amidst this large amount of bigotry...

*steps back slowly*

-blazed

[shurtugal]

I have a fear of ceiling fans :(

[bdog1321]

Regarding the issue of marriage:
Let me expand and rephrase. Say you (or some random other guy) has had his share of relationships. All of them have been long lasting, some involved sex, etc. One day this guy realizes that the girl he is with is "the one" - that he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. They have no desire to reproduce, but he wants to say he will be with her thick and thin, in sickness and health, so long as they both shall live. Clearly there is a difference between this relationship, and one of his previous lovers. So, what would you call the term for what this couple wants to do? Is that not marriage? If not, what is it?
----------------------------
Depends on the stage. A fetus generally doesn't feel pain - it's a clump of cells, no different than a tumor in many ways. We talk about a 40 week pregnancy from the time of last menstruation to delivery. Did you know that on average, the first 2 weeks are pre-fertilization? The next 2 weeks, the clump of cells needs to make its way down to the uterus and start implanting. Yes, an entire month can go by without the microscopic clump even being embedded in the uterus. By week 4, it's three layers of cells.

Do you know why the cutoff for abortion is 24 weeks? That's the stage where a fetus has a (small) chance of viability. Before that, it can't survive on its own. A cancerous tumor is living tissue, and many have nerves. Do you think they care when they are removed?

yeah, much like equal rights for blacks. Damn Lincoln - HE HAD NO PREMISE!

Yes I would accept your example as marriage, Uniq. And on abortion, my views are really black and white. It matters not to me when you remove the baby, but that it is removed in the first place A fetus will grow into a baby, will it not? Will a tumor? (Yes, I know there was a tumor baby in Hellboy2 har har har) Is there any doubt that it will grow into what you would consider a human? That being said, the answer for most people is no. So, no matter when you remove the baby, abortion is preventing a life from coming into fruition that would most definitely have grown into a child. I firmly believe that every person deserves a chance at life. "Even if the person grows up to be a terrorist?" In this case, yes. All men are created equal, but it is what we do with our lives that set us apart. At that age, just coming out of the womb or previous, no one has made bad choices. No one is a terrorist. Just an innocent baby with a whole life ahead of him/her. Life.

[Sith Happens]

Regarding the issue of marriage:
Let me expand and rephrase. Say you (or some random other guy) has had his share of relationships. All of them have been long lasting, some involved sex, etc. One day this guy realizes that the girl he is with is "the one" - that he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. They have no desire to reproduce, but he wants to say he will be with her thick and thin, in sickness and health, so long as they both shall live. Clearly there is a difference between this relationship, and one of his previous lovers. So, what would you call the term for what this couple wants to do? Is that not marriage? If not, what is it?
----------------------------

Regarding religion:
This just... isn't true. I remember I found some research paper for the Christian thread which showed atheism in developed nations correlated to lower crime (and higher education) than theism, specifically in regards to social issues. I can try to find the paper again if you really want, but since it's late, I'll just point out my belief that science says otherwise.
--------------------------------

Regarding abortion:
I like meat's example of "if you don't want to get into a car crash, never drive". I couldn't help but notice you ignored it. Let's apply it here. Let's say you decided to engage in intercourse in a responsible manner by using contraception, and for whatever reason your partner still got pregnant. Do you 'deal with the irresponsibility'? Let me use meat's example: if you as a safe driver were exhibiting full responsibility on the road, but someone else blew a red light and harmed you, did you "get what you deserved" because, hey, you could have avoided it by not driving? I hope you see the silliness of that argument.

The biggest problem I see with pro-life arguments, is that they tend to point to events which are unchangeable in the past. Can you stand before a scared pregnant woman and say "well too bad you should have prevented what happened in the past"? The argument inherently denies the present situation. Sure, no sex = no pregnancy, but what happens if the starting point is "already pregnant"? Suddenly the pro-life argument doesn't work, or most often reverts back to "well you shouldn't have done something in the past". Well, again, that's true, but you do anything about the past. So, given pregnancy, Excalibur, what do you tell a woman standing before you?

In an earlier post (I forgot to quote), you mentioned that abortion was the largest form of irresponsibility. I disagree. Tossing a baby in a dumpster, bringing a baby to term with an addiction in place already, or a severe avoidable congenital malformation, or AIDS, or a number of other things, is much more irresponsible.

I believe that most people getting abortions didn't have sex for that reason. That most strongly suggests they're doing it for other reasons.

Depends on the stage. A fetus generally doesn't feel pain - it's a clump of cells, no different than a tumor in many ways. We talk about a 40 week pregnancy from the time of last menstruation to delivery. Did you know that on average, the first 2 weeks are pre-fertilization? The next 2 weeks, the clump of cells needs to make its way down to the uterus and start implanting. Yes, an entire month can go by without the microscopic clump even being embedded in the uterus. By week 4, it's three layers of cells.

Do you know why the cutoff for abortion is 24 weeks? That's the stage where a fetus has a (small) chance of viability. Before that, it can't survive on its own. A cancerous tumor is living tissue, and many have nerves. Do you think they care when they are removed?

yeah, much like equal rights for blacks. Damn Lincoln - HE HAD NO PREMISE!

When I was talking about having sex is for having kids, I meant the lower primal reason, not the reason we think we do it.

And Lincoln was actually quite racist, he freed blacks to the South to help him during the war, he had no intention of giving them equal rights.

[meat.eater]

And Lincoln was actually quite racist, he freed blacks to the South to help him during the war, he had no intention of giving them equal rights.

Source?

Lincoln was one of the greatest men to live in our country for what he did, regardless of what you think his intentions were.

[meat.eater]

Yes I would accept your example as marriage, Uniq. And on abortion, my views are really black and white. It matters not to me when you remove the baby, but that it is removed in the first place A fetus will grow into a baby, will it not? Will a tumor? (Yes, I know there was a tumor baby in Hellboy2 har har har) Is there any doubt that it will grow into what you would consider a human? That being said, the answer for most people is no. So, no matter when you remove the baby, abortion is preventing a life from coming into fruition that would most definitely have grown into a child. I firmly believe that every person deserves a chance at life. "Even if the person grows up to be a terrorist?" In this case, yes. All men are created equal, but it is what we do with our lives that set us apart. At that age, just coming out of the womb or previous, no one has made bad choices. No one is a terrorist. Just an innocent baby with a whole life ahead of him/her. Life.

Once again, on paper, it's really easy to say that every person deserves a shot at life. If someone WANTS to have an abortion, they obviously don't want that child. If you legally prevent them from having an abortion, they will still not want that child when it is born... Is that a good place to bring in a child to the world?

It's just strange to control something that isn't the governments place. What right does the government(or you) have to control the birth of someone else's child? Is it your child? No. Does it affect your life if that child is aborted or not? No. So why be so vehement about it? If you choose to not abort your child... don't.

[bludhoundz]

I can understand disliking / discriminating based on actions or decisions, but homosexuality is not a choice. You might as well hate black people too.. oh wait...

[Sith Happens]

Source?

Lincoln was one of the greatest men to live in our country for what he did, regardless of what you think his intentions were.

That's what was taught to me in every history book I've read, he did not want equal rights for blacks.

I'll hunt around and see if I can scan some things from my school library and PM them to you.

[Jeffery]

That's what was taught to me in every history book I've read, he did not want equal rights for blacks.

I'll hunt around and see if I can scan some things from my school library and PM them to you.
You might not realize this, but blacks were already free in the north, and were already in formed regiments. Lincoln did not free slaves just to fight in the war. They were free in the north beforethe war ever started.

[Sith Happens]

I realize they were free, but he didn't want equal rights for them.

[bdog1321]

Once again, on paper, it's really easy to say that every person deserves a shot at life. If someone WANTS to have an abortion, they obviously don't want that child. If you legally prevent them from having an abortion, they will still not want that child when it is born... Is that a good place to bring in a child to the world?

It's just strange to control something that isn't the governments place. What right does the government(or you) have to control the birth of someone else's child? Is it your child? No. Does it affect your life if that child is aborted or not? No. So why be so vehement about it? If you choose to not abort your child... don't.

Iffy. Murder is illegal, and I see it as murder. Government's place? It's a matter of opinion.

[Jeffery]

Iffy. Murder is illegal, and I see it as murder. Government's place? It's a matter of opinion.
Murder is illegal. Abortion is not. So abortion isn;t murder.

[Match Strike]

Clarification: A couple states that were allied with the North but still slaveholding were not affected by the emancipation proclamation (Missouri and I think one other state) though they were affected by later constitutional ammendments freeing slaves. The emancipation proclamation was a political/strategic maneuver to prevent european countries from intervening on the behalf of the Confederacy, which wanted to supply them with cotton without imposing taxes on outgoing goods.

By "freeing" the slaves (even though he had no real ability to do so until the South was defeated) Lincoln made slavery one of the big issues of the war, and European nations which had long since banned slavery were concerned with appearing morally hypocritical if they took the side of the Confederacy.

I have little doubt that Lincoln was genuinely for emancipation, but he had bigger priorities: namely winning the war.

[bdog1321]

Murder is illegal. Abortion is not. So abortion isn;t murder.

I wish my thought process was that simple.

[Sith Happens]

Clarification: A couple states that were allied with the North but still slaveholding were not affected by the emancipation proclamation (Missouri and I think one other state) though they were affected by later constitutional ammendments freeing slaves. The emancipation proclamation was a political/strategic maneuver to prevent european countries from intervening on the behalf of the Confederacy, which wanted to supply them with cotton without imposing taxes on outgoing goods.

By "freeing" the slaves (even though he had no real ability to do so until the South was defeated) Lincoln made slavery one of the big issues of the war, and European nations which had long since banned slavery were concerned with appearing morally hypocritical if they took the side of the Confederacy.

I have little doubt that Lincoln was genuinely for emancipation, but he had bigger priorities: namely winning the war.

Beat me to posting that. ;)

[uniquinous]

Re: Lincoln. OK OK everyone it was a bad example - no need to nitpick. Was just saying that it is the majority's place to help the minority - and that there's nothing wrong with that.


Yes I would accept your example as marriage, Uniq.whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

You just admitted that a heterosexual couple that wants to spend the rest of their lives in a loving monogamous relationship with each other, regardless of reproduction, is marriage. So, if reproduction doesn't define marriage, what does, in your mind? (again, leave the gender part out of your definition, for now).

And on abortion, my views are really black and white. It matters not to me when you remove the baby, but that it is removed in the first place A fetus will grow into a baby, will it not? Will a tumor?Eh, I really don't want to show the pictures here, as they're a little graphic, but yes. Just recently a newborn was found to have a brain tumor, and it turned out to be growing a fetus... I kid you not. The picture I saw was a foot coming out of a baby's brain. They found other body parts as they dug deeper.

Anyway the point is that you can't use the "well it *could* become a human" argument - every sperm in you right now *could* become a human, given the right circumstances. You seem to have no problem wasting 23 chromosomes, millions of sperm at a time, yet wasting 46 chromosomes once is suddenly bad? Because it *could* become something?

The fact that you say it *could* become a human suggests that it isn't "human" at that state.

At that age, just coming out of the womb or previous, no one has made bad choices. No one is a terrorist. Just an innocent baby with a whole life ahead of him/her. Life.At that stage, there's nothing ahead for that tissue. There's potential, depending on circumstances - but it is not an individual human life. As for "innocent baby with a whole life ahead of him/her", what kind of life do you suppose neonatal crack addition, HIV, or a horrible genetic disorder produces?

Iffy. Murder is illegal, and I see it as murder. Government's place? It's a matter of opinion.It's interesting, because every other law that comes about it a matter of reducing grief in the population. Stealing, murder, arson, etc - these are things which do damage to people, and so we've enacted laws to discourage/prevent such grief. But there's never a time when one person gets an abortion, and it directly harms or causes *direct* grief to anyone else. You can make claims about some unborn fetus which has no higher brain function, or doesn't have nerves at all, but no one can stand up and say "this is damaging to me" somehow. Those who want anti-abortion laws don't want to protect or seek security/justice for themselves (what is generally granted by every other law) - they just want to impose their beliefs upon others.

Abortion was legal and publicly advertised, even in the US, before it was made illegal. During the time when women could not terminate pregnancies, the number of maternal deaths shot up due to botched home "practices", lack of antibiotics, and overall poor access to necessary healthcare.

Keep in mind: no one is pro-abortion. No one. They're pro-choice. Pro-options. Now what you need to ask yourself is, do you want to feel the loss of these fetuses, or do you want the loss of fetuses along with the loss of women's lives as well? You can say abortion is bad all you want, but those are basically the two options. Pick.

[bdog1321]

Re: Lincoln. OK OK everyone it was a bad example - no need to nitpick. Was just saying that it is the majority's place to help the minority - and that there's nothing wrong with that.


whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

You just admitted that a heterosexual couple that wants to spend the rest of their lives in a loving monogamous relationship with each other, regardless of reproduction, is marriage. So, if reproduction doesn't define marriage, what does, in your mind? (again, leave the gender part out of your definition, for now).

Eh, I really don't want to show the pictures here, as they're a little graphic, but yes. Just recently a newborn was found to have a brain tumor, and it turned out to be growing a fetus... I kid you not. The picture I saw was a foot coming out of a baby's brain. They found other body parts as they dug deeper.

Anyway the point is that you can't use the "well it *could* become a human" argument - every sperm in you right now *could* become a human, given the right circumstances. You seem to have no problem wasting 23 chromosomes, millions of sperm at a time, yet wasting 46 chromosomes once is suddenly bad? Because it *could* become something?

The fact that you say it *could* become a human suggests that it isn't "human" at that state.

At that stage, there's nothing ahead for that tissue. There's potential, depending on circumstances - but it is not an individual human life. As for "innocent baby with a whole life ahead of him/her", what kind of life do you suppose neonatal crack addition, HIV, or a horrible genetic disorder produces?

It's interesting, because every other law that comes about it a matter of reducing grief in the population. Stealing, murder, arson, etc - these are things which do damage to people, and so we've enacted laws to discourage/prevent such grief. But there's never a time when one person gets an abortion, and it directly harms or causes *direct* grief to anyone else. You can make claims about some unborn fetus which has no higher brain function, or doesn't have nerves at all, but no one can stand up and say "this is damaging to me" somehow. Those who want anti-abortion laws don't want to protect or seek security/justice for themselves (what is generally granted by every other law) - they just want to impose their beliefs upon others.

Abortion was legal and publicly advertised, even in the US, before it was made illegal. During the time when women could not terminate pregnancies, the number of maternal deaths shot up due to botched home "practices", lack of antibiotics, and overall poor access to necessary healthcare.

Keep in mind: no one is pro-abortion. No one. They're pro-choice. Pro-options. Now what you need to ask yourself is, do you want to feel the loss of these fetuses, or do you want the loss of fetuses along with the loss of women's lives as well? You can say abortion is bad all you want, but those are basically the two options. Pick.

Due to situations presented by Meat and others that I had not previously considered, I said last night that I revised my views on marriage. Abortion....this argument is paradoxical because every time I make a counter-argument, someone brings up another extreme, EXTREME minority, (such as the tumor-baby. Seriously, I've never heard of such a thing, it must be incredibly rare) to represent the majority. "During the time when women could not terminate pregnancies, the number of maternal deaths shot up due to botched home "practices", lack of antibiotics, and overall poor access to necessary healthcare." This just shows how dependent we are on abortion, no? Did we see this before abortion was ever on the table? I'm not sure, but I can promise you it wasn't in the numbers you're quoting. And @ the grief portion, you are seriously telling me not to act because it does not negatively impact me? Like, if you saw your friend being beaten up, you were not involved in any way so it did not impact you in any way, you would not act? Something can be important to someone without affecting them on a personal level. To suggest that it cannot is absurd.

[uniquinous]

Due to situations presented by Meat and others that I had not previously considered, I said last night that I revised my views on marriage.Does that mean now you agree that marriage is just as valid for homosexuals as heterosexuals?


Abortion....this argument is paradoxical because every time I make a counter-argument, someone brings up another extreme, EXTREME minority, (such as the tumor-baby. Seriously, I've never heard of such a thing, it must be incredibly rare) to represent the majority.I'm not representing the majority at all. But when you say things like "this could NEVER happen", and it's wrong, I'm going to point it out. Nevertheless, my point is that your claims are just poor. What *could* become inherently means it *isn't* that thing now.

This just shows how dependent we are on abortion, no? Did we see this before abortion was ever on the table? .. ..before... ? ? :huh: ? ... ?

sorry... when is this period you speak of which exists before abortion was around? :huh:

And @ the grief portion, you are seriously telling me not to act because it does not negatively impact me? Like, if you saw your friend being beaten up, you were not involved in any way so it did not impact you in any way, you would not act?If your friend is being assaulted, there is a law against that. Why? Because laws are created to minimize the grief and harm to every person. So even though it's your friend, and not you, the point is that no one would want that act (in this case, assault) to happen to them; that someone can logically think/believe "that would be undesirable and unfair if it happened to me, therefore, it shouldn't happen to anyone". The same cannot apply to abortion, because as you said, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but is not a human at that time.

Tell me, bdog - are you a vegetarian?

[TheBlazedAce]

Tell me, bdog - are you a vegetarian?
Oh no, no you don't. You're going to open up YET ANOTHER discussion where someone tries to defend "lives" that "can't fend for themselves" ... or talk ... or think ... or feel (because that actually matters *sarcasm*).

-blazed

[uniquinous]

ha yeah you're right - this thread gets around i'll let someone else pick up the end of that setup...

[bdog1321]

uniq, no Matter what some on this forum say, i am not unintelligent. I see where this is going, and it is just another situation which, in my mind, has no correlation with the matter at hand. Yes i see how you could say that animals are just as helpless, but we eat them. Well, if we were not meant to eat them, why would we be able to obtain vital nutrients from animals while there is a class of animals that eats entirely a diet consisting of plants? If we were meant to practice abortion, would we not possess an internal natural way of doing it? Btw i am not a vegetarian. And yes i think i now accept gay marriage, because i am not a very religious person so i would be lying to myself if i took the religious way out. Sorry i take so long to post i am posting with my new phone.