>> ^Reefie:

I've often found myself alienated from other men... I think differently, I behave differently, I'm not into typical 'guy' things. Generally I find I understand women relatively well but am totally clueless when it comes to how guys' minds work. At one point in my life I was giving serious thought to the prospect of gender change but there was one obstacle I hadn't counted on - private medical insurance companies and the NHS won't contemplate gender change unless the individual is attracted to those of the same sex. The idea of creating a lesbian didn't go down well with those who have the authority to make such decisions on my behalf.


Wow, that's an extremely bizarre and arbitrary line to draw on the part of the NHS. Maybe they suppose that people like you will have an easier life as a "feminine" heterosexual man (or "male lesbian") than as a transsexual lesbian (and vice-versa for women)?

One thing I've heard from an acquaintance who works with trans people though is that sometimes men and women who are uncomfortable with their gender (often because of childhood trauma) become convinced they are the wrong sex as a means of avoiding tackling those issues. That's one reason why having to go through psychotherapy (the woman I cite is a therapist specialised in this issue) before being allowed to begin hrt/grs is not a bad idea. But refusing gender reassignment just because it'd render you "homosexual", that's pretty absurd.

Like @NetRunner said, he's X minus 20.

In other words, he's the second closest person on the planet to the most powerful position on the planet. It's due in large part to his being the American-born privileged white male heterosexual Christian son of a wealthy businessman and governor who sent him through Harvard Law. And now he's standing in a room full of insanely rich (and I'm assuming) heterosexual-identified Christians complaining that he would be better off if he were Latino. Would he even be in that room if he were Latino? I doubt it.

He had all those advantages in life and has reached such heights from them, and that's fine. But then, when it would be convenient, he wishes he could briefly be Latino, so he can have that limited advantage too. This shows a complete lack of appreciation (both meanings) for the advantages he has and the benefits they have gained him. He wouldn't have even gotten into the primaries.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

I am a white heterosexual male, and I approve this message.

*quality

>> ^shinyblurry:

If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding?

Yes. And frankly, as long as all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with polygamy. It's not my thing, but if that floats your boat, go nuts.

>> ^shinyblurry:

How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car?

That is exactly the kind of retarded question I would have expected. Kudos to you for keeping my expectations of you consistently low. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't even have to explain this, but since you clearly have the intellectual capacity of a slightly stupid chimpanzee....

You cannot marry a dog. It is illegal and always will be, because they cannot give an informed consent,
i.e. completely fucking irrelevant to a discussion pertaining to what two adults decide to do.
>> ^shinyblurry:

He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.

He's legally within his rights to do so. And once again, the rest of us get to call him an asshole for doing so.

And as for "corrupting the institute of marriage"? I think you'll find that heterosexual christians are fucking that up just fine by themselves.

>> ^shinyblurry:

First of all, it wasn't discrimination. He didn't refuse to serve them because they are gay. He refused to make them a gay wedding cake. Little bit of a difference there. The nastiness that comes out of people when they think they have an excuse to attack Christians is the real story. Immediately after the chick-fil-a controversy you had so much vile filth posted in comments and message boards, even celebrity tweets, viciously maligning Christians. That's just fine with people, but it's not okay that a man will only bake heterosexual wedding cakes. It's a hypocritical double-standard.


Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.

Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.

Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.

First of all, it wasn't discrimination. He didn't refuse to serve them because they are gay. He refused to make them a gay wedding cake. Little bit of a difference there. The nastiness that comes out of people when they think they have an excuse to attack Christians is the real story. Immediately after the chick-fil-a controversy you had so much vile filth posted in comments and message boards, even celebrity tweets, viciously maligning Christians. That's just fine with people, but it's not okay that a man will only bake heterosexual wedding cakes. It's a hypocritical double-standard.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert


Rosa Parks was a set up as well. So would me saying right now, "So you're against Rosa Park's fight for equality you fucking racist." Either it's right or it's wrong, discrimination is wrong doesn't matter what tool you use to shine a light on it, just that it's represented fairly. Chick fil A was a situation where the president said that shit himself, that's not a set up, that's putting your face out their and people bitch slapping the shit out of you.

If I do something or say something wrong to a person, I ask forgiveness from both my God and the person I did it to, as I did with you. The great commandments are to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind, and all of your strength, and also, to love thy neighbor as yourself. I think a Christian who does something wrong should do what is reasonable to reconcile with people who they have wronged.

As far as the cake goes, the man didn't refuse service because the men were gay. He was more than happy to make them a cake, just not a gay wedding cake. I don't see how you're inserting the word hatred into the discussion. The man has a sincere conviction that gay marriage is wrong and he doesn't want to participate in it. The question really being posed is, is this unchristian not to make this cake?

For one, Jesus didn't tell us not to judge, He told us not to judge hypocritically. That is what is meant by the log in someones eye versus the splinter in the other. Christians are to judge all things to see if they line up to the word of God. Now, would you think it is wrong for a Pastor to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony? I don't think you could say it was unchristian for the Pastor to refuse to do it, on the basis of his moral conviction. Well, this baker also had a moral conviction about supplying the cake for the ceremony. His conviction is to make wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings only because he believes gay marriage is immoral. I really don't see anything wrong with this; it isn't loving your neighbor to help someone along in their sin. Neither do I think he should be forced to violate his conscience by lending his reputation to something he knows God disapproves of.

In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

Just to clarify; If you think gay people should have less rights than heterosexuals than that makes you Anti-gay. Just as if you think Black people, Hispanics or Jews should have less rights than whites than you are racist.

I thought we covered all this in the 60s?

Because of my first, my very first video, that you downvoted? Because it featured some pretty steamy gay interactions and had a great beat?

You were my very first downvote, dear ant! How's about that for a legacy!


In reply to this comment by ant:
"I'm a heterosexual woman, but I could NOT stop looking at Charlotte's breasts. My god!"

I thought you were a man!

Having gone to public school, I can make two comments..one, children are cruel. two, there is an anti-gay sentiment that is pervasive there. It is really an anti-difference sentiment. People get bullied and humiliated just for things like having a speech impediment. I just read about a suicide of a boy who was driven over the edge because children were taunting him about his Dad being killed when he was 4 years old. So, you can't throw gay teen suicides into the lap of Christians, because while a few may be caused by anti-gay Christian bigotry, this isn't the main factor. It is tertiary the underlying issues of societal conditions, and risk factors inherent in the gay lifestyle. According to a study in the Netherlands, where homosexuality is generally accepted and tolerated, gay men are 8 times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual men. If gay suicide is based on anti-gay Christian bigotry, why are the rates higher than the norm in one of the least Christian countries in Europe?

Christians should not be anti-gay, that's number one. That isn't what Jesus taught us about sin, and how we should treat people. Homosexuality isn't a sin apart from other sins. We're all sinners, and none of us are worthy of salvation. A christian deserves death and hell just as much as anyone else. It is only by Gods grace, which is unmerited favor, that we are saved. Jesus came to save sinners; that's why He died on the cross. He told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and gays are our neighbors. So, this is how Christians should approach gays and homosexuality in general.

That doesn't mean we should not say it is a sin. It would not be loving to pretend it is not, or to even tacitly approve of that behavior. Love is being honest, and truthful with someone, so that they have the correct information to make a decision. If we were to lie and say God approves of sin, Christians would be guilty of the greater sin in Gods eyes. So, there is a certain way to approach this issue, which is love, tempered by the truth. Any Christian not doing so is not doing what Christ commanded us to.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?

Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.

Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.

Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.

Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:

1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.

2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.

Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?

There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^ponceleon:
Very funny, but part of me feels it is a bit counterproductive if we are trying to convince the fear-mongered masses of this country that being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a hyper-sexualized insane person.

Why should we try and convince them of this? Plenty of straight, hyper-sexualized "insane" people. I say shake what your god gave you. Haters gonna hate, and I aint gonna try and meet them halfway.


Exactly. Parts of the Gay movement annoys me, like the argument that people were "born this way" or that "other animals also engage in homosexual behaviour." Both of which is true, but irrelevant. As a heterosexual man, I dont really have any urges to have sex with other men, but if I did it anyway, it'd be nobodys fucking business. And thats really the only message that matters: Take your fucking bible and bigotry and shove it up your ass, its none of your fucking business what I do in bed.

"SEXUALITY: About two thirds of the sift are exclusively heterosexual."

I think many sifters do not understand the Kinsey Scale.
Note the graphic on the right of the linked screen.

The number of people who are exclusively heterosexual--or homosexual--is extremely small. The scale takes into account any stray thoughts or dreams a person has ever had--not just actions.