What with all this talk of homosexuality

[sitarro]

Your first point doesn't cover the fact that a lot of gay men are extremely good looking and disappoint women the world over being gay. So what about those guys? They could shag any woman they want but decide to go after men...because?

Incest is gross, no doubt about it. I find it repugnant as I do homosexuality. But, none of my business. And I hope you are not talking about Angelina Jolie and her Oscar night. She was horrified at the press reaction and thought they were sick. It would also prove that some of your sources of news are tabloids/women's magazines.

PS: I thought you were bored with the subject???

Maybe I'm nuts. Maybe homosexuals are nuts.

My friend in Colorado looked like Slider in "Top Gun" when he was in high school. He dated a lot of nice looking women but told me that they never really made him happy. He gained a bunch of weight and found that he must have always been a homosexual. He never did explain how he determined that but once he decided he was homosexual he never had a problem with having more sex than anyone could want including 10 partners in a typical weekend orgy at his favorite bath house. He was still never really happy, he stayed heavily self medicated and would come to work very stoned. His mood swings throughout the day were pretty drastic and was finally let go. He started creating greeting cards and was doing quite well.

He is dead now, his lifestyle brought him numerous STDs which medication usually took care of, the final one had no medication for it. I often wonder how many others were infected while he was enjoying so many partners at the bath houses. How many of those brought those infections home to their wives or girlfriends?

This insanity does harm others. It is our business, plagues across the country are also our business even if we aren't sick.

Anything that can have serious detrimental effects on our young kids becomes our business. Rap's incredibly negative messages, tatoo and peircing fads causing a huge rise in Hepatitus C, promiscuous sex of all kind, and the mental abuse that comes from kids wondering if they are a sexual oddity, as parents it becomes our business.

As for your point about good looking guys that could get any girl, how about Hugh Grant? This idiot had Elizabeth Hurley and still felt a need to get blown by a black skank on the side of the rode. He is obviously nuts.

No I wasn't talking about Angelina Jolie, she just had a baby with Brad Pitt, why would she want to marry her brother. I notice that you didn't answer the question though. Are you going to back siblings right to get married? Don't be a hypocrite.

How about that lady in India, should we recognize her marriage to a King Cobra? The snake obviously likes her, he hasn't killed her, yet(let her start bitching about how he keep up his den).

While it would probably be somewhat entertaining to see the tastless weddings flamboyant queens would put on, it isn't a pandora's box we want to open.

 

[Dr Grump]

So does abortion, but the left continues to support it. You need to make another distinction.

Abortion is not murder. You need to know the difference...

 

[Dr Grump]

Murder, as defined by our law IS based on Judeo-Christian ethic, as are most of our laws that have anything to do with enforcing a moral standard.

If you wish to remove moral standard, then remove ALL of it, because that's where you're heading.

An immediate impact to others is irrelevant as it does not inconvenience me. To use your own sentiment.

I'm talking murder in general, not just law.

You need to let go of you egocentrism...so if somebody in Hawaii is murdered and you don't know them, my piont is moot? My point was it doesn't have to affect YOU specifically, but somebody. I'm surprised I had to spell that out to you....

 

[5stringJeff]

Abortion is not murder. You need to know the difference...

Right. It's only killing an innocent human being against its will. Is that just manslaughter nowadays?

 

[GotZoom]

Abortion is not murder. You need to know the difference...

Oh geez....

Now you have gone and done it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Anything that can have serious detrimental effects on our young kids becomes our business. Rap's incredibly negative messages, tatoo and peircing fads causing a huge rise in Hepatitus C, promiscuous sex of all kind, and the mental abuse that comes from kids wondering if they are a sexual oddity, as parents it becomes our business.

As for your point about good looking guys that could get any girl, how about Hugh Grant? This idiot had Elizabeth Hurley and still felt a need to get blown by a black skank on the side of the rode. He is obviously nuts.

No I wasn't talking about Angelina Jolie, she just had a baby with Brad Pitt, why would she want to marry her brother. I notice that you didn't answer the question though. Are you going to back siblings right to get married? Don't be a hypocrite.

How about that lady in India, should we recognize her marriage to a King Cobra? The snake obviously likes her, he hasn't killed her, yet(let her start bitching about how he keep up his den).

While it would probably be somewhat entertaining to see the tastless weddings flamboyant queens would put on, it isn't a pandora's box we want to open.

Hugh still went for a girl, even if she was a prostitute. If siblings want to get married that's on them. Weird, but on them. I have always made the distinction between two consenting humans/sentinent beings and animals. Where do you draw the line, negroes and caucasians marrying?

You don't have to open the pandora's box. You can ignore it.

Your STD comment doesn't wash either. Millions of hetros get them AND they pass them onto their partners/wifes via their liaisons with girlfriends....

 

[Dr Grump]

Right. It's only killing an innocent human being against its will. Is that just manslaughter nowadays?

It's quite simple Jeff. Pony up the stats re Abortion Doctors that have been charged with murder. Then we'll look into the stats of right-wing Christian idealogues who have murdered abortion doctors. It's been real.

laterZ

 

[Abbey Normal]

Abortion is not murder. You need to know the difference...

You said:

But one key difference is that murder does have an immediate impact on others.

Abortion kills another human. I wish we could ask the baby if there was any impact on it. Regardless of your attempts to parse words about what is or is not murder, your distinction fails.

And btw, the intentional killing of another is murder. In this case, it is even premeditated, so I'd say Murder 1st degree.

 

[Gunny]

I'm talking murder in general, not just law.

You need to let go of you egocentrism...so if somebody in Hawaii is murdered and you don't know them, my piont is moot? My point was it doesn't have to affect YOU specifically, but somebody. I'm surprised I had to spell that out to you....

My egocentrism? I'm just using YOUR logic. What's going on next door is none of my business and doesn't affect me personally. Be it Farmer Brown with his sheep. Billy boffing Bobby, or Jefferey snacking on one of his failed "experiments".

However, I AM willing to be fair. Homosexuality doesn't have to affect ME specifically, but somebody somewhere.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It's quite simple Jeff. Pony up the stats re Abortion Doctors that have been charged with murder. Then we'll look into the stats of right-wing Christian idealogues who have murdered abortion doctors. It's been real.

laterZ

Are we back to the "if it's legal, it's ok" argument?

Slavery
Slavery
Slavery

Did I mention slavery?

 

[Gunny]

It's quite simple Jeff. Pony up the stats re Abortion Doctors that have been charged with murder. Then we'll look into the stats of right-wing Christian idealogues who have murdered abortion doctors. It's been real.

laterZ

One crime does not justify the other. WHY do I have to keep reminding you libs of that?

 

[Gunny]

You said:


Abortion kills another human. I wish we could ask the baby if there was any impact on it. Regardless of your attempts to parse words about what is or is not murder, your distinction fails.

And btw, the intentional killing of another is murder. In this case, it is even premeditated, so I'd say Murder 1st degree.

Before or after its skull is crushed and brains sucked out through a tube?

 

[jillian]

Before or after its skull is crushed and brains sucked out through a tube?

Oh...I like that. Avoid the real discussion and go off into a tangential point. I don't think anyone was discussing late term abortion. They were discussing, I believe, abortions as covered by Roe v. Wade.

Life exists on a continuum. It goes from two cells (which are NOT human, but which are only potentially human) to a full term fetus (which is most definitely human). It's simply not the same thing.

And you know what, even if it were, the decision is not about when life begins, not really. It is about when the governmental interest in protecting that continuum of life takes precedence over an individual's right to control what happens to her body.

And please don't say that her time to exercise control ends after she makes the choice to have sex. It's a fallacious argument and is simply punitive, rather than addressing the issue realistically.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And please don't say that her time to exercise control ends after she makes the choice to have sex. It's a fallacious argument and is simply punitive, rather than addressing the issue realistically.

Why fallacious? It seems to me that two new parties - daddy and baby -have entered the equation. Isn't each person entitled to his or her rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[jillian]

Why fallacious? It seems to me that two new parties - each complete with their own set of rights - have entered the equation.

There ARE no rights of or pertaining to citizenship until one is born. So while your own moral compass might tell you that a particular thing is right, your own moral compass isn't something which is cognizable at law. You can only choose to comport yourself in the manner that YOU think is appropriate. You can't force your feelings about it down the throats of others. No one can ever force someone to have an abortion and if someone wishes to carry a child to term, more power to them.

But do you really think the 11 year old pregnant girl who was just all over the news should be having a baby? (No, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, but she did...and acknowledged that she was so ignorant about it that she thought she couldn't get pregnant her "first time".)

And more than that, I don't see any effort by the anti-choice crowd to do anything to either educate these kids in proper safe sex or to provide single mothers with job training and day care so they become productive and aren't relegated to the lowest societal rungs. So seems to me that compassion for this "life" ends at birth.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There ARE no rights of or pertaining to citizenship until one is born. So while your own moral compass might tell you that a particular thing is right, your own moral compass isn't something which is cognizable at law. You can only choose to comport yourself in the manner that YOU think is appropriate. You can't force your feelings about it down the throats of others. No one can ever force someone to have an abortion and if someone wishes to carry a child to term, more power to them.

But do you really think the 11 year old pregnant girl who was just all over the news should be having a baby? (No, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, but she did...and acknowledged that she was so ignorant about it that she thought she couldn't get pregnant her "first time".)

And more than that, I don't see any effort by the anti-choice crowd to do anything to either educate these kids in proper safe sex or to provide single mothers with job training and day care so they become productive and aren't relegated to the lowest societal rungs. So seems to me that compassion for this "life" ends at birth.

But aren't we talking about consensual sex which has the implied consent for potential birth? Unless there is some written contract that denies otherwise.

 

[Gunny]

Oh...I like that. Avoid the real discussion and go off into a tangential point. I don't think anyone was discussing late term abortion. They were discussing, I believe, abortions as covered by Roe v. Wade.

Life exists on a continuum. It goes from two cells (which are NOT human, but which are only potentially human) to a full term fetus (which is most definitely human). It's simply not the same thing.

And you know what, even if it were, the decision is not about when life begins, not really. It is about when the governmental interest in protecting that continuum of life takes precedence over an individual's right to control what happens to her body.

And please don't say that her time to exercise control ends after she makes the choice to have sex. It's a fallacious argument and is simply punitive, rather than addressing the issue realistically.

No sale. A fertilized egg one second old in the body of a human being is an unborn human being. Attempting to establish an arbitrary point that it goes from two cells to full-term fetus is just bogus as it gets.

Addressing the issue realistically, murder is not a solution to absolving people of irresponsible behavior.

If you treated a dog the way you are willing to treat an unborn human being the SPCA'd have your butt in the slam for a few years.

 

[Gunny]

But aren't we talking about consensual sex which has the implied consent for potential birth? Unless there is some written contract that denies otherwise.

It's called cake and eat it to syndrome, a peculiarity of the left. Just as they want a guaranteed protection against terrorism ... no wait, you can't infringe on my personal convenience to do it ... so do they want to bail out on the consequences of their actions if gasp! "it happened to me!"

 

[jillian]

But aren't we talking about consensual sex which has the implied consent for potential birth? Unless there is some written contract that denies otherwise.

Ya had to go there, huh? :tng:

I think I already said I think that argument is fallacious. But mostly, I truly think it's punitive...you know, those salacious, evil women, like Eve in the garden...sinners who need to be punished.

Doesn't fly...at least not for me. Again, you're free to live by your own moral code. But abortion is a difficult enough decision to make without government and religious activists intervening.

There's a question that I always like to ask people who are anti-choice. Say a couple has gone for in vitro fertilization... they clearly made the choice to have a child and the child is wanted, so it isn't a question of "indiscretion". They go through the process and three or four of the embryos become implanted. The doctor tells the woman that she can only carry one or either she or the babies won't make it. They want to do a "selective termination".

What then? Under all the anti-choice scenarios I've seen bandied about, she would be prohibited from the selective termination and be forced to carry the multiples...even if the pregnancy risked her life, the babies' or both.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ya had to go there, huh? :tng:

I think I already said I think that argument is fallacious. But mostly, I truly think it's punitive...you know, those salacious, evil women, like Eve in the garden...sinners who need to be punished.

Doesn't fly...at least not for me. Again, you're free to live by your own moral code. But abortion is a difficult enough decision to make without government and religious activists intervening.

There's a question that I always like to ask people who are anti-choice. Say a couple has gone for in vitro fertilization... they clearly made the choice to have a child and the child is wanted, so it isn't a question of "indiscretion". They go through the process and three or four of the embryos become implanted. The doctor tells the woman that she can only carry one or either she or the babies won't make it. They want to do a "selective termination".

What then? Under all the anti-choice scenarios I've seen bandied about, she would be prohibited from the selective termination and be forced to carry the multiples...even if the pregnancy risked her life, the babies' or both.

Some people believe that. However, what's wrong with making exceptions to the rules when needed? Isn't our law flexible enough to do so?