The LGBTQ vote is misdirected, especially as America suffered the raunchy violence of b.l.m.-a.n.t.i.f.a racism and destruction as the dems did a voyeur imitation. In addition, Amy knows that, a la Freud's inner circle, the female who aligns herself with the christian trinity has only two choices: ecstatic melancholy or thinking of herself as a male homosexual. Amy does not seem to express any melancholic symptoms at this time, so will probably be an excellent (neutral [italics]) judge in upcoming LGBTQ cases.
What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?
Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.
Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.www.usatoday.com
If being gay is genetic, it can't be changed. If being gay is a choice, YOU can make a different choice, and society can and will shun you if you don't, because you don't have to be that way and we don't have to accept you. The right is very big on declaring being "gay" a choice. That way they can send you for re-programming and say its for you own good. If being gay is genetic, that would be torture.
ACB refused to answer when asked if she would criminalize gay sex. The questions she refused to answer, were very telling indeed. Would she overturn an election? There is only one answer under the Constitution and that's "No". She said it would depend on the evidence presented.
There is a huge movement on the elite right to save Downs Syndrome babies from abortion, and it is noteable that she has a Downs child because Republican Senators all made a big deal about it. Down's children are very sweet and adoreable, and there used to be a lot more of them. Genetic testing has drastically reduced their numbers and had my last pregnancy been a Downs child, I would have aborted the pregancy.
I have friends with Downs children, and I've seen their needs overwhelm families. These children will never be independent and required special education and care all of their lives. Even in Canada, where there are a lot of government supports, it's very expensive and you have to advocate for your child's needs constantly. As you age, their needs grow, and by the time you're my age, they need a level of care I would not be able to provide at this stage of my life, either physically or financially.
A wealthy lawyer I worked for had handicapped child. He was in a very expensive residential care facility because of violent outbursts. His Dad was 6' 4" and large framed and they couldn't manage him. The parents were approaching 70, and they had a trust fund set up to ensure his care there for life - even after his parents passed. There was more than a million dollars in that trust.
If you're not a wealthy person who can afford to hire caregivers, special classes, and treatment facilities, both the financial and physical needs will overwhelm you. If you have other children, the needs of the Downs child will swamp a family, both emotionally and financially. And every parent has to face the moment when they can't anymore, and send the child to live in a "home" forever. One older mother told me that her child was now basically alone (husband dead, mother ill, no siblings), and would be for the rest of his life. If she had it to do over, she would have terminated the pregancy, not for her sake, but for his.
The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.
- Thread starter
- #44
I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?
I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.
But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?
Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.
On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,919
- 1,530
I disagree.
Any and all citizens are entitled to all the legal protections as anyone else.
What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?
What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.
- Thread starter
- #47
You could have a contract without government "marriage." Government marriage is not a contract. A contract is between two parties. It doesn't involve other people. Government marriage clearly is a government program.
And if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. You certainly shouldn't be getting someone else's money to raise them. What kind of a welfare program is that?
- Thread starter
- #48
On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it
- Thread starter
- #51
Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?
Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.
Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.www.usatoday.com
If being gay is genetic, it can't be changed. If being gay is a choice, YOU can make a different choice, and society can and will shun you if you don't, because you don't have to be that way and we don't have to accept you. The right is very big on declaring being "gay" a choice. That way they can send you for re-programming and say its for you own good. If being gay is genetic, that would be torture.
ACB refused to answer when asked if she would criminalize gay sex. The questions she refused to answer, were very telling indeed. Would she overturn an election? There is only one answer under the Constitution and that's "No". She said it would depend on the evidence presented.
There is a huge movement on the elite right to save Downs Syndrome babies from abortion, and it is noteable that she has a Downs child because Republican Senators all made a big deal about it. Down's children are very sweet and adoreable, and there used to be a lot more of them. Genetic testing has drastically reduced their numbers and had my last pregnancy been a Downs child, I would have aborted the pregancy.
I have friends with Downs children, and I've seen their needs overwhelm families. These children will never be independent and required special education and care all of their lives. Even in Canada, where there are a lot of government supports, it's very expensive and you have to advocate for your child's needs constantly. As you age, their needs grow, and by the time you're my age, they need a level of care I would not be able to provide at this stage of my life, either physically or financially.
A wealthy lawyer I worked for had handicapped child. He was in a very expensive residential care facility because of violent outbursts. His Dad was 6' 4" and large framed and they couldn't manage him. The parents were approaching 70, and they had a trust fund set up to ensure his care there for life - even after his parents passed. There was more than a million dollars in that trust.
If you're not a wealthy person who can afford to hire caregivers, special classes, and treatment facilities, both the financial and physical needs will overwhelm you. If you have other children, the needs of the Downs child will swamp a family, both emotionally and financially. And every parent has to face the moment when they can't anymore, and send the child to live in a "home" forever. One older mother told me that her child was now basically alone (husband dead, mother ill, no siblings), and would be for the rest of his life. If she had it to do over, she would have terminated the pregancy, not for her sake, but for his.
The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.
Funny how leftists have to say there is nothing wrong with being gay, but then you turn around and say it's not their fault, they were born that way as if there is something wrong with being gay.
You expressed the exact double standard the discussion is getting at. If there is nothing wrong with it, why doesn't matter?
My answer to those is there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't matter.
Clearly gayness is a curve though. There isn't a single answer to the question. Some are overwhelmingly born gay. Others are closer to the line and could go either way. Still doesn't matter though. Funny how I think that and the left doesn't
- Thread starter
- #53
Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government
DukeU
Diamond Member
It's no wonder the suicide rate is highest among the alphabet soup bunch. They have so many life choices to make..... Boy or girl?!? Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans., Questioning?!? Which bathroom to use?!?
It's a shame they have to rely on normal people to continue with their lifestyle. Who wouldn't want to be that confused?!?
It's a shame they have to rely on normal people to continue with their lifestyle. Who wouldn't want to be that confused?!?
- Thread starter
- #56
And that's why no one should ever trust a single thing a leftist says. You're here clearly stating you should lie for the greater good.
That's why no rational person trusts what you say when you melt down about straws and say not wearing a mask is murdering people. Then you say you're the party of science when you just admitted that you lie
- Thread starter
- #58
If you're this angry in the middle of the morning, what are you like at the end of the day?
You not only didn't address the OP, you clearly didn't read it, bigot
- Thread starter
- #59
Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.
Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.
Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.
Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them
- Thread starter
- #60
You sir, are a total dick. Complete lying garbage scum. **** the shit out of you, liar.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Hitler-quoting Bilzerian very upset he's called anti-Semitic (embraces Quran)- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
-
123 "Nakba" for dummies [self inflicted and racism by Arab leadership]
- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
-
Trump tries to defend ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,’ by saying the thought oil would go to $200 a barrel- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 0
-
Great news: Extradited to US: money laundering robbing Venezuelans (Hezbollah-Islamofascistic thug: Alex Saab)
- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 0
