Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The emotional side of Prop 8Follow

#127REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Mine is an unassailable train of logic. Like I said, give basic human rights to all people-- including gays and unborn childen. Why do any of you have a problem with that?
#128 Nov 14 2008 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,824 posts
I'd just like to say that I'm all for pregnant women giving up fetuses for adoption. Just cut those suckers out and hand 'em over. Why let them mooch for 9 months?
#129 Nov 14 2008 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Totem wrote:
An addendum to my last post: Basic human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life. Yeah, that most basic of human rights. You know, the one denied unborn children.

Totem


Didn't your momma ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Complaining about the legality of abortion has nothing to do with whether same sex marriage should be legal.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#130 Nov 14 2008 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

What a massive digression, the abortion discussion.

There is no tit-for-tat. You don't get to "trade" one group's rights for another.

Make yer own damn abortion thread.




Edited, Nov 14th 2008 1:45pm by trickybeck
#131 Nov 14 2008 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
trickybeck wrote:

What a massive digression, the abortion discussion.
Double-s delight:D
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#132REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're absolutely right, Anna. I fully expect to hear you argue vociferously in a separate thread for the right of unborn children to be given the opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-- which may include a blissful union to another person of the same sex.
#133REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:50 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You see, trick, you are bogged down in the minutia of a particular issue. I am opening your eyes to see the bigger picture: Human rights for all. Can't you get onboard the peace train with me?
#134 Nov 14 2008 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Totem wrote:
You see, trick, you are bogged down in the minutia of a particular issue. I am opening your eyes to see the bigger picture: Human rights for all. Can't you get onboard the peace train with me?

Why do you hate unborn babies so much?

:(

Totem


Because they are lazy, they don't pay taxes and they don't contribute to society. Smiley: mad Get them jobs and we'll talk.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#135 Nov 14 2008 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Totem wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, here in Kali-for-nee-a, yes, a transgendered person can marry someone ostensibly of their (now) opposite sex. Crazy, I know.

Totem


Hmmm. Maybe things have changed, or it's different state to state.
It varies from state to state. From what I understand, Tennessee is among the states with the least-liberal (look at me not using weasel words!) laws regarding trans people. In many states, once a person has changed their legal paperwork, they can only marry people of the sex opposite their new legal sex. An interesting corollary, however, is that so far no courts have been willing to contest an existing marriage of a trans person to a spouse who is, post legal change, of the same gender, leaving people who live in states where same-sex marriages are strictly prohibited in legally recognized marriages with people of the same sex. :)

Edited, Nov 14th 2008 3:02pm by Mindel
#136 Nov 14 2008 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Mindel wrote:
It varies from state to state. From what I understand, Tennessee is among the states with the least-liberal (look at me not using weasel words!) laws regarding trans people. In many states, once a person has changed their legal paperwork, they can only marry people of the sex opposite their new legal sex. An interesting corollary, however, is that so far no courts have been willing to contest an existing marriage of a trans person to a spouse who is, post legal change, of the same gender, leaving people who live in states where same-sex marriages are strictly prohibited in legally recognized marriages with people of the same sex. :)

Edited, Nov 14th 2008 3:02pm by Mindel


That would make sense. Tennesee does suck when it comes to equal rights to existing human beings who can survive outside of the womb.

At least we can still kill those unborn babies!

Edited, Nov 14th 2008 2:04pm by Belkira
#137 Nov 14 2008 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Mindel wrote:
It varies from state to state. From what I understand, Tennessee is among the states with the least-liberal (look at me not using weasel words!) laws regarding trans people. In many states, once a person has changed their legal paperwork, they can only marry people of the sex opposite their new legal sex. An interesting corollary, however, is that so far no courts have been willing to contest an existing marriage of a trans person to a spouse who is, post legal change, of the same gender, leaving people who live in states where same-sex marriages are strictly prohibited in legally recognized marriages with people of the same sex. :)

Edited, Nov 14th 2008 3:02pm by Mindel


That would make sense. Tennesee does suck when it comes to equal rights to existing human beings who can survive outside of the womb.

At least we can still kill those unborn babies!

Edited, Nov 14th 2008 2:04pm by Belkira
I am going to move to Tennessee to advocate for the rights of undead babies.

But yeah, Tennessee, Ohio, and Florida are considered the "worst" states for trans folk to live in. See what you learn when you volunteer with an LBGT free clinic?
#138 Nov 14 2008 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Mindel wrote:
See what you learn when you volunteer with an LBGT free clinic?


I had to reread that. For a second, I thought you meant a clinic that didn't allow LBGT people to receive service.
#139 Nov 14 2008 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Mindel wrote:
See what you learn when you volunteer with an LBGT free clinic?


I had to reread that. For a second, I thought you meant a clinic that didn't allow LBGT people to receive service.
Lul. :)

I used to work a lot with this trans guy named Kyle who was all excited about getting his paperwork changed so he and his girlfriend of 6 years could finally get married.

I didn't get invited to the wedding, though, if they ever had it. Smiley: frown
#140 Nov 14 2008 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
Mindel wrote:
Lul. :)

I used to work a lot with this trans guy named Kyle who was all excited about getting his paperwork changed so he and his girlfriend of 6 years could finally get married.

I didn't get invited to the wedding, though, if they ever had it. Smiley: frown


Ungrateful. Smiley: frown
#141 Nov 14 2008 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Mindel wrote:
Lul. :)

I used to work a lot with this trans guy named Kyle who was all excited about getting his paperwork changed so he and his girlfriend of 6 years could finally get married.

I didn't get invited to the wedding, though, if they ever had it. Smiley: frown


Ungrateful. Smiley: frown
I would always bring him an latte, too.
#142 Nov 14 2008 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Totem wrote:
You see, trick, you are bogged down in the minutia of a particular issue. I am opening your eyes to see the bigger picture: Human rights for all. Can't you get onboard the peace train with me?

Why do you hate unborn babies so much?

:(

Totem

You can call me a hypocrite all you want. Fine, I'll accept it. It is hypocritical to support gay rights but not unborn rights!!!

Thankfully for the gays, a hypocritical stance doesn't erase the validity of the cause.

#143 Nov 14 2008 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
Totem wrote:
Let's turn this around then. If you are not using science as the basis for equal marital rights for gays, then on what are you basing a need for special treatment?


And once again, you make the error of calling "equal rights" special treatment.

Quote:

After all, if this is just about wants or desires, someone then could make the argument that a precocious 13 or 14 year old is able to make the decision to enter into a relationship with another much older person.


So, now that your absurd strawman about fetuses is pretty well exhausted, you are actually trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia?

A 13 or 14 year old is not capable of giving informed consent under the law, and the biggest reason for that is that adolescents are scientifically proven to have less developed brains with less capability of making rational informed choices. A grown homosexual adult is fully capable of informed consent.

Quote:
Just because you think they are not qualified to make that decision, in their particular case they may indeed be able to rationally decide for themselves what is best for them.


My opinion of their abilities has nothing to do with it. Science has shown that neurological development is not fully completed in adolescents, which is why they have a higher tendency toward rash, risky, and unwise decisions. The age of consent protects them from themselves and their immature brains.

Quote:
Or polygamy. Polygamists say that their's is just as much a right as anyone else's to marry who they choose or how many.


And I agree. If fully consenting informed ADULTS wish to enter into a plural marriage, more power to them. I'm all in favor of polyamory, so long as it's not the result of religious and cultural coercion inflicted upon unwilling partners.

Quote:
On what are you basing this particular segment of society's needs, yet excluding others?


The basis that there is no logical rationale for denying consenting adults the right to form a legally recognized marital union.

Quote:
Let's not use feelings or wishes here either. Give me a solid, reasonable basis for homosexual unions that excludes these others, because I don't hear you clamoring for their inclusion.


Easy peasy. Immature brain and decision-making capabilities in adolescents is a neurological, scientifically proven fact, therefore excluding them from the group of people allowed to make informed-consent decisions is perfect sound and reasonable restriction. No such restriction has any business existing for adults.

#144 Nov 14 2008 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
Totem wrote:
Kaelesh, you're right! We shouldn't exclude unborn people from basic human rights just because they have the disability of an as of yet completely unformed and mature body!


Prove an unborn fetus is a actual sentient being and not merely a POTENTIAL sentient being and your argument will hold weight. Until then, STFU because it's a stupid-*** argument that makes you look like a trolling idjit.
#145 Nov 14 2008 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I've noticed this before. And since this thread has turned somewhat into a discussion about abortion, why does it always seem to be the men who seem to have the most difficult time accepting it? You'd think women would be more rabid about stopping abortions, what with our "motherly instinct" and all. Or maybe it's because a lot of us have had that little parasite in us, and lain awake at night during those first few weeks of pregnancy, sick because we know our lives are about to change forever and do we really want to do this???

Eh, I'm rambling, trying to kill time at work.
#146REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 1:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "A 13 or 14 year old is not capable of giving informed consent under the law, and the biggest reason for that is that adolescents are scientifically proven to have less developed brains with less capability of making rational informed choices. A grown homosexual adult is fully capable of informed consent." --Amb
#147 Nov 14 2008 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
Totem wrote:
Kaelesh, they ]are people, by any definition of the word, except political. It is utterly illogical to think that that fetus is not human!


It's not. It's a potential human. Until it has the ability to be self-sustaining and sentient, it's not a person, it's a parasitical organism.
#148 Nov 14 2008 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Quote:
It's not. It's a potential human. Until it has the ability to be self-sustaining and sentient, it's not a person, it's a parasitical organism


You just wrote off a sizeable proportion of the adult human race Smiley: lol
#149REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Again, why, Ambrya, wouldn't you give unborn children an even more basic human right-- life --when you so eagerly are willing to go to the mat for gay rights? It just doesn't make sense. I've already said numerous times I'd give some to get some, but each of gay rights advocates can't compromise on something as fundamental as human rights for humans.
#150 Nov 14 2008 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
I've already said numerous times I'd give some to get some
Deal. Once we legalize gay marriage we can chat about abortion Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok, Ambrya, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it has to have the ability to be self-sustaining and sentient. Can you define when that is? Wouldn't you agree that there are plenty of cases where a pregnancy has been terminated where the unborn child was viable-- self-sustaining and sentient?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 230 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (230)