| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Karengrl" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2004 06:35:27 AM |
| Object: |
Tests for gay babies |
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
.
|
|
| User: "Cleopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 11:13:23 PM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
Actually, dear child, most of the abortovorkians in here are keen on
even partial birth abortions, so if it comes out and cries with a
lisp, or looks like Michael Moore, give the doctor the go ahead.
Better yet, conceal a pair of scissors in your surgical cap and do it
yourself if the doc wimps out on you. Not to worry about the murder
thing - just tell 'em your a pro-choice kinda gal. You know, your body
and all. You got a winner here and I say go for it!
Cleopatra
PS - If you're really concerned about having a gay child, and most of
us can appreciate your plight, why not remain abstinent for a few
years until this crowd *fixes* things to where you can off children up
to five years - you know, the *parasite* gambit extended out just a
wee bit. At five you'd be able to tell and VOILA! - problem solved!
This gang thinks of everything, do they not? What a bunch of cut ups!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
14 Nov 2004 11:34:16 AM |
|
|
"Cleopatra" <Bush_Does_Not_Bow_To_Arafat@linkedto.nosnoop.com> wrote in
message news:b1d9c970.0411132113.7847975c@posting.google.com...
karygrl@yahoo.co.uk (Karengrl) wrote in message
news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
Actually, dear child, most of the abortovorkians in here are keen on
even partial birth abortions,
As usual, Cleo the ***** lies.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IBen Getiner" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
20 Nov 2004 02:40:29 AM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
I'd turn the other way on this one. Is there such a test?
IBen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 01:42:34 PM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
*****'n'Lynne Cheney had a lesbian baby and they seem pretty happy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove Kopperud" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 04:39:50 AM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
It would be fun though, wouldn't it... when tests to
uncover a fetus' sexual leaning became available, to
see what a deeply evangelic "Christian" anti-abortion and
anti-homosexual couple would do when they discovered
that their unborn suffered from this terrible "illness"...
I wonder if they suddenly would become pro-choice for
a little while...
-Koppe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 09:53:12 AM |
|
|
"Baard Ove Kopperud" <baard.kopperud@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ae685d1b.0411170239.788c8e97@posting.google.com...
karygrl@yahoo.co.uk (Karengrl) wrote in message
news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
It would be fun though, wouldn't it... when tests to
uncover a fetus' sexual leaning became available, to
see what a deeply evangelic "Christian" anti-abortion and
anti-homosexual couple would do when they discovered
that their unborn suffered from this terrible "illness"...
I wonder if they suddenly would become pro-choice for
a little while...
-Koppe
I think you've hit the proverbial nail square on the head, Baard.
The point (term applied loosely) of this tedious thread was
"Karen/Caldwell's" assertion that left-leaning pro-choicers' would be
outraged that people might practice a sort of eugenics against homosexual
offspring, should pre-natal confirmation become available. Ergo, the
"liberal" PC'rs would betray their hypocrisy by opposing such 'targeted'
abortions. Of course, Caldwell's vile caricature was manufactured to elicit
just such a response.
The more likely outcome, as you note, would be just the opposite.
LC~ Always gets a chuckle when lame strawmen turn on their creators.
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."~ Friedrich
von Schiller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 02:01:19 PM |
|
|
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
karygrl@yahoo.co.uk (Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
It would be fun though, wouldn't it... when tests to
uncover a fetus' sexual leaning became available, to
see what a deeply evangelic "Christian" anti-abortion and
anti-homosexual couple would do when they discovered
that their unborn suffered from this terrible "illness"...
I wonder if they suddenly would become pro-choice for
a little while...
-Koppe
I doubt it Koppe,
If homosexuality IS genetic, and I doubt it is in the majority of cases,
then it is a genetic disorder, and the way we treat people with genetic
disorders is with the love and dignity to which they are entitled.
Nobody who calls themselves pro-life would deprive that person of life
on any basis, let alone something genetically unavoidable.
On the other hand, the combination of silence and venom that "Karen"
received from "pro-choicers" on announcing her desire to terminate a
potentially homosexual child betrayed both their tacit understanding
that the unborn child is a person entitled to rights and the killing of
whom is wrong.
Our failure of western society towards homosexuals is neither to have
failed to abort them or to have failed to grant union between them as
equal in the eyes of the law. It is to have permitted the development of
a homosexual cultural identity which allows no confused or perturbed
young man or woman a path to return.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 03:44:20 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419bb048$0$27551$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
It would be fun though, wouldn't it... when tests to uncover a fetus'
sexual leaning became available, to
see what a deeply evangelic "Christian" anti-abortion and
anti-homosexual couple would do when they discovered
that their unborn suffered from this terrible "illness"...
I wonder if they suddenly would become pro-choice for
a little while...
-Koppe
I doubt it Koppe,
If homosexuality IS genetic, and I doubt it is in the majority of cases,
Your basis for that bold proclamation would be...?
then it is a genetic disorder, and the way we treat people with genetic
disorders is with the love and dignity to which they are entitled. Nobody
who calls themselves pro-life would deprive that person of life on any
basis, let alone something genetically unavoidable.
Your persistence in avoiding facts does not make them any less relevent.
On the other hand, the combination of silence and venom that "Karen"
received from "pro-choicers" on announcing her desire to terminate a
potentially homosexual child betrayed both their tacit understanding that
the unborn child is a person entitled to rights and the killing of whom is
wrong.
You're delusional if you believe that, "Karen".
Our failure of western society towards homosexuals is neither to have
failed to abort them or to have failed to grant union between them as
equal in the eyes of the law. It is to have permitted the development of a
homosexual cultural identity which allows no confused or perturbed young
man or woman a path to return.
As in "return" to what, exactly?
LC~ Suspecting "Karen" starts up with the Exodus BS.
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who
dares not, is a slave." ~ William Drummond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 04:00:50 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
If homosexuality IS genetic, and I doubt it is in the majority of cases,
Well, we'll see what the research says, hm?
Nobody who calls themselves pro-life would deprive that person of life
on any basis, let alone something genetically unavoidable.
Well, unless the pro-life person were in fact a hypocritical bigot;
not to suggest that you are such, of course.
On the other hand, the combination of silence and venom that "Karen"
received from "pro-choicers" on announcing her desire to terminate a
potentially homosexual child betrayed both their tacit understanding
that the unborn child is a person entitled to rights and the killing of
whom is wrong.
I missed the escapades of your sock puppet, but she certainly seems to
have exposed the inconsistencies in the beliefs held by certain
people.
It is to have permitted the development of
a homosexual cultural identity which allows no confused or perturbed
young man or woman a path to return.
Well, to hear your side tell it, all you have to do is prayerfully ask
Jesus to make you straight, so there certainly seems to be a return of
sorts for people who want to avail themselves of it.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 02:22:32 AM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
It is to have permitted the development of
a homosexual cultural identity which allows no confused or perturbed
young man or woman a path to return.
Well, to hear your side tell it, all you have to do is prayerfully ask
Jesus to make you straight, so there certainly seems to be a return of
sorts for people who want to avail themselves of it.
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity. Homosexuals are people who want to have sex with people of
their own sex, nothing more, nothing less.
I feel for the men and women, often young and confused, who get subsumed
into this morass, and then, realising that they actually were wrong
about themselves, feel they cannot extricate themselves without
betraying their "cultural group".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 09:55:28 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419c5e03$0$27547$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
It is to have permitted the development of a homosexual cultural identity
which allows no confused or perturbed young man or woman a path to
return.
Well, to hear your side tell it, all you have to do is prayerfully ask
Jesus to make you straight, so there certainly seems to be a return of
sorts for people who want to avail themselves of it.
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something that
applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual "rights"
movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises, manipulates people
into painting themselves into a corner by the process of "outing" and by
the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic identity.
Homosexuals are people who want to have sex with people of their own sex,
nothing more, nothing less.
I feel for the men and women, often young and confused, who get subsumed
into this morass, and then, realising that they actually were wrong about
themselves, feel they cannot extricate themselves without betraying their
"cultural group".
Oh, brother! Irony so rich it's on it's own island in the Caribbean.
Michael, I think you've crossed the line from confused to insane.
When you find some actual *facts* to support your prejudices, get back to
us.
LC~ Thinks "Michael/Karen" would really go off if someone starts slagging
bigotry on the "vertically challenged" demographic. "Cultural identity",
indeed!
"Oh yes, absolutely I have felt ostracised. It's an experience many short
people feel. And the evidence is there, quite clearly, that in many
aspects of life, the short are excluded. It's called HEIGHT
DISCRIMINATION. You moron."~ Michael Caldwell, hypocritically unaware that
homosexuals can't "change" anymore than short people can.
From: Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.short
Subject: Re: How willing are women to date a short guy?
Message-ID: <3F34C1DD.60305@btopenworld.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 10:02:46 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
LC~ Thinks "Michael/Karen" would really go off if someone starts slagging
bigotry on the "vertically challenged" demographic. "Cultural identity",
indeed!
"Oh yes, absolutely I have felt ostracised. It's an experience many short
people feel. And the evidence is there, quite clearly, that in many
aspects of life, the short are excluded. It's called HEIGHT
DISCRIMINATION. You moron."~ Michael Caldwell, hypocritically unaware that
homosexuals can't "change" anymore than short people can.
From: Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.short
Subject: Re: How willing are women to date a short guy?
Message-ID: <3F34C1DD.60305@btopenworld.com>
This isn't about people "changing" or "not changing". Nor is it about
accepting people for who they are.
It's about not confusing the desire with the legitimacy for activity, or
about proselytising personal sexual activity as a cultural norm, not
conflating disorder that contradicts natural laws with activity that
goes with the grain of social cohesion, or devaluing the human
institition of marriage in an attempt at self justification.
FYI, the only person I have crossed a continent to be with is a
homosexual man, a lovely but very troubled person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 10:59:42 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419cc9e3$0$1059$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
LC~ Thinks "Michael/Karen" would really go off if someone starts slagging
bigotry on the "vertically challenged" demographic. "Cultural identity",
indeed!
"Oh yes, absolutely I have felt ostracised. It's an experience many short
people feel. And the evidence is there, quite clearly, that in many
aspects of life, the short are excluded. It's called HEIGHT
DISCRIMINATION. You moron."~ Michael Caldwell, hypocritically unaware
that homosexuals can't "change" anymore than short people can.
From: Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.short
Subject: Re: How willing are women to date a short guy?
Message-ID: <3F34C1DD.60305@btopenworld.com>
This isn't about people "changing" or "not changing". Nor is it about
accepting people for who they are.
No, it started with your ridiculous strawman, but now it's clearly about
your bigotry. Change "short people" to "gay people" in your quote above and
then try to tell me otherwise.
It's about not confusing the desire with the legitimacy for activity, or
about proselytising personal sexual activity as a cultural norm, not
conflating disorder that contradicts natural laws with activity that goes
with the grain of social cohesion, or devaluing the human institition of
marriage in an attempt at self justification.
What a load of nothing. "Contadicts natural law". "Social cohesion". "Self
justification". When all else fails, fall back on the patently lame "natural
law" BS.
Be honest for a change, and call it what it is: Bigotry.
FYI, the only person I have crossed a continent to be with is a homosexual
man, a lovely but very troubled person.
Your anecdote is supposed to mean what, exactly?
I know many homosexual men and women. They want no more or no less than I, a
married heterosexual, want. Every one of them tells me that their
orientation is not a "choice". Their varying degrees of activism is typical
of any demographic seeking parity within mainstream culture.
I know a number of "short" men as well. Some seem to exhibit the Napoleon
syndrome, some don't. The most well adjusted and self confident do
just what successful people always do: roll up their sleeves and get to
work. A good friend of mine is a surgeon, barely 5'4" standing on his toes.
Another is a manager for a Fortune 500 company, all 5'2" of him.
LC~ To put in a context Michael might understand, whether "gay" or "height
challenged", God made 'em what they are. Take your complaints to Him.
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an
equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on
themselves."~ Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:11:39 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
It's about not confusing the desire with the legitimacy for activity, or
about proselytising personal sexual activity as a cultural norm, not
conflating disorder that contradicts natural laws with activity that goes
with the grain of social cohesion, or devaluing the human institition of
marriage in an attempt at self justification.
What a load of nothing. "Contadicts natural law". "Social cohesion". "Self
justification". When all else fails, fall back on the patently lame "natural
law" BS.
Be honest for a change, and call it what it is: Bigotry.
OK, try this.
Do you think that same sex marriage should be confined to homosexuals?
FYI, the only person I have crossed a continent to be with is a homosexual
man, a lovely but very troubled person.
Your anecdote is supposed to mean what, exactly?
I know many homosexual men and women. They want no more or no less than I, a
married heterosexual, want. Every one of them tells me that their
orientation is not a "choice". Their varying degrees of activism is typical
of any demographic seeking parity within mainstream culture.
What is the purpose of marriage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:37:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Do you think that same sex marriage should be confined to homosexuals?
Of course not, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish with that
question.
What is the purpose of marriage?
To enforce monogamy and Christianize the mating process.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:40:20 AM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Do you think that same sex marriage should be confined to homosexuals?
Of course not, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish with that
question.
So I'm right in thinking that you think I should be able to marry my
best friend? Or my brother? Or my father?
What is the purpose of marriage?
To enforce monogamy and Christianize the mating process.
OK, two extremes, I grant you. You're the child, you choose which
parents will be best for you, your mental health and development, and
your childhood.
1: Boring, monogamous Christianized parents
=============================
Stay together, devoted, struggle through difficult times to bring you
up, sexually loyal towards each other and emotionally loyal to their family.
2: Exciting, whizzo, non Christianized parents
============================
***** about, you have no idea which one of the strange men that drift in
and out of your life are your dad or your 'uncles', your mother's
conflicts include balancing your needs with whatever man she's trying to
seduce, your father has one or a number of women drifting in and out of
his life.
Go on - tell me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:28:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
So I'm right in thinking that you think I should be able to marry my
best friend? Or my brother? Or my father?
Sure. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a politically-charged term
for a simple legal contract that can be entered into by any two
people. Part of the problem is the insistence of the gay community in
calling the contract "marriage", because that's the word that really
riles the conservative base.
How do you feel about civil unions?
1: Boring, monogamous Christianized parents
Stay together, devoted, struggle through difficult times to bring you
up, sexually loyal towards each other and emotionally loyal to their family.
This isn't an extreme, so comparing it to your second example is
meaningless. A proper comparison would be growing up in a Bob Jones
household, praying for forgiveness when you think of a member of the
opposite sex and when you doubt that the Earth is 6000 years old, and
the like.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:23:40 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
So I'm right in thinking that you think I should be able to marry my
best friend? Or my brother? Or my father?
Sure. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a politically-charged term
for a simple legal contract that can be entered into by any two
people. Part of the problem is the insistence of the gay community in
calling the contract "marriage", because that's the word that really
riles the conservative base.
How do you feel about civil unions?
Yes, I do broadly support them. I think that there are groups such as
ageing siblings who live together who are entitled to pretection of
property when the other one dies, or even old friends who choose to live
together when they lose their husbands or wives. I would have to give
more consideration to the specifics.
You are correct, it is the word marriage that is problematic.
1: Boring, monogamous Christianized parents
Stay together, devoted, struggle through difficult times to bring you
up, sexually loyal towards each other and emotionally loyal to their family.
This isn't an extreme, so comparing it to your second example is
meaningless. A proper comparison would be growing up in a Bob Jones
household, praying for forgiveness when you think of a member of the
opposite sex and when you doubt that the Earth is 6000 years old, and
the like.
Come on, answer the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:56:00 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Yes, I do broadly support them. I think that there are groups such as
ageing siblings who live together who are entitled to pretection of
property when the other one dies, or even old friends who choose to live
together when they lose their husbands or wives. I would have to give
more consideration to the specifics.
So we're actually in a lot more agreement now.
You are correct, it is the word marriage that is problematic.
It's rank stupidity on the part of gay rights advocates to insist on
using the word. Their chances of winning go way down when they use
it.
Come on, answer the question.
Your question, or my amended version of it? Answering my version is
like choosing between being burned at the stake and being broken on
the wheel.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:27:35 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
This isn't about people "changing" or "not changing". Nor is it about
accepting people for who they are.
Apparently not, since you seem unwilling to do so.
It's about not confusing the desire with the legitimacy for activity, or
about proselytising personal sexual activity as a cultural norm,
I'm sure you'd say the same thing about premarital sex...
not
conflating disorder that contradicts natural laws with activity that
goes with the grain of social cohesion,
Did you know that animals exhibit homosexual behavior?
or devaluing the human
institition of marriage in an attempt at self justification.
No one cares about the "sanctity" of marriage except for religious
people.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:31:55 AM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
This isn't about people "changing" or "not changing". Nor is it about
accepting people for who they are.
Apparently not, since you seem unwilling to do so.
Who ever said that homosexuals shouldn't be accepted for who they are?
It's about not confusing the desire with the legitimacy for activity, or
about proselytising personal sexual activity as a cultural norm,
I'm sure you'd say the same thing about premarital sex...
I would never promote heterosexual relationships outside marriage to be
equal to marriage, or proselytise them as the norm, or try to force
governments to accept them as equal.
Did you know that animals exhibit homosexual behavior?
Yes I did. I've seen bullocks humping each other in the field. There
sure are some confused animals out there!
or devaluing the human
institition of marriage in an attempt at self justification.
No one cares about the "sanctity" of marriage except for religious
people.
I was talking about the value of marriage, which can be assessed
independently of religious consideration.
(Why does pro-abortion seem to go hand in hand with anti marriage and
pro a laissez-faire view of sexual activity?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:06:18 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Who ever said that homosexuals shouldn't be accepted for who they are?
So singly, you're okay with them, but when they do things as a group,
you get jittery about their "agenda". Does that cover it?
I would never promote heterosexual relationships outside marriage to be
equal to marriage, or proselytise them as the norm, or try to force
governments to accept them as equal.
So in other words, you believe that religion should guide governments
in how they recognize (or don't) interpersonal relationships.
Yes I did. I've seen bullocks humping each other in the field. There
sure are some confused animals out there!
....
I was talking about the value of marriage, which can be assessed
independently of religious consideration.
But in no case is it valuable enough that its definitions must be
codified in law.
(Why does pro-abortion seem to go hand in hand with anti marriage and
pro a laissez-faire view of sexual activity?)
Because if you accept the laissez-faire view of sexual activity, it
probably means that you don't have the strong religious views that
typically go along with anti-choice politics.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:17:50 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Who ever said that homosexuals shouldn't be accepted for who they are?
So singly, you're okay with them, but when they do things as a group,
you get jittery about their "agenda". Does that cover it?
It depends on what that is and what it does. I think it's imperative if
homosexuals, or straight men, or siblings, stand up and say that they
want the right to be recognised as married then we should say no. That's
just to misunderstand marriage.
I would never promote heterosexual relationships outside marriage to be
equal to marriage, or proselytise them as the norm, or try to force
governments to accept them as equal.
So in other words, you believe that religion should guide governments
in how they recognize (or don't) interpersonal relationships.
No, I believe that the best interests of the family and especially
children should.
I was talking about the value of marriage, which can be assessed
independently of religious consideration.
But in no case is it valuable enough that its definitions must be
codified in law.
Yes I believe it is and it must be if the law is to have any meaning.
(Why does pro-abortion seem to go hand in hand with anti marriage and
pro a laissez-faire view of sexual activity?)
Because if you accept the laissez-faire view of sexual activity, it
probably means that you don't have the strong religious views that
typically go along with anti-choice politics.
Oh right, choice is now more that abortion, it's about whatever anyone
wants to do in relationship to anything. I'm sure you'd defend the right
of the American people to choose to codeify marriage as a relationship
between a man and a woman then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:48:44 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
No, I believe that the best interests of the family and especially
children should.
I'm sure you're of the impression that being raised by one straight
parent is automatically better than being raised by two homosexual
parents.
Yes I believe it is and it must be if the law is to have any meaning.
So our legal system collapses if civil unions are allowed?
Oh right, choice is now more that abortion, it's about whatever anyone
wants to do in relationship to anything. I'm sure you'd defend the right
of the American people to choose to codeify marriage as a relationship
between a man and a woman then.
No. I'm against preventing people from doing things that don't harm
others. Wait, don't tell me - "Homosexual marriage harms the
family".
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 01:30:12 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
No, I believe that the best interests of the family and especially
children should.
I'm sure you're of the impression that being raised by one straight
parent is automatically better than being raised by two homosexual
parents.
Yes.
Yes I believe it is and it must be if the law is to have any meaning.
So our legal system collapses if civil unions are allowed?
No, I didn't say that.
Oh right, choice is now more that abortion, it's about whatever anyone
wants to do in relationship to anything. I'm sure you'd defend the right
of the American people to choose to codeify marriage as a relationship
between a man and a woman then.
No. I'm against preventing people from doing things that don't harm
others. Wait, don't tell me - "Homosexual marriage harms the
family".
OK, I won't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 02:03:16 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Yes.
I'm convinced you're wrong, but there's really not much point in
continuing this discussion past that point.
No, I didn't say that.
So what essential meaning of the law is lost if we don't legistlate
morals?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 08:33:37 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "nospam" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
23 Nov 2004 02:26:24 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
You're pretty much lobotomized, aren't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 08:42:57 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 09:03:58 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
