Abortion

[Dr.Who]

And of course that is nonsense. In our culture it is popular to state such things but in the context of history and world governments it is not true. For instance, consider freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. in the context of 30 years ago Communist China, Nazi Germany. Such rights did not exist because those governments did not grant them. American founding fathers had a penchant for idealistic speech.

I know this is going to be an invitation for MT to come in here and derail this thread but after this long...

Gay people are making the claim that their right to get married is being violated. If the right does not exist unless the state recognizes it then they have no such right and it cannot be violated. But if rights exist independent of government then they very well may have such a right.

 

[Pandora]

I know this is going to be an invitation for MT to come in here and derail this thread but after this long...

Gay people are making the claim that their right to get married is being violated. If the right does not exist unless the state recognizes it then they have no such right and it cannot be violated. But if rights exist independent of government then they very well may have such a right.

They have the same rights I have. I also have no legal right to marry another woman and I have the right to marry a man even though I dont want to.

 

[palerider]

They have the same rights I have. I also have no legal right to marry another woman and I have the right to marry a man even though I dont want to.

That is true. What those who support gay marriage don't seem to realize is that they are not asking that their rights be protected, because they have the same rights as everyone else. What they are asking for is special rights based on nothing more than sexual orientation.

 

[Dr.Who]

They have the same rights I have. I also have no legal right to marry another woman and I have the right to marry a man even though I dont want to.

Right. They have the right to get married. And you both have your right to marry a person of the same gender restricted.

The point being that rights exist independent of government even if they can be exercised more or less freely. The question of whether or not a right to marry is more or less free depending on how much one wants it should not be discussed here but have a new thread started if one wants to talk about that.

But if we apply the same question to abortion then we have:

1) The ridiculous question of whether or not a suicidal fetus has a right to life. Which is similar to the argument that a fetus that is destined to grow up in less than ideal circumstances has less of a right to life.

2) The question of whether or not a mother who wants her baby has more of a right to kill it than a woman who does not want it. Also silly. But it does beg the question of how to apply principles of negligence. A woman who wants her baby but takes crack cocaine can be charged with negligence. How about a woman who is planning to abort?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know this is going to be an invitation for MT to come in here and derail this thread but after this long...

Gay people are making the claim that their right to get married is being violated. If the right does not exist unless the state recognizes it then they have no such right and it cannot be violated. But if rights exist independent of government then they very well may have such a right.

Of course, Who, I'd be happy to derail your thread. The US Constitution grants the right under the equal protection clause--we all have to be equal under the application of the law and in this case it's only the gay people who are not being equally protected because of religious dogma.

This thread should be derailed in light of the fact that Pale has posted the same thing forty-eleven times.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

They have the same rights I have. I also have no legal right to marry another woman and I have the right to marry a man even though I dont want to.

So you are substituting sexism for heterosexism, the KKK did much the same thing with interracial marriage when they opposed it by saying that black men had the same right to marry black women that white had to marry white women. Discriminating on the basis of some arbitrary quality IS NOT equal protection under the law.

Women's right to own property and to vote were withheld for a similar reason in that an arbitrary quality--in this case being female--was used as an excuse for denying the equality required by the Constitution. It's too bad to see otherwise intelligent people being taken in by the same fallacies as our forebears

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is true. What those who support gay marriage don't seem to realize is that they are not asking that their rights be protected, because they have the same rights as everyone else. What they are asking for is special rights based on nothing more than sexual orientation.

Actually, we're asking for the SAME right as you already have: you are allowed to marry a person based on YOUR sexual orientation, why shouldn't we have that same right?

 

[Pidgey]

Actually, we're asking for the SAME right as you already have: you are allowed to marry a person based on YOUR sexual orientation, why shouldn't we have that same right?

Said sexual orientation being consistent with factory-installed equipment capable of autonomous procreation provided the instructions in the operations manual are followed correctly between paired units, that is.



(Sorry, Mare... couldn't help myself!)​

________________________________________

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Said sexual orientation being consistent with factory-installed equipment capable of autonomous procreation provided the instructions in the operations manual are followed correctly between paired units, that is.
(Sorry, Mare... couldn't help myself!)​

That's the issue, with sexual orientation you can't help yourself. But considering how prevalent homosexual behavior is in all of the animal kingdom it would surprising if humans didn't have homosexual members. The whole issue of judging these people as "less than" without researching the subject is the problem--too many people let their egos, fears, and religious beliefs prejudice them. Women were once judged to be 2nd class citizens in the same way, by people very much like the ones discriminating against us today. Cultural evolution is a slow process which requires the old, rigid, tried-and-true, ossified, mossyback, poorly educated people who refuse to learn from the example of history to die of old age and for the new generation to grow up with a more enlightened viewpoint.​

 

[Pidgey]

So... what's this current subject doing in the abortion thread? Sorry, I haven't read back even so much as a few posts. Seems like there was a thread for this subject elsewhere...

Normally, I don't read these threads, preferring instead to stick to business, economy, energy and science; and mostly those because they ARE quantifiable even when folks on here post pure garbage with respect to them. Therefore, in my general way of thinking, the installed equipment tends to define the mode of operation that should be utilized. I am well aware of the software mismatches and hardware defects that can arise but would probably suggest that defective units utilize role-playing if so required for fulfilment.

Realize that Darwinian processes do exist to maintain workable designs, nowhere more brutally than in nature where the force of law as we know it does not exist. With pigeons for instance, the flock mentality IS the means of ultimate survival as they don't have a way of defending themselves against predators short of speed of straight-line flight. Many behavioral aberrations just don't make it. That is, if a particular pigeon tends to stay at a feeder while the others flee the snap of a twig, that bird will NOT last long. Individuals particularly friendly to people will more-often-than-not suffer the same fate as well. It follows that if I'm correct about the changes that will come to the world (specifically to people) due to a shift of sign in the derivative of net energy distributed per capita, then you might as well come to terms with the severity of intolerance that will arise in groups the world over sooner, rather than later.

It'd probably be an interesting discussion to attempt to put into words exactly what we each believe are the roles of men and women. Most folks are probably going to rely too much on some kind of cultural setting. For instance, supposing you were a man wanting to live as a woman but were stuck in a group in an aboriginal setting like a nomadic Indian tribe... probably might not have the appeal that it does today in our setting, hmm? You might try exploring the entire thought from that angle and see where it might go towards defining the essence of the thing.

I know, I know... our culture and our laws are supposed to protect the individual from the group but in point of fact many of our most recent laws are turning that around and are attempting to benefit the group at the expense of individuals. You cannot have it both ways and it ever actually work, especially in a world with an increasing population and a decreasing per capita net energy--it's a mathematical impossibility.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So... what's this current subject doing in the abortion thread? Therefore, in my general way of thinking, the installed equipment tends to define the mode of operation that should be utilized. I am well aware of the software mismatches and hardware defects that can arise but would probably suggest that defective units utilize role-playing if so required for fulfilment.

The brain/body mismatch, or lack of congruity between internal perception of gender and outward appearance of gender are scientific facts. The AMA has been treating transgendered people successfully for more than 40 years now using the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care. Easy to research and easy to find. Another source of information is THE FEMALE BRAIN by Dr. Louanne Brizendine in which she follows the development of the female brain from conception to menopause and contrasts it with the male brain. She cites her own lifework and more than 1000 other papers, complete bibliography at the end of the book.

It'd probably be an interesting discussion to attempt to put into words exactly what we each believe are the roles of men and women. Most folks are probably going to rely too much on some kind of cultural setting. For instance, supposing you were a man wanting to live as a woman but were stuck in a group in an aboriginal setting like a nomadic Indian tribe... probably might not have the appeal that it does today in our setting, hmm? You might try exploring the entire thought from that angle and see where it might go towards defining the essence of the thing.

Interestingly enough, aboriginal groups honored transpeople for their ability to see both sides of the gender binary. A good reference work is Leslie Feinberg's TRANSGENDER WARRIORS.

With pigeons, the flock mentality IS the means of ultimate survival as they don't have a way of defending themselves against predators short of speed of straight-line flight. Many behavioral aberrations just don't make it. That is, if a particular pigeon tends to stay at a feeder while the others flee the snap of a twig, that bird will NOT last long. Individuals particularly friendly to people will more-often-than-not suffer the same fate as well.

In humans it's our brain and our diversity that give us our strength. Singling out one group to persecute on the basis of nothing but religious dogma is counter productive. BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D is simply a compendium of what science has discovered about homosexuality in animals. Almost all the higher animals have homosexual members and there are examples given of how these "queers" are beneficial to their specie. Who would ever have suspected grizzly bears or giraffes?

 

[Pandora]

So you are substituting sexism for heterosexism, the KKK did much the same thing with interracial marriage when they opposed it by saying that black men had the same right to marry black women that white had to marry white women. Discriminating on the basis of some arbitrary quality IS NOT equal protection under the law.

Women's right to own property and to vote were withheld for a similar reason in that an arbitrary quality--in this case being female--was used as an excuse for denying the equality required by the Constitution. It's too bad to see otherwise intelligent people being taken in by the same fallacies as our forebears

I am just saying we already have the same rights, what you are talking about is new and different than the current rights we currently have.

I would like to be able to marry my grandmother and not have to pay the death tax or/and marry my sister and get her on my insurance but I cant do either.

You know how I feel, I think marrage should be that anyone at any time can marry any one or any thing in groups or in singles for any reason and no special rights should be given to any person married.

Actually I think it would be cool if government validated marriages could cost 10 thousand dollars and give not one single extra right. Maybe if that happened people would stop wanting the government to validate their relationship.

But this is the abortion topic so Ill be quiet

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am just saying we already have the same rights, what you are talking about is new and different than the current rights we currently have.

You can marry the adult person to whom you are sexually attracted if they agree, gays cannot. Semantics cannot change that, the laws were written by heterosexuals to exclude homosexuals on the basis of religion.

I would like to be able to marry my grandmother and not have to pay the death tax or/and marry my sister and get her on my insurance but I cant do either.

You know how I feel, I think marrage should be that anyone at any time can marry any one or any thing in groups or in singles for any reason and no special rights should be given to any person married.

Actually I think it would be cool if government validated marriages could cost 10 thousand dollars and give not one single extra right. Maybe if that happened people would stop wanting the government to validate their relationship.

But this is the abortion topic so Ill be quiet

As long as it's in US law then it should be applied equally to all. If you wish to marry your son and have ningnong babies, then you should be able to do so. The thing is that I know that hundreds of thousands of frustrated parents who wish to marry their sons or daughters, marry their grandparents, marry their refrigerators or their dogs have been demonstrating in the streets for decades. I wish all you people WOULD just do it, then you could be hated and persecuted just like we have been.

Posts like yours are intended to trivialize the subject, I know that, but what I don't know is why. What's in it for you? Will your "god" or whatever reduce your personal portion of nirvana or Happy Hunting Ground or whatever you believe in if you don't sh1t on us? One of the few bright spots in this dreary world for me is when we speak to University students and find that they are far more enlightened than their parents generation. All I can do is wait for you to die of old age and take your twisted hates and prejudices with you. And none to soon for me.

 

[Pandora]

You can marry the adult person to whom you are sexually attracted if they agree, gays cannot. Semantics cannot change that, the laws were written by heterosexuals to exclude homosexuals on the basis of religion.



As long as it's in US law then it should be applied equally to all. If you wish to marry your son and have ningnong babies, then you should be able to do so. The thing is that I know that hundreds of thousands of frustrated parents who wish to marry their sons or daughters, marry their grandparents, marry their refrigerators or their dogs have been demonstrating in the streets for decades. I wish all you people WOULD just do it, then you could be hated and persecuted just like we have been.

Posts like yours are intended to trivialize the subject, I know that, but what I don't know is why. What's in it for you? Will your "god" or whatever reduce your personal portion of nirvana or Happy Hunting Ground or whatever you believe in if you don't sh1t on us? One of the few bright spots in this dreary world for me is when we speak to University students and find that they are far more enlightened than their parents generation. All I can do is wait for you to die of old age and take your twisted hates and prejudices with you. And none to soon for me.

My twisted hate? Are you in a bad mood today?

I dont care one way or the other what homosexuals do or dont do. That does not equal hate. Not caring and hating are very different things.

 

[Dr.Who]

My twisted hate? Are you in a bad mood today?

I dont care one way or the other what homosexuals do or dont do. That does not equal hate. Not caring and hating are very different things.

Yes well MT sees any disagreement as hate. It is people like him that point out the need to prevent hate crime legislation that would so clearly be abused.