Planned Parenthood sued

[sangha]

You aren't the first to have tried this argument which only confirms you haven't read the thread and are making stuff up.

Then quote someone who has said that the fact that the unborn are different is a rationale for having an abortion.

No, it is perfectly logical. If we are to be a country of equal protection then you need a rational reason to deny equal protection to humans in the womb.

No, the unborn have no right to equal protection. The govt only has those powers that "We, the People" have delegated to - powers which do not include protecting the non-existant rights of the unborn

It's the the same argument for why we don't kill other humans out of convenience. Like I said, you whole argument depends on the underlying assumption that they are not humans.

Wrong

First of all, we do kill other human beings. Secondly, we don't kill any people out of convenience. And finally, the reason why the govt protects the right to life of the born is because the constitution empowers the govt to protect their rights. The constitution does not give the govt the power to protect the unborns' mythical right to life.

You can only claim that life in the womb isn't equal, you have no argument. The LOGICAL argument is that whether in the womb or out of the womb we are living humans and have the right to equal protection.

Again, the constitution does not give the govt the power to protect the unborn's mythical rights. The unborn have no right to equal protection. It is completely illogical to claim that they have such a right.

Hah! Dude, you just said that.

Quote me saying that or you're lying.

No straw man here, only trying unsuccessfully to get any of you to present a rational argument for why the right to life of the unborn should be forfeit. You don't have an answer.

Your claim that I said you've ignored the birthing process is a straw man, proven by the fact that you can't quote me saying that. And I've explained many times that the unborn have no right to life and the constitution does not give the govt the power to protect the unborn's mythical rights.

So I'll ask you again for you to provide the "logical argument" for why the govt should protect the unborns' mythical right to life when the constitution does not grant the govt that power?



Projection on your part.

I argue that the unborn are living humans which entitles then to equal protection of all other humans. That is a concise and logical argument. Humans have a right to life and the unborn are humans.

You can't counter that argument without dehumanizing the unborn or arguing against a right to life.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scrabaholic]

I am trying to have a respectful conversation TG, I really am. I value your opinion and feel you bring a tremendous amount of though provoking ideas to the forum.

But you do realize child rapists and pedophiles make the same argument? They argue their behavior is not a choice either.

Oh, good grief. Child rapists and pedophiles harm others. Being homosexual and having sex with adults only doesn't harm any non consenting persons.

 

[TheGoverness]

Oh, good grief. Child rapists and pedophiles harm others. Being homosexual and having sex with adults only doesn't harm any non consenting persons.

Exactly. I've seen this same argument used so many times (mainly by Christians), and they seem to not quite understand the concept of consent.

 

[year2late]

I am trying to have a respectful conversation TG, I really am. I value your opinion and feel you bring a tremendous amount of though provoking ideas to the forum.

But you do realize child rapists and pedophiles make the same argument? They argue their behavior is not a choice either.

You forgot to mention bestiality to complete the Rick Santorum triad of ignorance.

 

[RamFel]

Southern Dad is wrong as ****. Being gay is not a choice.

This is not my opinion. This is a FACT. Whether you choose to accept this or not is up to you.

I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but the fact that men have penises and women have virginas', and it seems to anybody that looks at the whole issue from a "Open and Objective Mind" perspective, will see things as they really are, and not the way others tell them.

Nope. It's not a fad. It's not some experimental phase either.

There's nothing wrong with me liking other girls anyways, so I don't see how that is a "error of my ways". But it's not like being gay is a choice anyways, so what the **** ever.

I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but the fact that men have penises and women have virginas', and it seems to anybody that looks at the whole issue from a "Open and Objective Mind" perspective, will see things as they really are, and not the way others tell them.

That's why I believe it is a choice.

 

[TheGoverness]

I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but the fact that men have penises and women have virginas', and it seems to anybody that looks at the whole issue from a "Open and Objective Mind" perspective, will see things as they really are, and not the way others tell them.

That's why I believe it is a choice.

But we do know for certain. Being gay is NOT a choice.

But even if it was, so what?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but the fact that men have penises and women have virginas', and it seems to anybody that looks at the whole issue from a "Open and Objective Mind" perspective, will see things as they really are, and not the way others tell them.

That's why I believe it is a choice.

What are virginas?

 

[year2late]

What are virginas?

Somewhere in the Southern region, I suppose,

 

[RamFel]

But we do know for certain. Being gay is NOT a choice.

But even if it was, so what?

Just want to make sure we present both sides of the issue. No sense just presenting one side.

Tell my why you think so?

 

[RamFel]

What are virginas?

Why? Did I misspell it?

 

[TheGoverness]

Just want to make sure we present both sides of the issue. No sense just presenting one side.

Tell my why you think so?

Well, I don't 'think so'. I know so.

There has been decades of research conducted by science that have determined that people cannot change their sexual orientation simply because they want to. And there are even more studies that show that being gay may have a biological or genetic basis.

 

[nota bene]

Here is my position which is clear in my mind. Nothing that anyone has posted has even made me question it. I firmly believe that sexual attraction is something that we control. Therefore, I believe that being gay is a choice. I have given two situations that everyone tap dances around and says that's different it doesn't matter. One is relatives. How many in here have said they are not attracted to siblings, cousins or other relations? Why not, are they ugly? The other is Bubba goes to prison straight, but chooses to be attracted to males because they are available. Is Bubba straight or homosexual?

You're confusing "attraction" with "availability."

 

[nota bene]

Right. It is my position that people are not attracted to their cousins, siblings, and other relatives because they choose not to be... The same with deciding to be attracted to same sex. We choose.

As has already been mentioned, you're confusing orientation with attraction.

And in any event, it's having sex that's the choice. Whether you're gay or straight, you choose to have sex, whether it's with a cousin or somebody of your own gender. That's the choice.

 

[Bucky]

Choosing to be gay indicates a perverse nature. It is a sign of a sickness and disease.

Is being gay hurtful? Absolutely. It is more destructive than global warming or cancer. Imagine if the gays took over. Our society would crumble. It would be impossible for them to sustain the population or properly raise a family.

 

[Removable Mind]

Choosing to be gay indicates a perverse nature. It is a sign of a sickness and disease.

Is being gay hurtful? Absolutely. It is more destructive than global warming or cancer. Imagine if the gays took over. Our society would crumble. It would be impossible for them to sustain the population or properly raise a family.

You don't have a clue about what your talking about...as usual. You can't back up a single claim you've made...as usual.

 

[year2late]

Choosing to be gay indicates a perverse nature. It is a sign of a sickness and disease.

Is being gay hurtful? Absolutely. It is more destructive than global warming or cancer. Imagine if the gays took over. Our society would crumble. It would be impossible for them to sustain the population or properly raise a family.

God probably created gay people as a natural curb to a human population explosion.

If as a species we chose not to reproduce anymore...then we will not continue as a species. Extinction is not an unusual event.

 

[TheGoverness]

Choosing to be gay indicates a perverse nature. It is a sign of a sickness and disease.

Jesus Christ. Once again, gay people do not choose to be gay, just like heterosexual people did not choose to be straight.

And really? Gay people are "perverse"? Gay people are sick and diseased?
That's just complete bull****.


Homosexuality is a completely natural thing; it's already been observed in over 200 animal species in the wild. And seriously, gay people aren't "sick" "diseased", and I don't see how liking someone of the same-sex makes us gays "diseased".

Is being gay hurtful? Absolutely.

No it isn't. I'm doing just fine with my gayness, thank you very much.

It is more destructive than global warming or cancer.

Hyperbolic BS.

Imagine if the gays took over. Our society would crumble. It would be impossible for them to sustain the population or properly raise a family.

Jesus Christ. Really? Really?

Gays make up a small portion of the world population. That's why this scenario is just completely stupid from the start. But you know that gays could still have heterosexual sex for the purposes of procreation.

But I don't even know why I'm actually trying to refute this. It's just 100% stupid.

 

[Bucky]

You don't have a clue about what your talking about...as usual. You can't back up a single claim you've made...as usual.

Show me proof that being gay is not a choice. All of I have seen from your side is just a bunch of booting popping and jukes and jives. Nothing concrete.

I'll be waiting...

 

[TheGoverness]

Show me proof that being gay is not a choice. All of I have seen from your side is just a bunch of booting popping and jukes and jives. Nothing concrete.

I'll be waiting...

You are asking RM to prove a negative, which is impossible.

That's like if I told you to prove that I don't ride my bike to work everyday.

The burden of proof is not on RM; it is solely on you, my friend.

YOU made the the positive claim. YOU provide the evidence.

But your argument is just 100% incorrect anyways. We already have numerous scientific studies conducted by researchers that have shown that homosexuality has a genetic or biological basis. And scientists also have observed homosexuality in over 200 species in the wild.

5 Surprising Facts About Gay Conversion Therapy

Why It's OK for Birds to Be Gay

Psychological Medicine - Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation - Cambridge Journals Online

Being Gay Not a Choice: Science Contradicts Ben Carson

 

[Henrin]

Show me proof that being gay is not a choice. All of I have seen from your side is just a bunch of booting popping and jukes and jives. Nothing concrete.

I'll be waiting...

When and how did you decide to be straight? You should really share how you managed it so everyone knows exactly how to change their sexual attractions at will.

 

[Henrin]

God probably created gay people as a natural curb to a human population explosion.

If as a species we chose not to reproduce anymore...then we will not continue as a species. Extinction is not an unusual event.

The theory is flawed though. While 80% of women historically reproduced, only about 40% of men did. That leaves 20% of women and 60% of men that throughout history never had children. Why would you need 3-5% of that to be gay?

 

[Henrin]

You're confusing "attraction" with "availability."

I just don't buy into that theory. Most men in prison will not just have sexual relations with men because that is all there is.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Here is my position which is clear in my mind. Nothing that anyone has posted has even made me question it. I firmly believe that sexual attraction is something that we control. Therefore, I believe that being gay is a choice. I have given two situations that everyone tap dances around and says that's different it doesn't matter. One is relatives. How many in here have said they are not attracted to siblings, cousins or other relations? Why not, are they ugly? The other is Bubba goes to prison straight, but chooses to be attracted to males because they are available. Is Bubba straight or homosexual?

That (bolded above) is the lamest thing that I have ever heard. Omitting close relatives as potential sexual partners is not even in the same ballpark as omitting all people of one gender - half of the world's population is a far cry from members of your immediate family.

As far as partner availability goes, this song sums it up pretty well:

 

[year2late]

The theory is flawed though. While 80% of women historically reproduced, only about 40% of men did. That leaves 20% of women and 60% of men that throughout history never had children. Why would you need 3-5% of that to be gay?

It is God's plan.

 

[Henrin]

It is God's plan.

It doesn't make any sense. If gods plan for homosexuality was really population control then why did he also make it expected that a large percentage of the straight population won't have children?