When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
George Wells
but that”s not medical intervention, that is playing with science, TO START ANOTHER CREATION
OF HUMANS ,AND BECAUSE YOU DON”T BELIEVE IN GOD, DOESN’T change the reality that he is alive ,
and would not be happy to know that,
you don’t believe in GOD, BUT who will demand an experiment of two males genes becoming a human,
might PRODUCE A beast,
AND GOD WOULD NOT TOLERATE HIS CREATION TO BE DUPLICATED,
AND WOULD BE VERY ANGRY AT THIS CREATION, I CALL EVIL AND TEMPTING GOD,
WHICH YOU COULD GET THE PUNISHMENT FROM HIM, SOMETHING YOU CAN READ IN THE APOCALYPE’S PAGES OF YOUR BIBLE,
YOU GAYS HAVE ALREADY THOUGHT OF THAT NEW CREATION, IT TELL US HOW DANGEROUS YOU
ARE FOR AMERICA, AND YOU SHOULD BE STRIP OF YOUR BENEFITS, AND LIVE UNDER THE OUTMOST SCRUTINY,
AT ALL TIME, TO PREVENT YOU ALL FROM MAKING YOUR THOUGHTS REALIZE,
ONLY THE DEVIL WOULD PLANT THAT WISH IN YOUR MIND,
You prove my points that your position in this debate is not adequately supported by logic and that your views are colored by personal animus.
Your arrogance deceives you, George. It is quite possible to dislike someone, yet debate them with logic. You, again in your arrogance, assume I do not have the capability to do that. I suggest you not judge others while looking in the mirror. Now, you, on the other hand, simply avoids those points I make that you find uncomfortable. Your dishonesty is revealed in your silence.
Since you do not know me personally, your animus is nothing more than simple bigotry
.
I know you by your words, George. Just as I know others by their words. You are here for one reason; to plead your agenda, and to slander those who disagree with you. But unlike you pushing your agenda at what can be considered a fairly right wing blog, I do not go to gay blog sites telling the authors and respondents how wrong they are. Therein lies the difference in us; you push, but I only push back and only here, not on some gay website.
Bigotry: the obstinate holding of a belief – often religious – that is not supported by fact.
“Bigotry” The one word that all leftists pull out of their bag of insults when they can’t debate. And then there is the “often religious”, a snide illusion that bigotry is represented mainly in the religious. I suggest to you there are few who can compete with the bigotry shown by homosexuals toward those that disagree with them. Protests, law suits, threats, et al. All the purview of the radical gay movement.
You came here. You were not personally invited. You knew from the git-go that this site is basically conservative and right wing. Yet here you are, pleading your case and trying to convince others that nothing more than total acceptance of the queer life style is warranted and anything less is only the result of blatant bigotry. Yet when pushed on the history of homosexuality and how it has destroyed societies, you run to another topic, not wanting to deal with anything inconvenient. Hell, man, in previous sparing sessions with me, you were totally unaware of Marxist Antonio Gramsci and his influence on the homosexual movement.
Take your cultural Marxism political correctness and shove it. I did not buy into it when I was a Democrat, and I don’t buy it now. If you are looking for someone to placate you in your insecurity, I think you have come to the wrong place.
George Wells
10 years ago
@bees #151:
No, bees, gays didn’t “think” of it. It has already been done. Sheep have been cloned. That is the doing God’s work” that you’re talking about, isn’t it? Did God smite the cloners?
You say that I don’t believe in God. Why do you say that? I don’t believe in YOUR God, I’ll grant, just like the Irish protestants don’t believe in the same God that the Irish Catholics believe in and are killing each other over the difference. There are Christian churches that believe in a God that supports Gay marriage, and others that do not. These are different beliefs, just as all different denominations of religious faith believe in vastly different things. Even the primary belief that God created the universe is not believed by ALL faiths. Just because I don’t believe in what YOUR faith believes in doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in God.
I guess you missed my answer to redteam when he asked me why I bothered to be here. Essentially, I am here for the mental stimulation, something that is not obtained by singing to the choir. What use is there to commiserate? Do you enjoy licking your wounds in group sessions? “Argumentation” helps to focus the mind in ways unavailable in “agreement.”
“Agenda?” Every time I have tried to articulate my “agenda,” you’ve called me a “liar,” so I now avoid it altogether. I just answer parts of your posts that I find particularly inviting. And I relish when you become frustrated by my candor and intransigence and stoop to personal insult, as I am convinced in those moments that you are losing the debate.
I’m not here to change your mind. Nothing could do that. I AM here to enjoy posting the best arguments I can think of, and I apologize if the quality of my efforts does not rise to your expectations. No, I know nothing about your Gramsci friend, just like I know relatively little about Biblical scripture. I don’t think that either are relevant in todays world, but I will agree that any ignorance invites mistake. I simply haven’t the time to learn every last thing.
George Wells
are you sure the GOD you believe in is the right one?
he could be a devil naming himself GOD,
the FALLEN ANGEL, thrown on the EARTH by the CREATOR HIMSELF till the end of time,
he disobeyed and thought he had more power than GOD,
DO YOU SEE A CONNECTION WITH YOUR THOUGHT EXPERIMENT?
I DOUBT YOUR MINISTER WHO CAME OUT OF THE RULES FROM THE HIERARCHY TO SERVE YOU AND YOUR OWN, MAKING YOU BELIEVE THAT HE GIVE YOU THE BLESSING FROM THE LORD,
I THINK HE IS A RENAGADE MINISTER SHUN BY HIS PEERS ,
FOR DESOBEYING, JUST LIKE THE FALLEN ANGEL. CHECK IT UP,
George Wells
10 years ago
@bees#155:
This is the same argument that is used by every religious denomination to oppose every other denomination. They cannot all be right, now can they? At the very most, exactly one of them can be either “right” or “more right than any of the others.” That makes all the rest of them either “wrong” or “less right than the others.” The chance that your particular denomination is “right” or “the most right” is pretty slim. If more devout people appreciated this predicament, false arrogance would not be so common an affliction.
That’s an odd requirement to expect law enforcement to enforce: “a public kiss is legal if it is executed respectfully and in a dignified manner, but not otherwise.”
Where did I mention law enforcement. I think the subject was Openly gay. Assless chaps, etc. dignity.
And how many bloodied women have you seen who were beaten to within an inch of their lives by their abusing husbands?
Try to stay on subject. We’re talking about crude vulgar displays, not lawlessness.
and you take every opportunity to portray homosexuals negatively in the hopes that you will somehow make them all go away.
let’s see if I interpret you correctly, you have no problem with public vulgar displays such as assless chaps, your only objection is me using that as an example of vulgar displays? That about it?
Gays are shown kissing on television,
I didn’t use that as an example, you did. You have a problem with it? I can just change channels. Assless chaps are vulgar public displays and changing the channel doesn’t make it go away.
Well, I suppose that that “something” would be REALITY. If you don’t like it, move to Uganda.
Strange that you mention a place that I’m sure you don’t plan to visit, nor can even get a visa for, if you tell the truth.
Just what DO you propose doing with those 10-25 million gay people?
The estimated number of gays in the US is between 5-10 million, why are you exaggerating? 1.5-2.0% of the population.
And you encourage them to live that lie – you INSIST that they go back into the closet
They’re not priests, who are expected to live a truthful life. I don’t care if gays stay in the closet or not as long as they aren’t ‘openly gay’ (I’m referring to public vulgar behavior and intent.)
Or is it that George, as a gay man, understands that sex generally dominates a gay man’s life and that if, for some reason, his “partner of 30+ years” (Paul, isn’t it) was unable to have sex, George’s fidelity would go out the window?
Essentially, I am here for the mental stimulation, something that is not obtained by singing to the choir.
Get someone to explain to you the difference between “stimulating” dialog and proselytizing, which seems to have eluded you.
“Agenda?” Every time I have tried to articulate my “agenda,” you’ve called me a “liar,” so I now avoid it altogether.
No, you avoid discussing certain items that make you uncomfortable. At least try to give the pretense of being honest.
No, I know nothing about your Gramsci friend,
Antonio Gramsci is not my friend. Not withstanding that he died long ago, he would not be my friend were he alive. Friend is a word that is used much too freely (unless you’re a Quaker). I place more value on the word “friend” than you seem to.
just like I know relatively little about Biblical scripture.
More’s the pity. Perhaps that explains a lot about you.
I don’t think that either are relevant in todays world,
Actually, Biblical scriptures holds more importance for our nation than at any time in our history. How sad that we have citizens like you that don’t understand the wisdom contained in the Bible or the understanding that you are but a small part of something greater than you.
Secularism, and a failure to believe in a high power, has never brought anything to any nation but misery.
This is the same argument that is used by every religious denomination to oppose every other denomination. They cannot all be right, now can they?
Yes, they can all be right as every religious denomination believes in one uniting element; a high power that we are answerable to. How sad that some believe that there is nothing after mortal life, reducing man to something that holds no greater importance than the bush in their yards.
The male-male production of a zygote (the initial cell that is formed by the joining together of two gametes – as in a sperm cell joined with an egg) is not beyond the capability of medical science any more than cloning is.
Wrong George, no medical experiments have shown that a human can be formed without the input from the female. DNA has both male-female parts and any attempt to artificially create a baby will require input from the female side of the DNA.
But that’s beside the point. If two gay guys want to live a gay life, why would they want children. Wanting children is a by product of a man and a woman. So gay guys should stick with gay guy things which does not include reproduction. That’s a part of heterosexual life, not homo, so why desert the homosexual side to go into the heterosexual world. Being a little inconsistent.
Interesting that while George pushes for same-sex marriage, the actual numbers don’t bear out his claim that it is of real importance to the gay community.
Also, studies have show that the one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage is (wait for it, you know what’s coming) FIDELITY.
Redteam
10 years ago
@George Wells: 145 George, you really have to reach on some things.
And there is no counterpart to the heterosexual rape of a pregnant woman,
Most of these are not done on public display to make the public gag, as the gay parade is designed to do.
or the tragedy of a woman who died as a result of a botched, illegal, coat-hanger abortion,
Are you saying no gay people perform illegal abortions?
or deadbeat fathers who refuse to provide child support for their offspring.
Are you saying no deadbeat dads are gay?
I love when you press ahead with insults.
I read both sides and I’d say you are just as prone to attempt to use insults.
147
But there ARE huge numbers of orphans, and there are not enough adoptive heterosexual couples to take them all.
So just dump them off onto a bunch of gays and hope it works out for them?
149
You prove my points that your position in this debate is not adequately supported by logic
George, I don’t see where Retire has proven your points. I don’t see where you have proven any points, making self-serving statements do not ‘prove’ points.
If two gay guys want to live a gay life, why would they want children.
Because it’s political. If gay guys are to become parents, then by all things politically correct, the public schools will have to teach children that homosexuality is normal in order to not hurt the feelings of the child that the gays either adopted, created in a petri dish or got a surrogate mother to provide to them. It is just another step to their demand for acceptance.
George Wells
10 years ago
@Redteam #157:
“Where did I mention law enforcement. I think the subject was Openly gay. Assless chaps, etc. dignity.“
Dignity is a nice thing to hope for, but not something that anyone can reasonably expect, and certainly not something that can be legally required. (Let me cut you off: I am NOT saying that you said it WAS any of those things. My OBSERVATION of these facts is offered because your comment SUGGESTED that the undignified behaviors you referenced were something that you have a problem with, and that you MIGHT be wanting me to comment about, so I’m COMMENTING.) I KNOW that you didn’t mention law enforcement. But the fact remains that if the undignified behavior isn’t breaking a law (even a BAD law), then what can you do about it but whine? Ah, and that’s what you ARE doing. I get it now – point well taken.
“We’re talking about crude vulgar displays”
Not really. This blog thread is about the civil rights issues relating to baking cakes for gay customers. You haven’t demonstrated a convincing reason why a baker may discriminate against an entire class of people because SOME of them members of that class behave vulgarly.
The number of gay people has no bearing on their civil rights. 5-10 million is fine. I don’t get a bonus if the number is larger.
“I don’t care … as long as they aren’t ‘openly gay’”
Well then, isn’t a gay kiss in public “openly gay”? weren’t you complaining about gay public kisses? Is a gay kiss in public vulgar, but a straight kiss is not? (I’m NOT saying that this is what you are saying OR suggesting, I’m ASKING A QUESTION.)
Here’s a hint for how you should respond: “COMMUNITY STANDARDS.”
In many situations, the courts have found that a behavior that is acceptable is a place like San Francisco may not be acceptable in, say, Little Rock. You can argue for conservative behavior on the grounds that a particular region’s community standards would be otherwise violated, and I will support you in that. But that is still behavior-based, and the discrimination you advocate re: refusing to bake gay cakes is class-wide discrimination that isd not protected by community standards.
“Wrong George, no medical experiments have shown that a human can be formed without the input from the female. DNA has both male-female parts and any attempt to artificially create a baby will require input from the female side of the DNA.”
You are still out of your field, old boy. Do you really think that only women can be cloned? Of course not! Men can be cloned just as easily as women. The research on human cloning (of EITHER sex) has been temporarily halted to give the courts time to deal with the political, moral and legal (which one of you own that bank account?) objections to the process. But cloning of other mammals has continued, and male mammals HAVE been cloned.
Before you embarrass yourself any further on this topic, I suggest that you google the question “Can Males Be Cloned?” and then read some of the articles that come up. The process is as I described. A “clone” borrows the genetic material to make both gamete-forming zygotes from the same individual, so the clone (whether male OR female) has only one parent, and he or she is genetically identical to its parent. If instead the zygotic material was taken from two DIFFERENT males, the resulting gamete would be a genetic combination of both “parents.” The process of creating a male clone is for all practical purposes the same as making a male gamete from two different males. Thus the scientific inevitability of children from two gay fathers.
Try reading up on science the next time you want to talk about it.
Now, here’s an example of why I enjoy being here. Anyone who reads this will learn something they probably didn’t already know, and I helped. Makes me feel good.
“Also, studies have show that the one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage is (wait for it, you know what’s coming) FIDELITY.”
Good. So a class difference in fidelity warrants excluding all gays from marrying? Is that what you suggest? Black men are statistically less likely to provide support for – much less marry the mothers of – their sired children, than are their white counterparts. Does that warrant excluding all blacks from marriage? I’m missing your logic. Oh, your rant has nothing to do with logic. It is just your way of painting all gay people in as negative a light as possible. Smear campaign. Right. Good work.
THERE WAS A COUNTRY NAME POMPEI,
it was told there was much corruption, man sex with man,
woman with woman some of both genders with animals ,ecetera,
one day, POMPEI DISAPEAR, THEY FOUND THE PEOPLE IN THEIR POSITION ALL
there UNDISTURBED but COVERED in ashes,
it was known of their perversion all around,
and they swear it was an act of GOD,
that’s enough to scare the shit of someone who seek to be pervert, AND PERVERTING ANOTHER ONE, OR A YOUNGER ONE,
IF THE STORY HAS MADE IT TO TODAY, IT HAS TO BE TRUE,
George Wells
10 years ago
@bees #169:
“IF THE STORY HAS MADE IT TO TODAY, IT HAS TO BE TRUE,”
That’s pretty funny, bees!
I am reminded of all the people who think the same thing about the contents of the Bible. A funny thing about the Bible is that it is CURRENTLY made up of a collection of 66 “books” written by different people at different points in time, and the decision to include the books that ARE in the bible today was made largely by a succession of different people and councils over the course of approximately 1500 years, and the precise list of those books has changed many times over that period. Books were added or subtracted according to their agreement or not with whatever interpretation of the historical record was popular at the moment. Most of the books that were either removed from the list or never made it on the list to begin with still “made it to today”. (You can read them, though some may not currently be available in English.) Yet biblical scholars would argue at length about whether or not their contents were “true.” Likely some details are, and others are not, just like the “story” of Pompeii. Nothing HAS to be true.
I’ve been to Pompeii. Mt. Vesuvius did the place in. It was a volcano. They happen. If you are going to credit GOD with the responsibility for every disaster that happens, fine, but what I have heard is that God works in mysterious ways and nobody can possibly understand His motives or predict His actions. I see no point in spending my life in fear of something I cannot possibly understand or predict. If you want to do that, be my guest.
George Wells
now I know why your number of loyals is raising up,
they are being taught that there is no punishment waiting for their perversion,
only the fallen angel should be believe,
you have made my doubt change to certainty, of what i thought,
Redteam
10 years ago
@George Wells: 167, okay George, here is a quote from what you told me to Google.
The monozygotic twins(twins formed from a single zygote) are natural clones. A single cell is formed by fusion of male and female gametes. Due to natural reasons, sometimes it separates in to two cells.
These two cells develop into 2 offsprings independently. The separated 2 cells have same genetic combination. Thus, the offsprings formed will have same genetic combination.
That seems to clearly say that a single human cell is formed by the fusion of male and female gametes. I would ask the question, if a single cell is both male and female, how can you clone that cell and leave out the female part.
You will note that I, at no time, said that males can’t be cloned. I said that no one can be cloned without including female genetic material.
Now I think that you thought you were ‘educating’ me, but I think you need to read up a little more if you think you can prove that any human can be cloned with no female genetics being involved. Think of an egg (and this is just for illustration) with the white and the yolk with one being male and one being female, it takes both to form the chick. You couldn’t just take two yolks and make a chick.
Now, here’s an example of why I enjoy being here. Anyone who reads this will learn something they probably didn’t already know, and I helped. Makes me feel good.
Whoops, you didn’t read far enough. Seems you were trying to prove something other than the point. You made the assumption that all the genetic material in a man is male, far from it, and if you try to exclude the female part, you won’t create a human.
165
Dignity is a nice thing to hope for, but not something that anyone can reasonably expect, and certainly not something that can be legally required.
I guess that’s a standard for gays to strive for, but I’ve observed in the class of people I associate with that almost all are dignified and respectful of those around them. Almost all the public crassness and vulgarity I see is from the ‘openly gays’. I have no way of knowing, but my observances seem to say that it is the gays that have ‘chosen’ to be gay, not those that were unfortunate enough to be born that way. (I don’t want to discuss that part because my views on it are already well known). My assumption about you, since you see nothing wrong with the public vulgarity of gays is that you are in the ‘choose to be’ classification. Those that have a political agenda.
Here’s a hint for how you should respond: “COMMUNITY STANDARDS.”
I suspect if I used that argument, that would be the first thing the openly gays would want to destroy. People are their standards, you either have it or you don’t. You’re either a classless vulgarity act, or you’re not. You’ve indicated which you prefer.
“That seems to clearly say that a single human cell is formed by the fusion of male and female gametes. I would ask the question, if a single cell is both male and female, how can you clone that cell and leave out the female part.
You will note that I, at no time, said that males can’t be cloned. I said that no one can be cloned without including female genetic material.”
This much of what you said is both essentially correct and not in conflict with what I said previously. The female genetic material is in the X-X chromosomal form, while the Male genetic material is X-Y. When a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, the egg has either the female’s first X or it’s second X, but the sperm cell has either the father’s X or his Y – but not both. If the sperm cell is Y, the baby is male (X-Y), but if the sperm cell is X, then the baby is a female (X-X). When a male is cloned, some of his cells are segregated, and their genetic material is split to form gametes that have only one chromosome each. Those may be either X chromosomes or Y chromosomes. Then these artificially constructed gametes are combined to produce zygotes. The ones that got an X and a Y could potentially develop into males, and the ones that got two X’s could become females. The ones that got two Y’s would never develop into anything – wouldn’t be viable. To get a cloned individual, several of the VIABLE zygotes are then introduced into a womb to gestate. The process is difficult and only rarely successful. But when a male is being cloned, all of the material used to make the clone comes from the male “father”. I think that you’ve figured this out, and you are trying to save face by saying that every male is, what? 50% female because each of his cells contains an X chromosome? That is a big stretch, but I’ll go along with it if it makes you feel better. (To be accurate, the single X chromosome by itself isn’t considered “Female Genetic Material” by geneticists because you need two of them – not one – to make a human a female. The “Y” chromosome MIGHT be called male because of it’s essential role in the determination of maleness, but it similarly cannot produce a male by itself.) The whole point of my post was that a child could be produced from the genetic material of two gay men, and you haven’t offered anything to rebut that. Saying that one of the gay men would have to contribute his “female” genetic material doesn’t prove that gay men cannot produce a viable zygote.
“So George, are you saying it was God, or was not God? Or you don’t know?”
On that question, I would have to claim ignorance. (I don’t know.) I have no evidence that God was angry with Pompeii’s residents. Could have been, I suppose, but I don’t see any compelling evidence to that effect. All the innocent deaths – were they part of His plan (surely he didn’t forget about them?). When folks talk about seeing evidence of “intelligent design” and then say that God works in mysterious ways that cannot possibly be understood by Man, I am more sure of the latter than the former, and I am absolutely certain that there is a contradiction of logic implied by the utterance of both in the same sentence.
The whole point of my post was that a child could be produced from the genetic material of two gay men, and you haven’t offered anything to rebut that
George, once again, your attempted education is falling short. First, I already know that a girl is XX and a boy is XY. The XX is ‘girl-girl’ the XY is girl-boy. And you yourself stated: “The ones that got two Y’s would never develop into anything – wouldn’t be viable. ” So I’m going to repeat myself, you can not clone a male without any female genetic material. And then I’m going to quote this really funny thing you stated: ” To get a cloned individual, several of the VIABLE zygotes are then introduced into a womb to gestate. ” and exactly where is this ‘womb’ located? Inside a male? I’m going to hypothesize that it’s within a female, another little feature that requires the presence of a female to reproduce.
George, you are having a hard time attempting to prove that men can have a baby without the involvement of the female species.
Saying that one of the gay men would have to contribute his “female” genetic material doesn’t prove that gay men cannot produce a viable zygote.
True, but it does prove that two men cannot produce a human baby without the involvement of a female.
George Wells
WHO THE HELL WANT ZYGOTE TO BE BORN IN THAT NAME TO MIX WITH HUMAN,
I SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO GO FURTHER AND WANT ALL GAYS TO HAVE THEIR OWN ZYGOTES
AND PURSUE THE GENETIC CODE OF MIXING THE ZYGOTE WITH HIS HUMAN GENES.
IT SOUND LIKE ThE WISH TO EXTERMINATE THE HUMAN RACE, AND REPLACE THEM BY ZYGOTE,
DANGEROUS MIND PLAYING WITH GOD’S CREATION , SHOULD BE KILLED,
“Saying that one of the gay men would have to contribute his “female” genetic material doesn’t prove that gay men cannot produce a viable zygote.”
“True”
AS long as you understand that two gay men CAN produce a viable zygote – without the active participation of a female, such as in the contribution of HER egg cell, then what are you really arguing about? That was MY whole point.
Your characterization of XX as Female-Female and XY as Female-Male is not genetically accurate because you cannot make a female with a single X or a male with a single Y. You don’t have genotypic sex UNTIL you have XX or XY. Neither the egg nor the sperm have genotypic sex characteristics. Gender (sex) only comes into play once the gametes join and the zygote begins the process of cellular differentiation that eventually begins the process of the development of sex-specific characterizations. Google “Genotypic sex” and do some reading.
Better yet, don’t bother. You are either too old or too stupid to learn OR understand this science, and I’m pretty slow too, or I’d have figured that out long ago. Have a nice day.
Better yet, don’t bother. You are either too old or too stupid to learn OR understand this science,
remember the saying, when the facts are in your favor, argue the facts, if the law is in your favor, argue the law. If neither is in your favor, start calling names. You’ve about reached that stage. You can not get beyond the fact that when an X and Y are put together, the X is of female derivation and therefore a ‘female’ is involved. I notice you totally skipped over the little detail about where the womb is located. I suspect you’re gonna have to have a female involved if a womb is involved. So even if you can get a female zygote from the X part of a man, the fact is, it is still derived from female. and if there had been no female then there would be no man with a female zygote to get. So no matter how old or stupid I get (and I’ll certainly guarantee you, without even knowing you, that my measured IQ is higher than yours) I am not going to concede that two men can have a child with no involvement of a female. But I will concede that one would have to be pretty damned dumb to believe such a thing.
Would you prepare a list of all the available places a scientist may encounter a human womb that is not located within a female?
I don’t give a rat’s ass what your IQ is. You aren’t a man of science, and when directed to pertinent scientific information, either you’re not doing your homework, or you’re failing to understand your reading assignments. Let’s take the rest of the night off – maybe you’ll be a bit more alert in the morning.
You have made it abundantly clear that you have no faith that science will progress beyond where it is today, in spite of the extraordinarily rapid growth in scientific achievement up to now. True test-tube babies (ones not only conceived but also gestated within the confines of laboratory equipment) will someday be a reality. Likely not soon, not because of insurmountable technological obstacles but because of political ones. And they will likely be reviled as abominations by your ilk, just as those first “test-tube babies were because they were not conceived through the act of coitus. Test-tube conception was just one step down a very long, slippery slope.
You are either too old or too stupid to learn OR understand this science, and I’m pretty slow too, or I’d have figured that out long ago.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what your IQ is. You aren’t a man of science, and when directed to pertinent scientific information, either you’re not doing your homework, or you’re failing to understand your reading assignments.
This. From someone who whines because he was called a liar and it hurt his widdle feelings. The ass doesn’t just represent the party this clown belongs to. It should be his logo.
Now you are overboard, as a matter of fact, I do happen to possess a BS degree from an major university.
and when directed to pertinent scientific information, either you’re not doing your homework, or you’re failing to understand your reading assignments.
You are the one that can’t put together a list of the places that a human womb is located that is not within a female body. You bring it up, then when challenged, your response is that I don’t understand the proposition. You said it has to be implanted within a womb, yet you don’t seem to understand what a womb is or where they are located. ” (You know I’m laughing, don’t you?) ”
just as those first “test-tube babies were because they were not conceived through the act of coitus.
I have always been strongly in favor of test tube babies, God gave humans the ability to overcome defects in nature, and I see test tube babies as just that. Besides, very few people abort test tube babies, they are actually created because they are wanted. What does wearing assless chaps have to do with being gay, well, other than acting vulgar?
Let’s take the rest of the night off – maybe you’ll be a bit more alert in the morning.
Headed out gay bar hopping, are you? Leaving your beau at home? I don’t need to be more alert to deal with you. Just think about where that womb is located and when you can answer that question, come on back and I’ll give you another homework assignment.
This. From someone who whines because he was called a liar and it hurt his widdle feelings. The ass doesn’t just represent the party this clown belongs to. It should be his logo.
As I pointed out to him, he has now fallen back to name calling because he has completely lost track of what the discussion is about. See how he’s avoiding answering the question about where a human womb is located? And after clearly stating that a womb is needed.
The point I make is that if – as Republicans insist – life begins at conception (the moment a zygote is formed), then two gay men can create a life. That was my point. At THIS moment, gestation of that zygote DOES require a surrogate womb to produce a baby (you see, I AM agreeing with a part of what you are arguing), but this limitation will pass as technology develops the capacity to gestate in-vitro as opposed to in-utero. It IS complicated, but so was the first mapping of the human genome, which is now viewed as a routine process. Where there is a will, there is a way.
“he has now fallen back to name calling because he has completely lost track of what the discussion is about.”
When I begin a discussion, I conduct the exchange of ideas politely, never stooping to crass insult. But when you and retire05 respond by calling me a “screw-loose, queer, liar, sodomite democrat,” I simply respond in kind. If insults indicate a lack of more convincing rhetoric, you two got there first. If you would like to return to civil discourse, you go, I’ll follow.
And I haven’t been to a gay bar in probably 20 years. Nothing there for me. But if your fantasies delight you, by all means keep them.
I’ve been wondering (as I was planting some rows of spinach seed) why you make a fuss over whether something is “natural”? For the point of civil argument, I will temporarily suspend my suggestion that you mistake the meaning of that word and I will attempt to adopt yours, assuming that you can work with a definition of the term “natural” that does not require God’s approval. Agreed?
Assuming that your agreement was forthcoming… Is something bad because it is “unnatural”?
Is a chemical compound that does not exist in nature a bad chemical? Would that same “unnatural” chemical compound be bad if its biologic activity was hypothetically postulated and then it was successfully synthesized in a laboratory for the purpose of curing a particular disease… and it did?
Surely, sometimes unnatural things are good. Isn’t Teflon unnatural?
So it seems to me that the question of whether something is “natural” is simply a smoke screen being used to mask a different form of disapproval, and I’m wondering what that might be.
When I begin a discussion, I conduct the exchange of ideas politely, never stooping to crass insult. But when you and retire05 respond by calling me a “screw-loose, queer, liar, sodomite democrat,” I simply respond in kind.
You obviously have short term memory problems, go back and read thread and quote where I started any of those things you just accused me of.
life begins at conception (the moment a zygote is formed), then two gay men can create a life. That was my point
So in a lame attempt to prove a point, you are willing to make a major concession on when life begins. Well, let me re-state this. If you do not include any X’s from the XX XY then you will have created a human with no female involvement. But at the exact instant to creation, if there is any involvement from one of the X’s, which is at least 50% female, then a female is involved in the creation. You can re-state that as many ways as you desire, but if you include any X’s then you have included female. Don’t you think the hole is deep enough yet?
And I haven’t been to a gay bar in probably 20 years.
I though the whole gay bar thing was a means of showing your sexuality? Lost your desires from reforming the world. You couldn’t find anyone that has located a human womb outside of a female yet?
Redteam
10 years ago
@George Wells: I should point out,, most of your discussion of ‘natural’ has been with Retire, not me.
I have no problem with the examples you gave. As I said, I think God gave persons the ability to correct things that might have happened naturally. Many people seem to think all this GM by Monsanto is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. They might even eventually create a human womb outside of a woman, but even if they do, they’ll have to figure out how to create a human without an X to make one with no female involvement.
Now that they’ve figured out that some people are gay because their brain wiring is wrong, maybe they’ll figure out how to transplant a brain, or maybe re-wire it to straighten them out.
Most? I don’t count instances to make a silly point. RECENTLY, it was YOU bringing the word “natural” into the discussion as if it had bearing – on or otherwise justified – withholding certain rights from gays.
Genetic modification at the hands of man began with selective breeding of livestock and selective retention of crop seed. Taking a more aggressive technological approach simply continues the process of altering a species’ gene pool to better serve a human interest. Both methods increase the species’ risk of extinction by reducing the genetic variety of its gene pool, but that risk is small, and so far we haven’t caused any extinctions THAT WAY.
As for your rest, I am getting now that if every last female on the planet were to suddenly die, and the surviving males then managed to continue the species by effecting the science as we have been discussing through the artificial production of males only (any females zygotes so produced immediately dying from the same mysterious cause) you (redteam)would STILL maintain that the population was being sustained by the necessary contribution of female genetic material. This isn’t the way I would explain it, as technically a single X chromosome isn’t “female” and a single Y chromosome isn’t “male, but as this last detail of our disagreement really doesn’t influence either of our larger arguments, I’m willing to bend on it. (Note that when you said “they’ll have to figure out how to create a human without an X to make one with no female involvement,” the correct way of looking at that scenario would be that if they could create life without an X chromosome, it would not be HUMAN.) But call the X chromosome a “female chromosome” if you like, and when you get a chance, find me a reputable genetics text that uses that term and refer me to it. In the meantime, maybe we can move on.
As for your rest, I am getting now that if every last female on the planet were to suddenly die, and the surviving males then managed to continue the species by effecting the science as we have been discussing through the artificial production of males only (any females zygotes so produced immediately dying from the same mysterious cause) you (redteam)would STILL maintain that the population was being sustained by the necessary contribution of female genetic material.
Absolutely, because when ALL female genetic material died, at least 50% of every man alive would die also, and I would suggest that if 50% of you suddenly died, the remaining 50% wouldn’t be far behind.@:
In the meantime, maybe we can move on.
But before we do,
RECENTLY, it was YOU bringing the word “natural” into the discussion
when and where? I can’t find any mention of Natural on this thread by me.
Redteam
10 years ago
George: Okay, I read a little more on the ‘latest’ research on creating children for same sex couples, so here is a quote:
There are a few things to be aware of. First of all, the “mother” is also responsible for donating the mitochondrial DNA, which means that the man who opts to create the egg will also be donating the mitochondrial DNA. Another issue is that men carry an X and a Y chromosome. This means that there is a 50% chance that any gametes (sperm or egg) created from a man will have a Y chromosome. The egg must not have a Y chromosome because it might result in an embryo with two Y chromosomes, which would not survive. Finally, men still cannot carry children (I’m talking about biological men (XY), despite what you may have heard in the summer of 2008), so the embryos created from the two men will have to be implanted into a surrogate mother to deliver the baby.
This is a discussion of two men having a child. See where it says that one man has to donate the mitochondrial DNA? Guess what that is. (hint: it has to do with ‘females’) and then, lo and behold, what does that last sentence say? Are there any ‘male’ surrogate mothers with available wombs for this gestation?
So as of the state of the art research, female DNA and female wombs are required.
link for above info: http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/2009/07/29/sexual-reproduction-for-same-sex-couples/
Redteam
10 years ago
George: read a little more. They think that for a man to get a womb, he will either have to have one transplanted from a female (whoops, not acceptable, no women input allowed) or create one from genetic material from (whoops, not acceptable, no women input allowed) , darn just can’t get around that female involvement. When you find the results of a study that clearly shows that no woman has to be involved, please link it. (I just know you will)
OK, I’m not sure gay men have ”destroyed the Left,” but the hypocrisy of the Left is exposed as stunning here:
Melissa Harris-Perry a year ago in her “Lean Forward” spot implied that children do not belong to their parents, she blogged a defense of her collectivist position that included this striking line on April 9, 2013:
I have no designs on taking your children. […] But I understand the fear. We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers and sold them for their own profit. We do live in a nation where the government snatched American Indian children from their families and “re-educated” them by forbidding them to speak their language and practice their traditions.
Despite Melissa Harris-Perry’s assertion that her own surrogacy contract was humane, the problem is that even the most whitewashed surrogacy involves someone “taking the infant from the arms of a mother and selling” that child “for profit.”
There are lawyers and brokers involved.
The government is expected to register the purchaser as the new guardian of the child with the resulting mandate to enforce ownership, through violent force if necessary.
(In other words, if the carrier mother changes her mind and runs away, Melissa Harris-Perry will have to be guaranteed the prerogative to involve police to seize the child and return her to Harris-Perry’s power.)
And regardless of whether the mother consents to losing her child, the child cannot consent.
The child is chattel.
The child is a slave.
The conditions of some of the third world baby factories are atrocious, and little more than barracks patrolled by thugs.
I bet the women are fed whatever they need to produce a healthy baby….even if it costs her all her teeth.
It is almost inconceivable that the movement to legitimize surrogacy could have set up shop on the American left, where the three most sacred cows are race, class, and gender – all of which are areas of inequality aggravated and abused by the surrogacy industry’s pattern of using poor women of color, especially overseas, to breed human beings who are then placed under the ownership of wealthy men in the United States.
In both Ohio and the United Kingdom, there has been a push, mostly by gay men, to issue birth certificates that indicate neither the egg donor nor the surrogate mother’s name.
This would transform a birth certificate from a document recording where a child came from into a bill of sale and contract for ownership of human chattel.
Slavery is making a comeback.
It is ironic that gay men, fighting for a personal end to their ”Jim Crow” treatment are the ones driving a whole new industry based on enslavement so they can turn their new marriages into families.
Slavery is making a comeback.
It is ironic that gay men, fighting for a personal end to their ”Jim Crow” treatment are the ones driving a whole new industry based on enslavement so they can turn their new marriages into families.
So true, Nanny, I think no one would make the argument that if you pay another person or organization to gain ownership of a person that is not condoning slavery. To produce people for sale with no listing of male or female involved in it’s creation, is clearly slavery. I’m not saying that if you support the mother during her pregnancy, that it is slavery. But if you pay her a fee for doing it, then it is slavery.
So yes, this push for equality is a push for slavery.
Harris-Perry said:
We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers
I don’t like her implication that slavery was created here in the US. I think she should be looking further East, many centuries before the existence of the US to find where slavery was created.
First of all, in the passage you quote, the word “MOTHER” is referring to the male that is providing the mitochondrial DNA. Notice that it did NOT say that the mitochondrial DNA was coming from a FEMALE. This is why the word “mother” was put in italics. In the passage you are quoting, the man who is donating the “egg” is clearly being called the “mother”. He isn’t being called the “female.” And nowhere does it say that the male “mother” is donating something that IS female. Read it again.
Everything in your passage is correct, and it is ALL consistent with what I said previously. Recall that my extra-uterine gestation remarks referenced the future, not the current state-of-the-art. We are in agreement on that. Why do you keep bringing it up?
And nowhere does it say that the male “mother” is donating something that IS female. Read it again.
Sorry George, I thought you had done your research. mitochondrial DNA, itself, is female. ALL mitochondrial DNA is female, so even if it is taken from a male, it is taken from the ‘female’ part of the male.
” Recall that my extra-uterine gestation remarks referenced the future, not the current state-of-the-art. We are in agreement on that. Why do you keep bringing it up? Because they clearly say there are two possibilities, one a transplant from a female, or a creation of one using genetic material from a female. In both cases, a female is necessary.
So while all of this material (well, except for the womb part) can be taken from a man, it is still female material that is being taken.
No one concludes that there will ever be the creation of a human without an X chromosone, and if there is an X, it is a derivative of a female.
I never write about a subject before being certain that I am correct. But just to re-confirm, I Googled the question: “Is mitochondrial DNA male or female?” and here’s what I found:
The reference articles that came up NEVER said “mitochondrial DNS is female.” NEVER.
They DID say that the mitochondrial DNA is contributed by the egg, not the sperm, a point on which we have already agreed. They called this “mtDNA” contribution “matrilineal,” a term which means that it came FROM the mother. The word “matrilineal” doesn’t mean the same thing as “female”. If your mother had red hair and you got it from her, that red hair would be matrilineal, but it doesn’t make your red hair female.
Other than this petty inability you have of failing to appreciate the difference between “matrilineal” and “female”, we are in total agreement, so I will ask you once again: why not move on – preferably back to the topic of this thread?
Redteam
10 years ago
@George Wells: So you’re giving up? You still can’t tell me where I talked about ‘natural’ and you don’t know where you’re gonna find a human womb outside of a female. Sound about right. I’ll accept your surrender.
Kraken
10 years ago
Regarding “infidelity,” it is true that “fidelity” was never presented as a desirable option to the gay community. For the vast majority of heterosexuals, “fidelity” has been held in reverence historically, religiously and legally. The punishments for infidelity have been severe and serve as a powerful disincentive. But until quite recently (and certainly more recently than Retire05’s “information”) there has been no corresponding social disincentive regarding infidelity in the gay community. There has been no incentive for gays to remain faithful precisely as is provided exclusively (until recently) by the heterosexual institution of marriage.
This actually makes rational sense to me. But I’m a bit more libertarian leaning than my more traditionally conservative friends are. I can’t say that I support gay marriage necessarily, I think it’s more fair to say that I really just don’t care. The gay couple 5 doors down from me that gets married has absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever. Have at it. I’m more interested in living in a free society so I’m required to tolerate some behaviors and practices that I may disapprove of or may not understand.
Anyone guided and encouraged by the noble tenets of our Constitution to fight against discrimination and oppression would be ill-advised to restrain themselves for the comfort of those who would oppress them…Constitution guarantees equality with such eloquence as it does
There really isn’t anything in the Constitution with regards to combating discrimination. Additionally, the Constitution only protects equal rights and opportunities. Equality of Outcome is a Leninist value, not an American one.
I said before that IF a person chooses to work in a field where a service or good is provided to members of the public, then that person should be prepared to serve any and all members of that public. PERIOD. Once exceptions are allowed – discrimination for whatever reason is condoned – you tell ME, where is the line drawn?
I have to disagree with you here because I don’t feel that it is the role of government to engage in this kind of social experimentation. The line shouldn’t be drawn anywhere, as all folks should be free to associate as they please.
The cartoon at the top of the thread brings a very good point with regards to this. Should a black bakery be forced to service a KKK party? I’d argue no. But maybe the following situation is more relevant to this conversation:
Should the gay hairdresser be forced to service the GOP governor? I’d argue no on that as well.
The bottom line is that when government gets involved in forcing people who don’t care for each other to associate, it exacerbates problems rather than solves them. Take for instance a hypothetical restaurant owner. Let’s say he’s racist. With the way anti-discrimination laws are now, he still isn’t required to hire African American staff, and likely doesn’t. But because of existing law, no one knows that his tendency to avoid hiring African Americans is due to racism, so people continue to support his business, unknowingly giving their hard earned money to a racist. I’d prefer that this restaurant owner be free to decline business to whoever he likes, be able to put up signs to that effect and make all manner of stink about the issue, so that I know to take my money elsewhere.
What about a Muslim diner? Should a Muslim be forced to cook bacon at breakfast for a demanding customer? I’d say no to that too.
Having said all that, it’s ultimately silly for any business owner to turn away any customer for any reason in the Obama economy. If you’re in business, you service people with all manner of different opinions that you disagree with all day long every day.
But why would you want to give an anti-gay baker your hard earned money, even if they didn’t urinate in the cake? Why would you want to support their business?
I would remind you that decades ago, Virginia law allowed for the forced sterilization of various unpopular minorities.
Well, much like North Korea, the current administration has appointed a Science Czar that advocates forced abortions and forced sterilization, perhaps in an effort to make Ms. Sanger’s dreams come true.
What bearing on this question does my lack of interest in the gay rights movements in Muslim countries have?
Well, many self described progressives will accuse anyone right of center of being a monster if they happen to oppose gay marriage. Yet, Muslims not only abroad but in America as well, openly make homophobic statements routinely, and in other countries physically assault and execute homosexuals in many instances, not to mention outlaw homosexuality altogether. Typically progressives are silent on this because they’ve embraced the Muslim community as yet another victim group they can appeal to with regards to disproportionately disenfranchised disparities, and many in the smelly hippie class have exchanged their burned bras for ha-jibs.
George Wells
but that”s not medical intervention, that is playing with science, TO START ANOTHER CREATION
OF HUMANS ,AND BECAUSE YOU DON”T BELIEVE IN GOD, DOESN’T change the reality that he is alive ,
and would not be happy to know that,
you don’t believe in GOD, BUT who will demand an experiment of two males genes becoming a human,
might PRODUCE A beast,
AND GOD WOULD NOT TOLERATE HIS CREATION TO BE DUPLICATED,
AND WOULD BE VERY ANGRY AT THIS CREATION, I CALL EVIL AND TEMPTING GOD,
WHICH YOU COULD GET THE PUNISHMENT FROM HIM, SOMETHING YOU CAN READ IN THE APOCALYPE’S PAGES OF YOUR BIBLE,
YOU GAYS HAVE ALREADY THOUGHT OF THAT NEW CREATION, IT TELL US HOW DANGEROUS YOU
ARE FOR AMERICA, AND YOU SHOULD BE STRIP OF YOUR BENEFITS, AND LIVE UNDER THE OUTMOST SCRUTINY,
AT ALL TIME, TO PREVENT YOU ALL FROM MAKING YOUR THOUGHTS REALIZE,
ONLY THE DEVIL WOULD PLANT THAT WISH IN YOUR MIND,
@George Wells:
Your arrogance deceives you, George. It is quite possible to dislike someone, yet debate them with logic. You, again in your arrogance, assume I do not have the capability to do that. I suggest you not judge others while looking in the mirror. Now, you, on the other hand, simply avoids those points I make that you find uncomfortable. Your dishonesty is revealed in your silence.
.
I know you by your words, George. Just as I know others by their words. You are here for one reason; to plead your agenda, and to slander those who disagree with you. But unlike you pushing your agenda at what can be considered a fairly right wing blog, I do not go to gay blog sites telling the authors and respondents how wrong they are. Therein lies the difference in us; you push, but I only push back and only here, not on some gay website.
“Bigotry” The one word that all leftists pull out of their bag of insults when they can’t debate. And then there is the “often religious”, a snide illusion that bigotry is represented mainly in the religious. I suggest to you there are few who can compete with the bigotry shown by homosexuals toward those that disagree with them. Protests, law suits, threats, et al. All the purview of the radical gay movement.
You came here. You were not personally invited. You knew from the git-go that this site is basically conservative and right wing. Yet here you are, pleading your case and trying to convince others that nothing more than total acceptance of the queer life style is warranted and anything less is only the result of blatant bigotry. Yet when pushed on the history of homosexuality and how it has destroyed societies, you run to another topic, not wanting to deal with anything inconvenient. Hell, man, in previous sparing sessions with me, you were totally unaware of Marxist Antonio Gramsci and his influence on the homosexual movement.
Take your
cultural Marxismpolitical correctness and shove it. I did not buy into it when I was a Democrat, and I don’t buy it now. If you are looking for someone to placate you in your insecurity, I think you have come to the wrong place.@bees #151:
No, bees, gays didn’t “think” of it. It has already been done. Sheep have been cloned. That is the doing God’s work” that you’re talking about, isn’t it? Did God smite the cloners?
You say that I don’t believe in God. Why do you say that? I don’t believe in YOUR God, I’ll grant, just like the Irish protestants don’t believe in the same God that the Irish Catholics believe in and are killing each other over the difference. There are Christian churches that believe in a God that supports Gay marriage, and others that do not. These are different beliefs, just as all different denominations of religious faith believe in vastly different things. Even the primary belief that God created the universe is not believed by ALL faiths. Just because I don’t believe in what YOUR faith believes in doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in God.
@retire05 #152:
I guess you missed my answer to redteam when he asked me why I bothered to be here. Essentially, I am here for the mental stimulation, something that is not obtained by singing to the choir. What use is there to commiserate? Do you enjoy licking your wounds in group sessions? “Argumentation” helps to focus the mind in ways unavailable in “agreement.”
“Agenda?” Every time I have tried to articulate my “agenda,” you’ve called me a “liar,” so I now avoid it altogether. I just answer parts of your posts that I find particularly inviting. And I relish when you become frustrated by my candor and intransigence and stoop to personal insult, as I am convinced in those moments that you are losing the debate.
I’m not here to change your mind. Nothing could do that. I AM here to enjoy posting the best arguments I can think of, and I apologize if the quality of my efforts does not rise to your expectations. No, I know nothing about your Gramsci friend, just like I know relatively little about Biblical scripture. I don’t think that either are relevant in todays world, but I will agree that any ignorance invites mistake. I simply haven’t the time to learn every last thing.
George Wells
are you sure the GOD you believe in is the right one?
he could be a devil naming himself GOD,
the FALLEN ANGEL, thrown on the EARTH by the CREATOR HIMSELF till the end of time,
he disobeyed and thought he had more power than GOD,
DO YOU SEE A CONNECTION WITH YOUR THOUGHT EXPERIMENT?
I DOUBT YOUR MINISTER WHO CAME OUT OF THE RULES FROM THE HIERARCHY TO SERVE YOU AND YOUR OWN, MAKING YOU BELIEVE THAT HE GIVE YOU THE BLESSING FROM THE LORD,
I THINK HE IS A RENAGADE MINISTER SHUN BY HIS PEERS ,
FOR DESOBEYING, JUST LIKE THE FALLEN ANGEL. CHECK IT UP,
@bees#155:
This is the same argument that is used by every religious denomination to oppose every other denomination. They cannot all be right, now can they? At the very most, exactly one of them can be either “right” or “more right than any of the others.” That makes all the rest of them either “wrong” or “less right than the others.” The chance that your particular denomination is “right” or “the most right” is pretty slim. If more devout people appreciated this predicament, false arrogance would not be so common an affliction.
@George Wells: 139
Where did I mention law enforcement. I think the subject was Openly gay. Assless chaps, etc. dignity.
Try to stay on subject. We’re talking about crude vulgar displays, not lawlessness.
let’s see if I interpret you correctly, you have no problem with public vulgar displays such as assless chaps, your only objection is me using that as an example of vulgar displays? That about it?
I didn’t use that as an example, you did. You have a problem with it? I can just change channels. Assless chaps are vulgar public displays and changing the channel doesn’t make it go away.
Strange that you mention a place that I’m sure you don’t plan to visit, nor can even get a visa for, if you tell the truth.
@George Wells:
The estimated number of gays in the US is between 5-10 million, why are you exaggerating? 1.5-2.0% of the population.
They’re not priests, who are expected to live a truthful life. I don’t care if gays stay in the closet or not as long as they aren’t ‘openly gay’ (I’m referring to public vulgar behavior and intent.)
@retire05: 141
I think that’s exactly what George is saying.
@George Wells:
Get someone to explain to you the difference between “stimulating” dialog and proselytizing, which seems to have eluded you.
No, you avoid discussing certain items that make you uncomfortable. At least try to give the pretense of being honest.
Antonio Gramsci is not my friend. Not withstanding that he died long ago, he would not be my friend were he alive. Friend is a word that is used much too freely (unless you’re a Quaker). I place more value on the word “friend” than you seem to.
More’s the pity. Perhaps that explains a lot about you.
Actually, Biblical scriptures holds more importance for our nation than at any time in our history. How sad that we have citizens like you that don’t understand the wisdom contained in the Bible or the understanding that you are but a small part of something greater than you.
Secularism, and a failure to believe in a high power, has never brought anything to any nation but misery.
Yes, they can all be right as every religious denomination believes in one uniting element; a high power that we are answerable to. How sad that some believe that there is nothing after mortal life, reducing man to something that holds no greater importance than the bush in their yards.
@George Wells:142
Wrong George, no medical experiments have shown that a human can be formed without the input from the female. DNA has both male-female parts and any attempt to artificially create a baby will require input from the female side of the DNA.
But that’s beside the point. If two gay guys want to live a gay life, why would they want children. Wanting children is a by product of a man and a woman. So gay guys should stick with gay guy things which does not include reproduction. That’s a part of heterosexual life, not homo, so why desert the homosexual side to go into the heterosexual world. Being a little inconsistent.
@Redteam:
Interesting that while George pushes for same-sex marriage, the actual numbers don’t bear out his claim that it is of real importance to the gay community.
The Myth of the Same Sex Marriage Mandate
Also, studies have show that the one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage is (wait for it, you know what’s coming) FIDELITY.
@George Wells: 145 George, you really have to reach on some things.
Most of these are not done on public display to make the public gag, as the gay parade is designed to do.
Are you saying no gay people perform illegal abortions?
Are you saying no deadbeat dads are gay?
I read both sides and I’d say you are just as prone to attempt to use insults.
147
So just dump them off onto a bunch of gays and hope it works out for them?
149
George, I don’t see where Retire has proven your points. I don’t see where you have proven any points, making self-serving statements do not ‘prove’ points.
And your’s are not? hardly.
And you don’t obstinately hold any beliefs?
@Redteam:
Because it’s political. If gay guys are to become parents, then by all things politically correct, the public schools will have to teach children that homosexuality is normal in order to not hurt the feelings of the child that the gays either adopted, created in a petri dish or got a surrogate mother to provide to them. It is just another step to their demand for acceptance.
@Redteam #157:
“Where did I mention law enforcement. I think the subject was Openly gay. Assless chaps, etc. dignity.“
Dignity is a nice thing to hope for, but not something that anyone can reasonably expect, and certainly not something that can be legally required. (Let me cut you off: I am NOT saying that you said it WAS any of those things. My OBSERVATION of these facts is offered because your comment SUGGESTED that the undignified behaviors you referenced were something that you have a problem with, and that you MIGHT be wanting me to comment about, so I’m COMMENTING.) I KNOW that you didn’t mention law enforcement. But the fact remains that if the undignified behavior isn’t breaking a law (even a BAD law), then what can you do about it but whine? Ah, and that’s what you ARE doing. I get it now – point well taken.
“We’re talking about crude vulgar displays”
Not really. This blog thread is about the civil rights issues relating to baking cakes for gay customers. You haven’t demonstrated a convincing reason why a baker may discriminate against an entire class of people because SOME of them members of that class behave vulgarly.
@Redteam #158:
The number of gay people has no bearing on their civil rights. 5-10 million is fine. I don’t get a bonus if the number is larger.
“I don’t care … as long as they aren’t ‘openly gay’”
Well then, isn’t a gay kiss in public “openly gay”? weren’t you complaining about gay public kisses? Is a gay kiss in public vulgar, but a straight kiss is not? (I’m NOT saying that this is what you are saying OR suggesting, I’m ASKING A QUESTION.)
Here’s a hint for how you should respond: “COMMUNITY STANDARDS.”
In many situations, the courts have found that a behavior that is acceptable is a place like San Francisco may not be acceptable in, say, Little Rock. You can argue for conservative behavior on the grounds that a particular region’s community standards would be otherwise violated, and I will support you in that. But that is still behavior-based, and the discrimination you advocate re: refusing to bake gay cakes is class-wide discrimination that isd not protected by community standards.
@Redteam #161:
“Wrong George, no medical experiments have shown that a human can be formed without the input from the female. DNA has both male-female parts and any attempt to artificially create a baby will require input from the female side of the DNA.”
You are still out of your field, old boy. Do you really think that only women can be cloned? Of course not! Men can be cloned just as easily as women. The research on human cloning (of EITHER sex) has been temporarily halted to give the courts time to deal with the political, moral and legal (which one of you own that bank account?) objections to the process. But cloning of other mammals has continued, and male mammals HAVE been cloned.
Before you embarrass yourself any further on this topic, I suggest that you google the question “Can Males Be Cloned?” and then read some of the articles that come up. The process is as I described. A “clone” borrows the genetic material to make both gamete-forming zygotes from the same individual, so the clone (whether male OR female) has only one parent, and he or she is genetically identical to its parent. If instead the zygotic material was taken from two DIFFERENT males, the resulting gamete would be a genetic combination of both “parents.” The process of creating a male clone is for all practical purposes the same as making a male gamete from two different males. Thus the scientific inevitability of children from two gay fathers.
Try reading up on science the next time you want to talk about it.
Now, here’s an example of why I enjoy being here. Anyone who reads this will learn something they probably didn’t already know, and I helped. Makes me feel good.
@retire05 #162:
“Also, studies have show that the one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage is (wait for it, you know what’s coming) FIDELITY.”
Good. So a class difference in fidelity warrants excluding all gays from marrying? Is that what you suggest? Black men are statistically less likely to provide support for – much less marry the mothers of – their sired children, than are their white counterparts. Does that warrant excluding all blacks from marriage? I’m missing your logic. Oh, your rant has nothing to do with logic. It is just your way of painting all gay people in as negative a light as possible. Smear campaign. Right. Good work.
THERE WAS A COUNTRY NAME POMPEI,
it was told there was much corruption, man sex with man,
woman with woman some of both genders with animals ,ecetera,
one day, POMPEI DISAPEAR, THEY FOUND THE PEOPLE IN THEIR POSITION ALL
there UNDISTURBED but COVERED in ashes,
it was known of their perversion all around,
and they swear it was an act of GOD,
that’s enough to scare the shit of someone who seek to be pervert, AND PERVERTING ANOTHER ONE, OR A YOUNGER ONE,
IF THE STORY HAS MADE IT TO TODAY, IT HAS TO BE TRUE,
@bees #169:
“IF THE STORY HAS MADE IT TO TODAY, IT HAS TO BE TRUE,”
That’s pretty funny, bees!
I am reminded of all the people who think the same thing about the contents of the Bible. A funny thing about the Bible is that it is CURRENTLY made up of a collection of 66 “books” written by different people at different points in time, and the decision to include the books that ARE in the bible today was made largely by a succession of different people and councils over the course of approximately 1500 years, and the precise list of those books has changed many times over that period. Books were added or subtracted according to their agreement or not with whatever interpretation of the historical record was popular at the moment. Most of the books that were either removed from the list or never made it on the list to begin with still “made it to today”. (You can read them, though some may not currently be available in English.) Yet biblical scholars would argue at length about whether or not their contents were “true.” Likely some details are, and others are not, just like the “story” of Pompeii. Nothing HAS to be true.
I’ve been to Pompeii. Mt. Vesuvius did the place in. It was a volcano. They happen. If you are going to credit GOD with the responsibility for every disaster that happens, fine, but what I have heard is that God works in mysterious ways and nobody can possibly understand His motives or predict His actions. I see no point in spending my life in fear of something I cannot possibly understand or predict. If you want to do that, be my guest.
George Wells
now I know why your number of loyals is raising up,
they are being taught that there is no punishment waiting for their perversion,
only the fallen angel should be believe,
you have made my doubt change to certainty, of what i thought,
@George Wells: 167, okay George, here is a quote from what you told me to Google.
That seems to clearly say that a single human cell is formed by the fusion of male and female gametes. I would ask the question, if a single cell is both male and female, how can you clone that cell and leave out the female part.
You will note that I, at no time, said that males can’t be cloned. I said that no one can be cloned without including female genetic material.
Now I think that you thought you were ‘educating’ me, but I think you need to read up a little more if you think you can prove that any human can be cloned with no female genetics being involved. Think of an egg (and this is just for illustration) with the white and the yolk with one being male and one being female, it takes both to form the chick. You couldn’t just take two yolks and make a chick.
Whoops, you didn’t read far enough. Seems you were trying to prove something other than the point. You made the assumption that all the genetic material in a man is male, far from it, and if you try to exclude the female part, you won’t create a human.
165
I guess that’s a standard for gays to strive for, but I’ve observed in the class of people I associate with that almost all are dignified and respectful of those around them. Almost all the public crassness and vulgarity I see is from the ‘openly gays’. I have no way of knowing, but my observances seem to say that it is the gays that have ‘chosen’ to be gay, not those that were unfortunate enough to be born that way. (I don’t want to discuss that part because my views on it are already well known). My assumption about you, since you see nothing wrong with the public vulgarity of gays is that you are in the ‘choose to be’ classification. Those that have a political agenda.
I suspect if I used that argument, that would be the first thing the openly gays would want to destroy. People are their standards, you either have it or you don’t. You’re either a classless vulgarity act, or you’re not. You’ve indicated which you prefer.
@George Wells:
So George, are you saying it was God, or was not God? Or you don’t know?
@Redteam #172:
“That seems to clearly say that a single human cell is formed by the fusion of male and female gametes. I would ask the question, if a single cell is both male and female, how can you clone that cell and leave out the female part.
You will note that I, at no time, said that males can’t be cloned. I said that no one can be cloned without including female genetic material.”
This much of what you said is both essentially correct and not in conflict with what I said previously. The female genetic material is in the X-X chromosomal form, while the Male genetic material is X-Y. When a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, the egg has either the female’s first X or it’s second X, but the sperm cell has either the father’s X or his Y – but not both. If the sperm cell is Y, the baby is male (X-Y), but if the sperm cell is X, then the baby is a female (X-X). When a male is cloned, some of his cells are segregated, and their genetic material is split to form gametes that have only one chromosome each. Those may be either X chromosomes or Y chromosomes. Then these artificially constructed gametes are combined to produce zygotes. The ones that got an X and a Y could potentially develop into males, and the ones that got two X’s could become females. The ones that got two Y’s would never develop into anything – wouldn’t be viable. To get a cloned individual, several of the VIABLE zygotes are then introduced into a womb to gestate. The process is difficult and only rarely successful. But when a male is being cloned, all of the material used to make the clone comes from the male “father”. I think that you’ve figured this out, and you are trying to save face by saying that every male is, what? 50% female because each of his cells contains an X chromosome? That is a big stretch, but I’ll go along with it if it makes you feel better. (To be accurate, the single X chromosome by itself isn’t considered “Female Genetic Material” by geneticists because you need two of them – not one – to make a human a female. The “Y” chromosome MIGHT be called male because of it’s essential role in the determination of maleness, but it similarly cannot produce a male by itself.) The whole point of my post was that a child could be produced from the genetic material of two gay men, and you haven’t offered anything to rebut that. Saying that one of the gay men would have to contribute his “female” genetic material doesn’t prove that gay men cannot produce a viable zygote.
@Redteam #173:
“So George, are you saying it was God, or was not God? Or you don’t know?”
On that question, I would have to claim ignorance. (I don’t know.) I have no evidence that God was angry with Pompeii’s residents. Could have been, I suppose, but I don’t see any compelling evidence to that effect. All the innocent deaths – were they part of His plan (surely he didn’t forget about them?). When folks talk about seeing evidence of “intelligent design” and then say that God works in mysterious ways that cannot possibly be understood by Man, I am more sure of the latter than the former, and I am absolutely certain that there is a contradiction of logic implied by the utterance of both in the same sentence.
@George Wells:
George, once again, your attempted education is falling short. First, I already know that a girl is XX and a boy is XY. The XX is ‘girl-girl’ the XY is girl-boy. And you yourself stated: “The ones that got two Y’s would never develop into anything – wouldn’t be viable. ” So I’m going to repeat myself, you can not clone a male without any female genetic material. And then I’m going to quote this really funny thing you stated: ” To get a cloned individual, several of the VIABLE zygotes are then introduced into a womb to gestate. ” and exactly where is this ‘womb’ located? Inside a male? I’m going to hypothesize that it’s within a female, another little feature that requires the presence of a female to reproduce.
George, you are having a hard time attempting to prove that men can have a baby without the involvement of the female species.
True, but it does prove that two men cannot produce a human baby without the involvement of a female.
George Wells
WHO THE HELL WANT ZYGOTE TO BE BORN IN THAT NAME TO MIX WITH HUMAN,
I SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO GO FURTHER AND WANT ALL GAYS TO HAVE THEIR OWN ZYGOTES
AND PURSUE THE GENETIC CODE OF MIXING THE ZYGOTE WITH HIS HUMAN GENES.
IT SOUND LIKE ThE WISH TO EXTERMINATE THE HUMAN RACE, AND REPLACE THEM BY ZYGOTE,
DANGEROUS MIND PLAYING WITH GOD’S CREATION , SHOULD BE KILLED,
@Redteam #176:
“Saying that one of the gay men would have to contribute his “female” genetic material doesn’t prove that gay men cannot produce a viable zygote.”
“True”
AS long as you understand that two gay men CAN produce a viable zygote – without the active participation of a female, such as in the contribution of HER egg cell, then what are you really arguing about? That was MY whole point.
Your characterization of XX as Female-Female and XY as Female-Male is not genetically accurate because you cannot make a female with a single X or a male with a single Y. You don’t have genotypic sex UNTIL you have XX or XY. Neither the egg nor the sperm have genotypic sex characteristics. Gender (sex) only comes into play once the gametes join and the zygote begins the process of cellular differentiation that eventually begins the process of the development of sex-specific characterizations. Google “Genotypic sex” and do some reading.
Better yet, don’t bother. You are either too old or too stupid to learn OR understand this science, and I’m pretty slow too, or I’d have figured that out long ago. Have a nice day.
@George Wells:
remember the saying, when the facts are in your favor, argue the facts, if the law is in your favor, argue the law. If neither is in your favor, start calling names. You’ve about reached that stage. You can not get beyond the fact that when an X and Y are put together, the X is of female derivation and therefore a ‘female’ is involved. I notice you totally skipped over the little detail about where the womb is located. I suspect you’re gonna have to have a female involved if a womb is involved. So even if you can get a female zygote from the X part of a man, the fact is, it is still derived from female. and if there had been no female then there would be no man with a female zygote to get. So no matter how old or stupid I get (and I’ll certainly guarantee you, without even knowing you, that my measured IQ is higher than yours) I am not going to concede that two men can have a child with no involvement of a female. But I will concede that one would have to be pretty damned dumb to believe such a thing.
Would you prepare a list of all the available places a scientist may encounter a human womb that is not located within a female?
@Redteam #179 :
I don’t give a rat’s ass what your IQ is. You aren’t a man of science, and when directed to pertinent scientific information, either you’re not doing your homework, or you’re failing to understand your reading assignments. Let’s take the rest of the night off – maybe you’ll be a bit more alert in the morning.
You have made it abundantly clear that you have no faith that science will progress beyond where it is today, in spite of the extraordinarily rapid growth in scientific achievement up to now. True test-tube babies (ones not only conceived but also gestated within the confines of laboratory equipment) will someday be a reality. Likely not soon, not because of insurmountable technological obstacles but because of political ones. And they will likely be reviled as abominations by your ilk, just as those first “test-tube babies were because they were not conceived through the act of coitus. Test-tube conception was just one step down a very long, slippery slope.
(You know I’m laughing, don’t you?)
@Redteam:
This. From someone who whines because he was called a liar and it hurt his widdle feelings. The ass doesn’t just represent the party this clown belongs to. It should be his logo.
@George Wells:
YOU are the one that brought up the issue.
Now you are overboard, as a matter of fact, I do happen to possess a BS degree from an major university.
You are the one that can’t put together a list of the places that a human womb is located that is not within a female body. You bring it up, then when challenged, your response is that I don’t understand the proposition. You said it has to be implanted within a womb, yet you don’t seem to understand what a womb is or where they are located. ” (You know I’m laughing, don’t you?) ”
I have always been strongly in favor of test tube babies, God gave humans the ability to overcome defects in nature, and I see test tube babies as just that. Besides, very few people abort test tube babies, they are actually created because they are wanted. What does wearing assless chaps have to do with being gay, well, other than acting vulgar?
Headed out gay bar hopping, are you? Leaving your beau at home? I don’t need to be more alert to deal with you. Just think about where that womb is located and when you can answer that question, come on back and I’ll give you another homework assignment.
@retire05:
As I pointed out to him, he has now fallen back to name calling because he has completely lost track of what the discussion is about. See how he’s avoiding answering the question about where a human womb is located? And after clearly stating that a womb is needed.
@Redteam:
Oh, the irony of it all. 🙂
@retire05 and redteam #’s 181-184:
The point I make is that if – as Republicans insist – life begins at conception (the moment a zygote is formed), then two gay men can create a life. That was my point. At THIS moment, gestation of that zygote DOES require a surrogate womb to produce a baby (you see, I AM agreeing with a part of what you are arguing), but this limitation will pass as technology develops the capacity to gestate in-vitro as opposed to in-utero. It IS complicated, but so was the first mapping of the human genome, which is now viewed as a routine process. Where there is a will, there is a way.
“he has now fallen back to name calling because he has completely lost track of what the discussion is about.”
When I begin a discussion, I conduct the exchange of ideas politely, never stooping to crass insult. But when you and retire05 respond by calling me a “screw-loose, queer, liar, sodomite democrat,” I simply respond in kind. If insults indicate a lack of more convincing rhetoric, you two got there first. If you would like to return to civil discourse, you go, I’ll follow.
And I haven’t been to a gay bar in probably 20 years. Nothing there for me. But if your fantasies delight you, by all means keep them.
@Redteam:
I’ve been wondering (as I was planting some rows of spinach seed) why you make a fuss over whether something is “natural”? For the point of civil argument, I will temporarily suspend my suggestion that you mistake the meaning of that word and I will attempt to adopt yours, assuming that you can work with a definition of the term “natural” that does not require God’s approval. Agreed?
Assuming that your agreement was forthcoming… Is something bad because it is “unnatural”?
Is a chemical compound that does not exist in nature a bad chemical? Would that same “unnatural” chemical compound be bad if its biologic activity was hypothetically postulated and then it was successfully synthesized in a laboratory for the purpose of curing a particular disease… and it did?
Surely, sometimes unnatural things are good. Isn’t Teflon unnatural?
So it seems to me that the question of whether something is “natural” is simply a smoke screen being used to mask a different form of disapproval, and I’m wondering what that might be.
(Beets and radishes are next!)
@George Wells:
You obviously have short term memory problems, go back and read thread and quote where I started any of those things you just accused me of.
So in a lame attempt to prove a point, you are willing to make a major concession on when life begins. Well, let me re-state this. If you do not include any X’s from the XX XY then you will have created a human with no female involvement. But at the exact instant to creation, if there is any involvement from one of the X’s, which is at least 50% female, then a female is involved in the creation. You can re-state that as many ways as you desire, but if you include any X’s then you have included female. Don’t you think the hole is deep enough yet?
I though the whole gay bar thing was a means of showing your sexuality? Lost your desires from reforming the world. You couldn’t find anyone that has located a human womb outside of a female yet?
@George Wells: I should point out,, most of your discussion of ‘natural’ has been with Retire, not me.
I have no problem with the examples you gave. As I said, I think God gave persons the ability to correct things that might have happened naturally. Many people seem to think all this GM by Monsanto is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. They might even eventually create a human womb outside of a woman, but even if they do, they’ll have to figure out how to create a human without an X to make one with no female involvement.
Now that they’ve figured out that some people are gay because their brain wiring is wrong, maybe they’ll figure out how to transplant a brain, or maybe re-wire it to straighten them out.
@Redteam #188:
Most? I don’t count instances to make a silly point. RECENTLY, it was YOU bringing the word “natural” into the discussion as if it had bearing – on or otherwise justified – withholding certain rights from gays.
Genetic modification at the hands of man began with selective breeding of livestock and selective retention of crop seed. Taking a more aggressive technological approach simply continues the process of altering a species’ gene pool to better serve a human interest. Both methods increase the species’ risk of extinction by reducing the genetic variety of its gene pool, but that risk is small, and so far we haven’t caused any extinctions THAT WAY.
As for your rest, I am getting now that if every last female on the planet were to suddenly die, and the surviving males then managed to continue the species by effecting the science as we have been discussing through the artificial production of males only (any females zygotes so produced immediately dying from the same mysterious cause) you (redteam)would STILL maintain that the population was being sustained by the necessary contribution of female genetic material. This isn’t the way I would explain it, as technically a single X chromosome isn’t “female” and a single Y chromosome isn’t “male, but as this last detail of our disagreement really doesn’t influence either of our larger arguments, I’m willing to bend on it. (Note that when you said “they’ll have to figure out how to create a human without an X to make one with no female involvement,” the correct way of looking at that scenario would be that if they could create life without an X chromosome, it would not be HUMAN.) But call the X chromosome a “female chromosome” if you like, and when you get a chance, find me a reputable genetics text that uses that term and refer me to it. In the meantime, maybe we can move on.
@George Wells:
Absolutely, because when ALL female genetic material died, at least 50% of every man alive would die also, and I would suggest that if 50% of you suddenly died, the remaining 50% wouldn’t be far behind.@:
But before we do,
when and where? I can’t find any mention of Natural on this thread by me.
George: Okay, I read a little more on the ‘latest’ research on creating children for same sex couples, so here is a quote:
This is a discussion of two men having a child. See where it says that one man has to donate the mitochondrial DNA? Guess what that is. (hint: it has to do with ‘females’) and then, lo and behold, what does that last sentence say? Are there any ‘male’ surrogate mothers with available wombs for this gestation?
So as of the state of the art research, female DNA and female wombs are required.
link for above info: http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/2009/07/29/sexual-reproduction-for-same-sex-couples/
George: read a little more. They think that for a man to get a womb, he will either have to have one transplanted from a female (whoops, not acceptable, no women input allowed) or create one from genetic material from (whoops, not acceptable, no women input allowed) , darn just can’t get around that female involvement. When you find the results of a study that clearly shows that no woman has to be involved, please link it. (I just know you will)
There’s a recent American Thinker essay about:
Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left
OK, I’m not sure gay men have ”destroyed the Left,” but the hypocrisy of the Left is exposed as stunning here:
The child is a slave.
The conditions of some of the third world baby factories are atrocious, and little more than barracks patrolled by thugs.
I bet the women are fed whatever they need to produce a healthy baby….even if it costs her all her teeth.
Slavery is making a comeback.
It is ironic that gay men, fighting for a personal end to their ”Jim Crow” treatment are the ones driving a whole new industry based on enslavement so they can turn their new marriages into families.
@Nanny G:
So true, Nanny, I think no one would make the argument that if you pay another person or organization to gain ownership of a person that is not condoning slavery. To produce people for sale with no listing of male or female involved in it’s creation, is clearly slavery. I’m not saying that if you support the mother during her pregnancy, that it is slavery. But if you pay her a fee for doing it, then it is slavery.
So yes, this push for equality is a push for slavery.
Harris-Perry said:
I don’t like her implication that slavery was created here in the US. I think she should be looking further East, many centuries before the existence of the US to find where slavery was created.
@Redteam #191:
First of all, in the passage you quote, the word “MOTHER” is referring to the male that is providing the mitochondrial DNA. Notice that it did NOT say that the mitochondrial DNA was coming from a FEMALE. This is why the word “mother” was put in italics. In the passage you are quoting, the man who is donating the “egg” is clearly being called the “mother”. He isn’t being called the “female.” And nowhere does it say that the male “mother” is donating something that IS female. Read it again.
Everything in your passage is correct, and it is ALL consistent with what I said previously. Recall that my extra-uterine gestation remarks referenced the future, not the current state-of-the-art. We are in agreement on that. Why do you keep bringing it up?
@George Wells:
Sorry George, I thought you had done your research. mitochondrial DNA, itself, is female. ALL mitochondrial DNA is female, so even if it is taken from a male, it is taken from the ‘female’ part of the male.
” Recall that my extra-uterine gestation remarks referenced the future, not the current state-of-the-art. We are in agreement on that. Why do you keep bringing it up? Because they clearly say there are two possibilities, one a transplant from a female, or a creation of one using genetic material from a female. In both cases, a female is necessary.
So while all of this material (well, except for the womb part) can be taken from a man, it is still female material that is being taken.
No one concludes that there will ever be the creation of a human without an X chromosone, and if there is an X, it is a derivative of a female.
@Redteam #196:
I never write about a subject before being certain that I am correct. But just to re-confirm, I Googled the question: “Is mitochondrial DNA male or female?” and here’s what I found:
The reference articles that came up NEVER said “mitochondrial DNS is female.” NEVER.
They DID say that the mitochondrial DNA is contributed by the egg, not the sperm, a point on which we have already agreed. They called this “mtDNA” contribution “matrilineal,” a term which means that it came FROM the mother. The word “matrilineal” doesn’t mean the same thing as “female”. If your mother had red hair and you got it from her, that red hair would be matrilineal, but it doesn’t make your red hair female.
Other than this petty inability you have of failing to appreciate the difference between “matrilineal” and “female”, we are in total agreement, so I will ask you once again: why not move on – preferably back to the topic of this thread?
@George Wells: So you’re giving up? You still can’t tell me where I talked about ‘natural’ and you don’t know where you’re gonna find a human womb outside of a female. Sound about right. I’ll accept your surrender.
This actually makes rational sense to me. But I’m a bit more libertarian leaning than my more traditionally conservative friends are. I can’t say that I support gay marriage necessarily, I think it’s more fair to say that I really just don’t care. The gay couple 5 doors down from me that gets married has absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever. Have at it. I’m more interested in living in a free society so I’m required to tolerate some behaviors and practices that I may disapprove of or may not understand.
There really isn’t anything in the Constitution with regards to combating discrimination. Additionally, the Constitution only protects equal rights and opportunities. Equality of Outcome is a Leninist value, not an American one.
I have to disagree with you here because I don’t feel that it is the role of government to engage in this kind of social experimentation. The line shouldn’t be drawn anywhere, as all folks should be free to associate as they please.
The cartoon at the top of the thread brings a very good point with regards to this. Should a black bakery be forced to service a KKK party? I’d argue no. But maybe the following situation is more relevant to this conversation:
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/03/gay-nm-hairdresser-refuses-service-nm-governor-defending-traditional-marriage/
Should the gay hairdresser be forced to service the GOP governor? I’d argue no on that as well.
The bottom line is that when government gets involved in forcing people who don’t care for each other to associate, it exacerbates problems rather than solves them. Take for instance a hypothetical restaurant owner. Let’s say he’s racist. With the way anti-discrimination laws are now, he still isn’t required to hire African American staff, and likely doesn’t. But because of existing law, no one knows that his tendency to avoid hiring African Americans is due to racism, so people continue to support his business, unknowingly giving their hard earned money to a racist. I’d prefer that this restaurant owner be free to decline business to whoever he likes, be able to put up signs to that effect and make all manner of stink about the issue, so that I know to take my money elsewhere.
What about a Muslim diner? Should a Muslim be forced to cook bacon at breakfast for a demanding customer? I’d say no to that too.
Having said all that, it’s ultimately silly for any business owner to turn away any customer for any reason in the Obama economy. If you’re in business, you service people with all manner of different opinions that you disagree with all day long every day.
But why would you want to give an anti-gay baker your hard earned money, even if they didn’t urinate in the cake? Why would you want to support their business?
Well, much like North Korea, the current administration has appointed a Science Czar that advocates forced abortions and forced sterilization, perhaps in an effort to make Ms. Sanger’s dreams come true.
Well, many self described progressives will accuse anyone right of center of being a monster if they happen to oppose gay marriage. Yet, Muslims not only abroad but in America as well, openly make homophobic statements routinely, and in other countries physically assault and execute homosexuals in many instances, not to mention outlaw homosexuality altogether. Typically progressives are silent on this because they’ve embraced the Muslim community as yet another victim group they can appeal to with regards to disproportionately disenfranchised disparities, and many in the smelly hippie class have exchanged their burned bras for ha-jibs.
@Redteam #198:
” You still can’t tell me where I talked about ‘natural’ ”
Really? How about these quotes of YOURS:
Redteam this thread: “I think my nephew is a ‘naturally gay’ person”
#42 this thread: “the personal evidence is just too strong that some persons had no choice.”
#116 this thread: “There is nothing natural or normal about having sex with someone of the same gender.”
“#67 in Gay Marriage-End Game: “Sex between two men or two women will never be considered to be normal or natural.
#75: in Gay Marriage – End Game: “I don’t care how you frame it, homosexuality is not natural or normal.”
There, you’ve been told.