Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Well, for what it's worth, I really did find your points to be quite eye-opening. They are appreciated.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

cacophony demeans isilirunite's ability to comprehend actually being pregnant and what it means.
how unreasonable
especially considering how extremely relevant that is.
oh hey did we just get to the crux of the issue or was the response just a highly defensive appeal to ridicule.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I read everything she said, and I comprehend it just fine. She has said nothing to reconcile my belief that a pregnant woman, sick or not, has a human being inside of her that she does not have the right to kill. Even in the interest of her own health. I apologize for having concise principles that can't be talked around...

Quite simply... I do not support the right to conduct an abortion in which the mother contracts a condition via pregnancy that will kill her after the babies are delivered. Yes, that means a full-grown adult woman is going to have to die, sooner or later, in an otherwise normal attempt to bring another life into the world. This risk will always be present and unavoidable. Sometimes there are no 'right' answers. Sometimes people have to die. There are circumstances in which aborting can save more than it destroys ie aborting babies when both the mom and babies would otherwise die, but the specific examples we are talking about did not include that circumstance.

I ask you now... was there anything I missed? I'll gladly continue this discussion with someone who wants to contend my beliefs. Who knows, they may or may not change. Please attack my thoughts, and not my ability to conduct them.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Then why have your last few posts so wildly misprepresented what she's said? I mean you actually claimed that Cacophony argued "a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also...that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health", despite the fact that she repeatedly made comments about how complications for both the mother and the fetus need to be considered, as well as the long-term effects that carrying a baby to term despite said complications could potentially have on both parties.

Perhaps what you're misconstruing is Cacophony's central point that legislating away the right of a woman to retain abortion as an option would have catastrophic consequences on the health of mothers who find themselves in these difficult situations. But no one here, Cacophony included, has denied that having an abortion clearly involves taking control of the life of the fetus. In fact, she even went so far as to say that given the choice, she would have traded her own life for her twins in the face of the complications she personally experienced. Clearly, this stance indicates that she recognizes the impact her choice would have had on all parties. So if you can quote an instance of that point being made - that "ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health" - then I'll gladly concede.

Well that may be, and you're entitled to hold whatever beliefs you like, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that you're arguing your point by employing blatant misrepresentations of the points being made by others which, unfortunately, makes it difficult to continue any kind of meaningful dialogue.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I asked a clarifying question. I think ya'll took it as a statement.

ME: ...'pro-choicers' view the fetus as an extension of the female form while 'pro-lifers' view the fetus as its own entity with its own rights.
COCOPHONY: wrong. so very very wrong.
ME: so you think a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also believe that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health? [NOTE: "only taking control of your own health" = "not taking control of another person's health as well"]

I thought some of her views could contradict each other depending on her beliefs, but she never actually clarified what her beliefs were. I'm not even sure what she thinks a fetus is... that's not an insult, I just have no idea what I'm discussing with who I'm discussing it with. If I use a question mark, that means I would actually like an answer. CONFUSING, I KNOW! She could have said, "No you're totally wrong" and that would have been more constructive.

I appreciate her perspective on pregnancy just as much as the next fully developed fetus, but I don't feel like I know her reasoning well enough to discuss it in a debate.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I notice these questions werent answered. Dont have to be if you dont want to. Like when does it become "another life" inside a woman? At conception?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

the issue is that he's not remotely interested in debating or discussing it. he's firm in his arrogance and his only interest in participating is to hammer people with the righteousness of his opinion.

i'm long past the age when i felt compelled to hold a one sided debate with someone who has no clue what that entails.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

i did answer the questions near the end of page two, unless you were referring to isilirunite. i believe that a child is a seperate being at conception, and is undoubtedly a seperate life by 22 days when its own heartbeat begins.

banning the morning after pill would be iffy, both legally and morally. the technicalities involved in banning that pill would be so difficult to add to the list of banned drugs by the DEA... and to have it enforced? it would result in such a government expansion that i can't say i would be for it. ideally, it would grow to be socially unacceptable so that people can choose to not use it, rather than an outright government ban.

contraception i would never ban because it prevents this whole problem in the first place. if everyone used condoms (and i know they don't work 100% of the time) the rate of abortion would decrease dramatically. contraception is morally fine in my eyes because it does not kill a child that is alive, it prevents the situation from happening. i think using contraception is very wise, and teens should be taught to use it, rather than being taught about abstinence only to get an abortion later.

i believe that before an independent life is conceived, the sperm and oocytes are the property of the individual and can be managed as they see fit, which is why banning sex except for procreation is the over-the-edge part of your slippery slope argument. i never once argued that morality should be dictated to the individual. i do not think gambling is a good idea, however, i don't think it should be banned because it's the individual's right to do whatever they wish with their property. i also believe that credit (usury) is forbidden in the bible, therefore i don't use it, but i wouldn't think about telling everyone else that they could not. i think getting involved smoking pot is a terrible idea, but i think it should be legalized. where in my positions do i want to 'dictate morality'? i think every life should be treated as equal under the law, including the life of the unborn child.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

When your "clarifying question"...

so you think a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also believe that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health?

...is followed immediately by this sentence...

"you're gonna have to resolve that contradiction before i bother typing anything else."

...then you've just transformed your "clarifying question" into an accusation. You're demanding she defend a position that she never took. In fact, it's a position that you and you alone have introduced, so I don't see why she should be forced to defend it.

Interesting you should be explaining to us how to be constructive. In my opinion, "constructive" would've been an actual request for clarification rather than a demanding accusation. "Hey Cacophony, at what point do you consider a fetus it's own, separate, living entity?" Something along those lines would probably ellicit a more informative response.

Fair enough.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

In retrospect, it was a contradiction that I perceived, and not one she explicitly said herself. To be fair, "wrong. so very very wrong," in response to my statement lead me to believe the pro-choice portion of my statement was in fact the opposite of reality. I don't think anyone here would disagree with the statement that pro-lifers view the fetus as its own entity. Coincidentally, I can't conceive of a middle ground between a fetus being an extension female form or a unique being, so the "wrong. so very wrong" statement lead me to believe I picked the wrong orientation with respect to pro-choicers' views. I'm still trying to get things straight upstairs... Sorry for the miscommunication I guess. So I guess I'll have to throw out the question, "When does a fetus become a person?" "Is aborting a baby not the most un-motherish thing, biologically, that a mother can do?"

I'm really not THAT arrogant. I'll admit that I've been more eager than others to get to the meat of what there is to discuss.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

interesting. every life. you know, there are fish out there with more consciousness and intelligence than a 22 day old foetus (so shouldnt everyone should be vegan?)

Fish have great memories and they feel pain and yet we leave them out to suffocate, cut their gills and let them bleed to death without a thought. They surely have a much more developed brain (if a foetus indeed has a brain at 22 days). Surely if every life should be treated as equal under the law then killing fully developed adult fish, (sometimes fish that don't reach maturity until the age of 25) is a much worse thing than "killing" something 22 days old that isnt fully formed?

Oh here's some reading from New Scientist and the Royal Society in case you doubt me:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/ani...wscientist.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1697
..and the fish that reaches maturity at 25 is the Patagonian Toothfish, which is sold in the USA as a Chilean Seabass and has now been overfished almost to extinction.

No, i'm not a vegan :) I don't agree with abortion after a certain number of weeks because that would be killing a baby that is capable of living outside of its mothers womb. Viability I believe, so anything after 22-24 weeks is out of the question. Until that point, the mother has the choice of what to do with her body although if she is going to choose abortion, then the earlier the better for her health. And I think the majority of abortions at 22 weeks are for extreme medical reasons where the welfare of the mother is in danger, and not someone who hasnt realised she's pregnant and doesnt want the baby. Most of those pregnancies are terminated within a few weeks, and I don't see why a woman should be forced by law to carry a baby to term and then bring an unwanted baby into the world. Surely the world is already suffering from overpopulation.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

stimpee, why are you talking about fish? that's like if we were having a discussion about the death penalty and you said "well if we're going to ban the death penalty, we should stop eating animals". i don't mean to be insulting, but that's really from left field. a fish isn't a person. a grown cow has more intelligence than a newborn child, but does that mean it's okay to kill a newborn child?

So, in the name of overpopulation, certain members of the population should be eliminated for the common good.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

where you went wrong was assuming there are only two possible viewpoints: yours and the polar opposite. an arrogant assumption on your part that yours gets to be one of the two.

for many of us neither point you illustrated matches our view. but since you weren't interested in being constructive and simply asking for my view and instead forced a rather pejoratively worded perspective on me as though i originated it, i don't feel any particular need to clarify myself.

1) i wish you'd asked that earlier when i had any interest in discussing it with you.

2) what does that have to do with anything? that's the weirdest question i've ever come across in an abortion debate.

pardon me, but all i did was get to the meat of it. the actual flesh, the real meat. all you've done is float around in happyland, postulating philosophical questions as though they have any merit in reality.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Don't you have to kill what you want to eat? Besides, the priority of laws is not to violate human rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" hasn't got much sway in aquariums. In fact, killing a fish is part of one person's pursuit of happiness that does not violate other people's rights, then it is totally legal. Law sets the standard of interpersonal relationships, mediated by government, because people willfully enter in the social contract of government. Government, and coincidentally the rule of law, aren't universal maxims. At this stage in history, humans can't even avoid killing each other... Good luck getting people to aim their biological need to eat. Noble, but impractical for today's world. Can be keep the abortion debate framed within humans and the laws we apply to ourselves?

If we followed your line of discussion there would be thousands of special cases we would have to entertain. That's just not practical. That's why lawmakers turn to reasoning.... Nuances are important after you've laid out the groundwork. I don't like to build my house with the furniture first, basically.

Speaking of that reasoning. When it comes to our little misunderstanding... if the fetus is not a unique individual, and its not an extension of the female form... what could it be? Nothing. That is why the polar opposites interpretation was sound. Oh, well. I made a mistake. WE GET IT: You're madz0rz! If you're too busy being sore to discuss what we're talking about now, don't respond. You're not a victim... go do something productive.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

youre the one talking about "i think every life should be treated as equal under the law, including the life of the unborn child." and a fish isnt a person, and neither is a 1hr old pregnancy. neither is a 22 day old heartbeat. So I guess it comes down to viability again. You're right, i got distracted. Let me try to clarify.

There will always be abortions. Making it illegal will just mean more women die in the process. Nobody wants to have an abortion. Nobody wakes up in the morning, thinking 'I hope I get pregnant so I can have an abortion.' This is why contraception exists. I don't know of any person who thinks abortion is an easy solution. Why would anyone want to go through the pain, humiliation, and emotional stress of having an abortion if they could prevent it? Contraception isnt 100%.

The bible says that abortion is wrong. What gives the church the right to dictate to government its "moral" values? What happened to separaton of church and state? God shouldn't have any say in the matter because not everybody believes in his existence.

What is supposed to happen to all these unwanted babies that women are being forced to carry to term? adoption? anyone who uses this argument should be willing to adopt the baby themselves.

Until a foetus can survive outside the mother's body, it is not a human being and should not enjoy the same rights as the mother does. Until that point, if you ask, who has the right to live, the woman or the foetus? It should be the woman, every time.

Abortion is a not a quick and easy way out. Women don't just show up in a clinic, hand over their credit cards (in countries where its not free) and get an abortion. There are doctor visits and councelling to go through. Making the choice is hard enough by itself. Going through it must be difficult and painful physically and mentally.

I wish pro-lifers would put their energy and convictions into bettering education and the availability of contraception. Prevent the problem instead of rabidly opposing one of its solutions. Nobody is trying to make them do something they don't want to do. They should extend that courtesy to others who don't share their beliefs.

I'm spent with this thread. If you want to carry on imposing your religious values on people I dont want to hear about it.

over and out.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

She DID, twice at one time!

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Great line. :D


I think that's kind of the point. In the case of abortion, there are so many variables, so many unique cases, so many significant possibilities to consider that it seems counter-productive to me to even try boiling it down to simple, blanket legislation. Any law put on the books, even about late-term abortions and such, really requires a laundry list of caveats and exceptions written into it in order to be at all constructive. And not to keep pointing this back to Cacophony, but I think her first-hand examples along with her hypothetical situation illustrated that point very clearly.

Not necessarily. I mean, this question strikes right at the heart of what really drives the abortion debate, which is at what point does an individual life begin? Personally, I don't consider an early cluster of developing cells to be an individual life yet. There's no functional structure as far as the concept of a body is concerned, no brain to provide a consciousness, no chemical reactions to induce emotion....it's a cluster of cells that is relatively quickly forming into what will one day be a tiny person. I don't say that to detract from the incredible nature of the cluster of cells, I'm just referring to the issue of what constitutes an individual life and where I personally stand on it.

Of course when that cell cluster actually becomes a living, conscious, emotional individual is a question that I don't think anyone has been able to answer, so I have no idea when that cut-off mark would be. But even after that point has come and gone, there are still many, many situations that people may find themselves in where they have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, and it's simply not my place to make that choice for them. It seems to me that this is where you and I really part ways. Overall, when you consider everyone's unique health situations, everyone's individual financial situations, everyone's unique social situations (abusive homes, dangerous environments, etc), everyone's religious beliefs, everyone's ages....all the major factors that would play into this kind of a difficult decision....then I just cannot bring myself to feel any kind of confidence about telling them "sorry, but your situation isn't exempt from the law that restricts you from having an abortion. You'll just have to accept that you're going to live the rest of your life in financial ruin/bring a baby into an abusive situation/give birth to a rape baby/die/etc."

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Well... according to Islaam, this happens at 120 days, as this is when the soul is put into the baby. Prior to this point, it is not an actual 'being' (for lack of better words) and rather just the collection of cells being forming into the human. And thus prior to this point, abortion is legal for due reason - like rape, incest, fetal deformity etc.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

This is ripe for a thread of its own.

I suppose life is probably too generic a word, too broad, and we need to break it down more than that. Perhaps it's better asking the question, what exactly are we taking away?

In my view, it's more a potential than it is a self-conscious being with a view of itself continuing into the future. The capacity of the foetus to suffer is nothing like the capacity of the mother to suffer.

For that reason - for me - the mother and the mother alone gets the choice. Every time.

If she wishes to take whatever risks to go through the pregnancy, that's up to her and her alone.

I'm sure we've had a similar discussion to this on here in the past.

Stimpee: I actually kind of appreciated the point you were trying to make re. the fish. If we take sanctity out of the equation, awareness of self and awareness of suffering are very good barometers for what some of us view as morally right or wrong. (I fully recognize that means I'm probably living unethically if not hypocritically in some ways, but I accept that is an inconsistency on my part between my own ideals/ethics and how close I choose to stick to them).

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

well you've done much in this conversation to convince me that pro-lifers aren't just dicks. :rolleyes:

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

It's tough being omnivores who have evolved such a heightened aptitude for empathy. I think that's one of the reasons that we as a species still rely so heavily on religious concepts to get by in life - religion allows us to view ourselves as special, even superior to other species. The pain a cow, or a chicken, or even a fish feels isn't a major consideration as we eat a steak, pork chop, or fish n' chips because those animals weren't made in "God's image" like we were. So if you remove the conceit of religious beliefs from the equation, the fish comparison actually does become relevant. What life is worth valuing? If we're willing to be so flippant about the lives of the animals we eat and use for clothing and such, then why is a cluster of cells that hasn't even begun to resemble a human being yet held as so sacred?

Please keep in mind that I'm a meat-eating atheist, so I'm not trying to advocate a vegan diet or anything here. I'm personally at peace with the fact that humans are simply a link in a food chain, and that a portion of our diet requires the nutrients we can get from meat. And I generally place the preservation of human life above other animals simply because I am a human, and the survival of all species depends on self-preservation. I'm just interested in the contradictions we face at this point in our species' evolution, and it's undeniable that as we learn more about the planet we live on and the space around us, we're forced to re-examine many of our long-held beliefs that have been shaped largely by religious dogma. Which, incidentally, leads quite nicely into the other half of this thread's subject that's been passed over so far - gay rights.

Aside from religiously-based views of homosexuality, what's the problem with affording all the same rights to gays that straight people enjoy? As I've said before, the whole concept of marriage being between a man and a woman made far more sense in the past when procreation was a necessity for survival - families needing more hands to tend the fields, do the chores and such. But at this point in our history, marriage has simply become a public declaration and celebration of our commitment to the person we've chosen to share our lives with. And along with it has come a set of rights that respect that commitment, and make it easier to get through difficult situations as a couple. Or how about children? How do those who oppose gay adoption justify the consequences of that position? Why would they rather see a child denied a loving home at all than see them raised by a loving gay couple?

If we as a species are capable of empathy that extends all the way to an unformed cluster of cells in the womb, then why is it so hard to extend the same empathy to a fully matured man who finds themselves physically and emotionally attracted to other men, or a woman attracted to other women? What is the actual threat that justifies a law called "The Defense of Marriage Act"? It even amazes me that a name like that has been assigned to it....the DEFENSE of marriage...as if there were a bunch of gay people with torches and pitchforks coming to burn down marriage with their gayness or something.

I believe it's time that we as a species thought a little more. We're capable of it, but we're lazy. Instead of applying critical thought, we use religious dogma and "tradition" as a crutch. Or we allow politics to trump knowledge, as in the case of the 212 House Representatives that opposed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill the other day, defending their positions with statements such as saying climate change is a “hoax...perpetrated out of the scientific community” - a declaration that was actually met with applause. But religion and tradition says that gays are bad, so they don't get the same rights as the rest of us. And religion says human life is sacred, so abortion must be banned (although we'll kill the doctors who perform them:confused:). It's extremely disheartening, and we're not going to survive as a species if we don't start thinking better.

Okay, I'm just rambling now, but I did try to keep it somewhat on topic....:o:D

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

practically, in the way i spelled it out, abortion would only be illegal in the states that wish to make it illegal, while some basic abortion rights would be defined for every state. no one in this entire thread has once addressed the issue of practicality in a state-by-state situation, even though i have addressed it many times. instead, all i'm getting is an emotionally-based argument about how abortions and pregnancies are complicated. yes, they are complicated. i realize this. but i have not once propounded that all abortions should be made illegal. i think there should be abortion disincentives, such as abortions being illegal in certain states, however, if a woman really wishes to have an abortion, it is possible, but inconvenient.

have you read the bible recently? abortion is never mentioned in the bible at all; however, there is a mention of a woman in the old testament who eats her own child. this is not about separation of church and state. your argument is full of holes. what if i argued that because murder is forbidden in the bible, the government cannot dictate that murder is illegal because of the separation of church and state? it's not a religious issue, it's an issue of basic inalieable rights that every human being has.


this isn't a proven scientific fact, this is your opinion. and secondly, it isn't that cut-and-dry, the independence of the baby depends on how old it is. at 24 weeks, a baby can live in an incubator, at 37 weeks a baby can live with constant attention by the mother such as breastfeeding, etc. at 18 months after birth a child requires less attention, but still needs help eating, and so on. a child cannot be independent until he or she is about 10 years old.

i AM for increasing availability of contraception. has anyone here read this thread? it seems that all the pro-choicers here are giving a generic argument against the generic pro-lifer without actually conversing with me or taking any of my opinions seriously. i find it extremely comedic that y'all are so upset with isilirunite for not reading your arguments thoroughly and not considering everything you have to say when that is -exactly- what you're doing to my argument. instead of considering what i have to say, the same old generic pro-choice argument points are thrown out and none of the new things i have introduced in this discussion have even been considered.

i'll make sure to send you a free gideons' bible when i start fining people for lack of religious texts in their vehicles.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Well, your point is only really relevant in accordance to Christianity, which views that Man was created in "God's image". Most other religions, don't have that concept.

However, the fact is that we, as humans, are superior to the rest of the animals. And this is because we have the ability to choose and think out our actions. We don't just go on instinct like the animals do. This makes us vastly different than the animals. When a lion is hungry, it is going to go hunt and kill some other animal to satisfy it's hunger. When we are hungry, we can choose to wait awhile before eating, or not even eat at all.

This is why the fish thing doesn't hold water for me. However, an interesting thing could be said that because people like you (no offense, here) hold this opinion, it actually allows humans to act like animals. After all, if we evolved from animals, then there is justification for us acting like them. And this is where the whole marriage thing comes into play. Marriage is yet another thing that separates us from the animals. If you come out of the club at the end of the night and see the dogs running around, you will see them all chasing down that one female dog. Then they get, and do their thing, and away she goes. How is this not different then a lot of human behavior, especially in modern times? Seriously, think about it.


I may have used to agree with you here, but I don't anymore. This is because I have been doing a lot of research about older civilizations, and to be honest, I don't think that they were much different then us today. Sure we may have cars and phones etc, and they had horses and donkeys and message boys, but aside from the material way of living, we are the same. If you look into the way past civilizations developed, they are the same as us. At a certain point in Roman history, procreation was now longer a necessity for survival. Then came the Islamic Empire, then came the Renaissance. Once a culture moves from a total farming life to a city based life, then it is no longer needed to procreate for survival's sake. We, at least in the Western world, are at this point again. However, this could change in a heartbeat, like it did when WWII happened. And that was just sixty years ago.

To be honest, this is just a personal moral issue. There is really nothing to say that a gay couple CAN'T raise a child, and give him or her a loving home etc. However, from my point of view, a person is not born as a homosexual. People may be born with desires that are of a person of the same sex, and in the case of a homosexual, he or she is choosing to act on those desires. In my system of morals, to act upon these desires is a huge sin. This is because by acting upon such desires goes completely against the natural disposition of man.

Because of the above, I can never say that it would be 'okay' for a gay couple to adopt or raise a child. Once again, it is not because they are incapable of it - I personally know a Lesbian couple who raised a girl who is 21 now and she is, in a general sense, perfectly normal. It is simply because I could not put a child into a situation that I consider to be morally wrong. To me it is similar to giving a child to an alcoholic (who is of the non-violent type). The alcoholic could be perfectly capable of providing a loving and caring home, however most people would object to giving a child to him or her. Why? Because most people think that it is wrong to expose a child to that type of behavior.

So where do we draw the line? This is the issue I have with how society is going. There are no longer any lines to be draw, and everything is becoming 'okay'. This to me is bad, and the 'traditions' of society are there for a reason, even if we no longer remember what that reason is.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Technically they're born asexual. If we're talking about potential, then they are as much born a homosexual as a heterosexal is born a heterosexual. ie. with the genetic predisposition of a sexual attraction that will kick in a decade or so later.

(Environmental factors may or may not contribute to that outcome - none of us knows for sure at this stage - but either way, by the time a person is 11 or 12, same-sex attraction is as natural and innate and feels as impossible to alter as opposite-sex attraction is for heterosexuals)

Here though, you're defining the word homosexual in a more narrow way than it is typically used. Virgins can be homosexual as well as heterosexual. If a straight person stopped having sex, they wouldn't cease to be heterosexual. Sticking to the most commonly-accepted definitions and framing this as the rights and wrongs of sexual activity will avoid confusion.

Your argument is flawed in several ways:

1) There is no single "natural disposition of man" in the way that you insinuate. If 6% or whatever (for the sake of argument) of the population have a fundamental attraction to members of the same sex, that is their natural disposition. It exists naturally, thus it's perfectly natural. It just makes it less common. Common and natural (as in innate) are not the same thing.

2) The fact that the natural disposition of that 6% rules out the ability to sexually procreate doesn't make the disposition (or behaviour) of that 6% less natural or less innate. It just means it doesn't fit into the cycle of natural reproduction.

3) There exists no single reasoned argument that links morality to the mere fact that something doesn't fit into the cycle of natural reproduction. I say no reasoned argument - there are of course plenty of arguments that resort to the world's many creation myths.

To most of the rest of us though, right and wrong are typically not decided by:

a) whether something is common
b) whether something leads to procreation

If you're judging this whole issue objectively, it should be quite telling that most opponents of homosexuality are more likely to subscribe to one of the various creation myths with their primitive ideas about sin (despite you using the words "in my system of morals") whereas those who resort to reason alone are far more likely to reach the conclusion that there is nothing morally wrong with it.

1) Argumentum ad-populum. You have not actually explained why the parental behaviour in question (same-sex togetherness and occasional displays of affection) should be considered morally wrong. There may be an argument about the greater likelihood of promiscuity amongst gay couples, and the affect on familial stability - but that's a different argument to the one you're putting. I would hope rigorous adoption procedures would filter out the latter and identify those most likely to offer a stable family unit.

2) What do you fear will happen if you "expose a child" to same-sex 'togetherness' and occasional displays of affection? My guess is they will simply be more likely to end up tolerant and broad-minded. More likely to grow up appreciating that homosexuality is not a sin. There is no evidence that they will grow up gay any more than the millions of heterosexual parents of homosexuals were able to make their offspring straight, despite the overwhelming social pressure (and in most cases, personal desire) to conform to heterosexuality.

I'm somewhat amazed you need to ask. Consenting adults? Harming no-one else? All pretty standard stuff. Rules out bestiality, paedophilia and all the other horrors that slippery slope proponents wave around. Panic about where to draw the line is unnecessary. We can - and do - always draw a line.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Shhhhhhh!!!

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Yeah, and make EVERYONE in the world gay. That would be scary, I mean, all these witty trash talking bitches EVERYWHERE. I WOULD commit suicide if that happened.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

The "God's image" point specifically is derived from Christianity, Catholicism and all their derivative religions, yes. But the idea of human superiority to other species does tend to show up in many religious beliefs in various other forms, so my point isn't unique to Catholics and Christians. And even religious beliefs aside, many people simply share in the human propensity for fear-based conceit by making sweeping assumptions about things they don't understand (which incidentally, is the foundation of religious mythology). I'm not certain of course what motivates your position on the subject specifically, but you do actually go on to illustrate this point when you say:

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you basing these conclusions on? Personal beliefs, or religious teachings maybe? Either way, the facts don't bear out your conclusions. In recent decades, testing and observation of a variety of animals has revealed that they share our ability to reason, think, conceptualize, and even be creative (highly recommended article). For example, Orangutans have been observed fashioning dolls of sorts out of twisted up bundles of leaves that they then proceed to cradle, pretending they're babies. This requires far more than instinct - it involves the cognitive sophistication to visualize a baby, the creative process of fashioning something into an abstract representation of a baby, and then the imagination necessary to pretend it's a baby. And even some birds, creatures we share no significant common ancestry with, have shown the development of thought and creativity on a level that allows them to conceptualize their goals enough that they take the time to plan and build tools in order to achieve them. As an example, here's a summary of some experiments done with a New Caledonian crow in which a piece of meat was tucked into a basket at the bottom of a glass tube, out of the crow's reach:

The scientists had placed two pieces of wire in the room. One was bent into a hook, the other was straight. They figured Betty (the crow) would choose the hook to lift the basket by its handle.

But experiments don't always go according to plan. Another crow had stolen the hook before Betty could find it. Betty is undeterred. She looks at the meat in the basket, then spots the straight piece of wire. She picks it up with her beak, pushes one end into a crack in the floor, and uses her beak to bend the other end into a hook. Thus armed, she lifts the basket out of the tube.

"This was the first time Betty had ever seen a piece of wire like this," Kacelnik said. "But she knew she could use it to make a hook and exactly where she needed to bend it to make the size she needed."

They gave Betty other tests, each requiring a slightly different solution, such as making a hook out of a flat piece of aluminum rather than a wire. Each time, Betty invented a new tool and solved the problem. "It means she had a mental representation of what it was she wanted to make. Now that," Kacelnik said, "is a major kind of cognitive sophistication."

Now these examples may not be on par with the extent of human ability to think - I mean hell, we've gone to the freakin' moon and landed probes on Mars for cryin' out loud. But just because a cheetah runs far, far faster than us doesn't mean we're incapable of running. We're just not evolved to be as fast a runner as cheetahs, exactly as other animals haven't evolved to be as complex a thinker as humans. But the abilities to "choose and think" themselves are in no way unique to us.

No offense taken because, factually speaking, humans ARE animals. To say that we "evolved from animals" is misleading - we're simply animals who have gone down our own specific evolutionary path.

And where marriage is concerned, our mating habits are not unique to us. We share similar behavior to quite a variety of animals. Penguins stay with a single mate for life, as do gibbons, wolves, many types of eagles, etc. All told at this point, we've observed that approximately 3% of all animal species share this monogamous behavior with us. Likewise, we share no significant common traits in reproduction with other animals, like sharks or turtles. But again, we certainly aren't unique in this sense.

So when you say my beliefs "allow humans to act like animals", frankly, I don't see what the problem you're trying to illustrate is. We are animals, so of course we act like animals. What's inherently bad about being an animal?

What's odd to me here is that it appears you actually do agree with me. My point is simply that most arguments against gay marriage turn at one point or another to the fact that gay couples are incapable of procreation as reason to restrict gay rights to marry. Yet, as you have confirmed, procreation is not crucial to our survival as a species at this point in human history, so why is it a concern? The fact that other eras in history also illustrate the point has no bearing on it's validity.

Deckard has spoken eloquently to these points, and I fully agree with him.

I disagree whole-heartedly. It's not that there are no lines to be drawn, it's that we've evolved to a level of intelligence, and have amassed enough knowledge that we need to re-evaluate our stances on certain subjects through facts, reason, empathy and foresight. It's not enough now to say that tradition tells us homosexuality is bad, any more than it was enough hundreds of years ago for the church to force Galileo to recant his discovery that the earth orbits the sun because it clashed with traditional teachings. What good does it do us to deny factual knowledge in favor of hurtful dogma? It's a strange, inherently conflicted stubbornness that I don't understand. The most religiously righteous people people out there tend to be the first to point to our ability to think and rationalize as defining human traits, but are then also the first to discount the discoveries and conclusions of those exact traits in favor of clinging to ideals of the past. So which should we be doing? Celebrating our intelligence and inventiveness as a species through exploring and embracing our advances, or suppressing it to the point that we're actually willing to hurt those who don't fit in with our "traditional" preconceptions?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

If we were born without sexual organs, and they developed after 10 years, then you would have a point. However, we are both as a sex, either male or female. Therefor the natural disposition of a male species is to be with the female of that species and vice versa. Like I said, you may have feels towards a member of the same sex, but to act upon them goes against this natural disposition.


The definition I am using is pretty basic. It says "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex." This is from the dictionary on my laptop. That same dictionary states that a person who is a virgin is someone who has not yet had sexual intercourse. If further goes on to define sexual intercourse as "sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, esp. the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen."

So technically, a lesbian who never had been with a man is still a virgin. Same with a man who has never been with a women.

I am just stating this because I am not sure if you meant that a virgin can be both a homosexual and a heterosexual (as in the same time), or they can be either one or the other.


This I wholeheartedly disagree with. So there is no point in debating what followed it because it is based off your belief in the above.



I would say that it is our natural disposition that instinctually tells us what is right and wrong.

I am running out of time, I'll address more later.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I'll write more of a response to you later, I just want to mention something here.



So then, if I saw you and your wife walking down the street, and I happen to be horny, you would have no problem if I roundhouse kicked you in the head to knock you out, then bend your wife over and take her right there on the street corner? After all, isn't this how animals act? Would I be wrong, when you say that I raped her, that my response would be that we are animals and I was just acting like one?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I lol'ed. a frog and a horse come up to a body of water. The frog swims across and the horse gallops around it. Would you criticize the horse for not swimming? Would you call the frog not an animal because it swam?

humans are social animals, and therefore require cohabitation and therefore require a body of ethics in order to survive. Its as much our animal-ness to be ethical and treat eachother with compassion as it is natural for the frog to swim.

nice try though. there's a bunch of this kind of fallacy in the book of mormon too.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Setting aside the inappropriateness of the analogy for now, what in the world does being a violent asshole have to do with the human species being a member of the animal kingdom? And yes, you would be absolutely, 100% wrong in saying "we are animals and I was just acting like one", because not all animals violently take a mate from another animal....especially humans. Nor are we compelled to duplicate the behavioral tendencies of another species simply because we're all animals. For instance, both lions and koala bears are animals, right? When a male lion takes over a pride, they kill and eat any baby lions left behind by the previous male leader. So by your logic, it should follow that koalas would share this behavioral tendency because they too are animals - and yet they don't. Have you ever seen any footage of a cute, cuddly koala with a blood-stained mouth devouring adorable little koala babies? I haven't. So why in the world would you suddenly assume that assault and rape could be somehow justified for humans simply because some other species out there exhibits those tendencies?

Sea turtles are animals, yet they lay their 20-some-odd eggs in holes on the beach, bury them and leave them to fend for themselves when they're born. Humans give birth to a single baby at a time and raise them until they're at least in their teens.

Frogs are animals, and some of them are capable of naturally morphing into the opposite sex as adults when the environment they live in necessitates it...doesn't mean we can do that too.

Birds are animals and they feed their babies by regurgitating into their mouths, but we don't feed our young that way.

Why should we automatically take on any of these behaviors simply because we too are animals? A fish doesn't behave like a moose, a dog doesn't behave like a bird, a lizard doesn't behave like a monkey, an elephant doesn't behave like a rat - so why should it stand to reason that humans should behave like anything but a human? There's absolutely no reason for it....in fact the reasons against taking on these behaviors far outweigh any thin reasoning that we somehow should. Your points on this stuff are so off-base as to be ludicrous. Can you support your extreme stances with anything factual?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I think we have something in common. We both have a segment of the population whom we feel are not adequate to raise or adopt children. For you its homosexuals. For me its the religiously pious. Just being honest.

And its clearly prejudiced and intolerant to paint all religiously fervent people as abusive parents. But you are doing nothing less with gays. You are talking about a nebulous environment of immorality under which children of gay parents must be raised. I can also talk about a nebulous environment of subjugation of individuality and of warping the relationships between a person and others, even their own bodies, under which children of the religiously fervent must be raised.

I'm using the same logic, but I kind of just used it to show that you are probably much more ill equipped to raise a child than Deckard. But of course that's not the kind of argument I'd want to make about a group of people. Even after I've seen what I've seen in my own religiously fervent community.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

yeah...i'm just going to get out from between you too. lol

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

No...it's good to see the same points being raised. Although I did modify the wording of my frog example after reading it back when you quoted it. Didn't want it to lead into some trans-gender conversation...

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

You'd risk getting gutted, like a fish, too.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

This is why I rarely post here anymore. I have never said that anyone is ill equipped to raise a child. In fact, if you read my post, I said exactly the opposite.

Let me restate my position again in the simplest terms I can:

I feel that a homosexual couple can raise a child, and provide the child with a loving and caring environment.

However, since I don't agree with a homosexuality, I can not support something that would say that it is 'okay' for a homosexual couple to raise a child. I don't think that it is 'okay', based on my person opinion, ideology and moral's.

These are my personal opinions, and I am entitled to have them. I don't feel that I am forcing them upon anyone here, nor do I think that I am not an open or broadminded person. In fact, I would say that I am very opened minded, unless your definition of opened minded means that you have to accept everything as being okay, and not have an opinion other than that.

I have nothing against Deckard, or Sean. I tend to only comment on things they post because they are two people who speak in well thought out logical, and rational terminology. They don't resort to the snide bullshit like was quoted here, that tends to be spit out by many. Because of this, I can sit and discuss things with them, and people like them, even on points where we clearly disagree. I don't feel that I disrespect them (or anyone) with my posts, either.

If anyone here feels differently, then feel free to speak up, and I will attempt to correct my speech.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

i think you're pretty funny.
i think a lot of people here are improbably patient with you because they dont know what yr fucking deal is couched in, thinking that protesting is just another form of terrorism, or that somehow people who you 'allow' to be perfectly functioning people shouldnt be allowed to exist as such and raise a family because of what you believe in.

i think yr a classy idiot whose lucidity is all thats keeping him from being in the same circle of forum-hell as jOHN. i dont care if you stop posting, honestly.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Don't hate because I'm beautiful.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

JOHN SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

As long as I know I've made you scream, I'm satisfied.

Click the fucking ignore button bitch.