j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 3:38:52 GMT
Sam does! He and homosexuals generally. They're having a lot of success in enforcing their 'hurt feelings' too - bankrupting businesses, causing people to lose their jobs, and even having some people in western Europe imprisoned. And then they say their agendas are not being forced on anyone.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 5, 2017 3:55:47 GMT
Sam does! He and homosexuals generally. They're having a lot of success in enforcing their 'hurt feelings' too - bankrupting businesses, causing people to lose their jobs, and even having some people in western Europe imprisoned. And then they say their agendas are not being forced on anyone. Because they want to feel as if they are the victims.. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif)
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 4:29:18 GMT
And then they say their agendas are not being forced on anyone. Because they want to feel as if they are the victims.. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif) 'victims', huh.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 5, 2017 4:30:58 GMT
Because they want to feel as if they are the victims.. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif) 'victims', huh. Oh yes. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif) Their feelings are worth more than our lives, or our family's lives.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 5:04:54 GMT
Again, already happening. And your proof is? Reality doesn't care if you believe it. And if you can't work Google or other search engines, that likewise doesn't change reality. I know you search for any excuse to avoid reality, but it's still there. Look up 'somatic cell nuclear transfer'. Or being you, you can ignore the following: www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(14)01583-9.pdfwww.bionews.org.uk/page_10889.aspThere's the basic science behind it, which you can also ignore:
When two men wish to raise a child together, they must either adopt (where neither of them will have a biological contribution) or use an egg donor and surrogate (where only one of them will make a biological contribution). In the future, that might not be the case. A new paper published in Cell describes the role of genetic regulators which influence whether an immature germ cell differentiates into a male or female cell, and how that process can be manipulated. In the future, it could even be possible for stem cells from a male to be used to produce an egg, allowing an infant to have two biological fathers.Primordial germ cells (PGCs) are the stem cells that are able to give rise to either sperm or egg cells. The body typically uses hormonal signals and certain transcription factors in order to determine whether to make the male or female germ cells naturally. While SRY is the gene most widely known for its sex-determining function, the paper describes the importance of another SOX family gene, SOX17. As it turns out, SOX17 is another regulator of human PGC-like cells, and altering the gene can alter the fate of those cells. Rather than just building on our understanding of sex-determining processes, this could potentially have staggering implications for a number of families. In the coming years, researchers may be able to manipulate this process and make it possible for two men to father a child without the need of an egg donor. This could occur by taking PGCs from one father, manipulating SOX17 and inducing those cells to become oocytes. Because the male has all of the relevant maternal information on his one copy of the X chromosome, the resulting egg cell would theoretically be fully functional. The second father would then need to provide a sperm sample with which to inseminate the egg, though a surrogate would be required to carry the baby throughout gestation.Of course, there is a laundry-list of logistical and ethical concerns before this can become a reality. Primarily, human genetic modification to this degree is a huge gray area, with many against the idea of “designer babies” that would lead to a Gattaca-like society. This technique wouldn’t be employed to avoid potentially devastating diseases, such as the three-parent IVF which was recently approved in the United Kingdom. Thus, it could be harder to justify such drastic means solely for procreation. While it is unfortunate, there is another barrier: Those with prejudices against homosexual couples could block the development and implementation of this technology. Though the number of children being raised by same sex couples has nearly doubled since 2000, they are still far and away a minority and face many prejudices. There is still a great deal of research that needs to be done before the time comes to decide how or if the technique will be implemented. www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/two-father-babies-could-soon-be-possible-no-egg-donor-required/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964586/Scientists-say-make-human-egg-skin-two-men.htmlwww.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-research-suggests-female-sperm-and-male-eggs-possible-8780153.htmlwww.sciencefocus.com/article/human-body/how-it-works-threeparent-babieswww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824936/www.sciencedaily.com/terms/somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transferYou can also ignore the following, meant for the less literate: www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explainedwww.bioethics.net/2016/09/thruple-babies-born-of-3-parents/qz.com/793385/first-three-parent-baby-born-using-mitochondrial-replacement-technique/www.popsci.com/uk-one-step-closer-using-dna-3-people-make-babieswww.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/unanswered-questions-surround-baby-born-three-parentswww.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/This same process, with DNA from a donor male instead, amounts to what I've been explaining patiently to you. Such can be done with a donor egg cell or with a created egg cell as explained in the articles you couldn't understand and won't respond to, other than with a generic retort. Presently, such is viable with a donor egg cell. We have the technology for such to happen with a created egg cell and no woman donor involved. Your avoidance is awaited.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 5:08:33 GMT
Sure, but you're presuming all are the same with what you said earlier. I didn't say Canada was the world, I noted that what you put forward as the world was a limited take. Specifics matter.
And the United Church of Canada has its policy decided from the grassroots up. Not all denominations function the same. In not addressing the actual problem, aiming wide instead, you only give reason to ignore the core of your point. Anomalies within a few sectors of the religious community don't really matter either, because they are few and far between when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality and seeing it on equal footing with heterosexuality. And like I already mentioned, it is not just religions, but community based ignorance, that is steeped in societal constructs of controlling and manipulating the majority of the dense population that are deeply, deeply asleep. It doesn't really matter how denominations function, because as far as I'm concerned, they DON'T aim wide or high enough within their "dualistic" nature of what the God or the Universe represents. I am not interested in their agendas or semantics, because it is limiting, even if they claim tolerance. Not an anomaly. I noted the second and third-largest denominations in Canada. And a grassroots-based group doesn't aim at all, putting paid to your comment about how high or wide they aim. And how are denominations you weren't aware of not aiming high or wide enough? Your pretence that respectful discussion and co-existence is not possible within a religion is part of the problem. Similarly, outside the US and Africa (the latter largely due to American missionaries), religion is not seen as being in conflict with evolution, so such is a minority take.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 5:17:31 GMT
You started out okay, then went to your mindset rather than reality. If you can't make a point, spouting nonsense doesn't cover for that, it only makes it clear. I'll take your inability to address my clear point as your admission that you were wrong and knew it, hence your inability to support what you wrote.Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. I'll take it as what it clearly is, thanks. I did tell you what nonsense you expressed. Your avoidance is noted. No one said anything about what they think of you. I noted you avoiding the point you quoted. You don't need to continue proving you can't speak to what I wrote. You've already done so, thanks. That you refused to discuss it as MEN was what I just noted. Have you changed your mind? If so, please act like a man and stop wasting my time.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 6:33:54 GMT
Oh yes. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif) Their feelings are worth more than our lives, or our family's lives. ... not to mention the 'little' things.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 7:47:55 GMT
Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. I'll take it as what it clearly is, thanks. I did tell you what nonsense you expressed. Your avoidance is noted. No one said anything about what they think of you. I noted you avoiding the point you quoted. You don't need to continue proving you can't speak to what I wrote. You've already done so, thanks. That you refused to discuss it as MEN was what I just noted. Have you changed your mind? If so, please act like a man and stop wasting my time. "Your" time, huh. You still haven't pointed out the 'nonsense' you say I said. I'm waiting.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 8:44:22 GMT
Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. I'll take it as what it clearly is, thanks. I did tell you what nonsense you expressed. Your avoidance is noted. No one said anything about what they think of you. False. It's precision out the window with people like you. One simple example: You said this: And that is a lie because you know I didn't say anywhere I had "nothing to offer". Yet you say I "let you know" this. It's a false expression and it is also a lie. It is also your thought and opinion too, because I didn't say such a thing here or anywhere else. Therefore, it is in fact something you think of me because it comes from your thoughts and not from me. So when you now said: You spoke falseness because actually YOU and others have said many things about what they think of me, including that which you just said now and the expression of many 'labels' said against me before; all of it from your own thoughts. Many people here have said many things of what they think of me already including you, so (more) rubbish is what came from your 'mouth' with those words written by you above -- to put it nicely. You and people like you are filled with falseness and I suspect you don't have a straight bone in your body either. (I suggest the "logic for dummies" series -- just don't get it from amazon) (any material on 'written English comprehension techniques' helps too) You're 'too easy' to expose which is why I don't even bother to reply and destroy your expressions each phrase at a time. I post here for fun, not to waste good effort on worthless pursuits such as yours. A bunch of "likes" by gang members here and the rest of the mob/crowd don't make you less false either. Either you write sensefully or you don't, and the fact of your written language is that you don't. How old are you anyway, 80? Senility is an awe-inspiring thing. Better hurry and take your meds (another one on meds that being the case). Care for the elderly is a very delicate thing. Don't miss your nap either (very important), and when you had it (and your meds again), be a good old chap and point out which thing I said here that is nonsense or false.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 5, 2017 10:44:03 GMT
You started out okay, then went to your mindset rather than reality. If you can't make a point, spouting nonsense doesn't cover for that, it only makes it clear. I'll take your inability to address my clear point as your admission that you were wrong and knew it, hence your inability to support what you wrote. Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. This: "gay" has been in use for "homosexual" since the late 19th century. So nobody living today has tried to redefine that word. The use of "asexual" in the sense of "lacking sexual desire" is relatively recent; but language evolves, and if a majority of people are ok with using this word in that sense, that's how it happens. After all, 30 years ago, nobody would have thought of the Internet when using the word "web". And I have yet to meet a person who uses "moral" and "immoral" as synonyms. Unless you can provide evidence that someone does, this part really is "nonsense".
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 14:01:16 GMT
I'll take it as what it clearly is, thanks. I did tell you what nonsense you expressed. Your avoidance is noted. No one said anything about what they think of you. False. It's precision out the window with people like you. One simple example: You said this: And that is a lie because you know I didn't say anywhere I had "nothing to offer". Yet you say I "let you know" this. It's a false expression and it is also a lie. It is also your thought and opinion too, because I didn't say such a thing here or anywhere else. Therefore, it is in fact something you think of me because it comes from your thoughts and not from me. So when you now said: You spoke falseness because actually YOU and others have said many things about what they think of me, including that which you just said now and the expression of many 'labels' said against me before; all of it from your own thoughts. Many people here have said many things of what they think of me already including you, so (more) rubbish is what came from your 'mouth' with those words written by you above -- to put it nicely. You and people like you are filled with falseness and I suspect you don't have a straight bone in your body either. (I suggest the "logic for dummies" series -- just don't get it from amazon) (any material on 'written English comprehension techniques' helps too) You're 'too easy' to expose which is why I don't even bother to reply and destroy your expressions each phrase at a time. I post here for fun, not to waste good effort on worthless pursuits such as yours. A bunch of "likes" by gang members here and the rest of the mob/crowd don't make you less false either. Either you write sensefully or you don't, and the fact of your written language is that you don't. How old are you anyway, 80? Senility is an awe-inspiring thing. Better hurry and take your meds (another one on meds that being the case). Care for the elderly is a very delicate thing. Don't miss your nap either (very important), and when you had it (and your meds again), be a good old chap and point out which thing I said here that is nonsense or false. More distraction babble. You actually think pretending I'm 80 distracts from you lying that I said anything about you here? Pretending we were talking about in history also fails. Let me know if you ever can address my points on the subject. Continuing to illustrate your impotence on the point is unnecessary. Again, that was already clear. You must feel really cornered to throw out that many excuses. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif)
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 14:03:50 GMT
Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. This: "gay" has been in use for "homosexual" since the late 19th century. So nobody living today has tried to redefine that word. The use of "asexual" in the sense of "lacking sexual desire" is relatively recent; but language evolves, and if a majority of people are ok with using this word in that sense, that's how it happens. After all, 30 years ago, nobody would have thought of the Internet when using the word "web". And I have yet to meet a person who uses "moral" and "immoral" as synonyms. Unless you can provide evidence that someone does, this part really is "nonsense". No point in trying to actually address points with him. He just throws any excuses he can at the wall, hoping something'll stick. After all, what you're replying to is his diversion tactic when he was stuck for a point on the thread topic. Don't expect any integrity or intelligent discussion. But thanks for offering it!
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 14:05:53 GMT
I'll take it as what it clearly is, thanks. I did tell you what nonsense you expressed. Your avoidance is noted. No one said anything about what they think of you. I noted you avoiding the point you quoted. You don't need to continue proving you can't speak to what I wrote. You've already done so, thanks. That you refused to discuss it as MEN was what I just noted. Have you changed your mind? If so, please act like a man and stop wasting my time. "Your" time, huh. You still haven't pointed out the 'nonsense' you say I said. I'm waiting. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/sigh.gif) Your inability to read isn't on me. I'll take that as your declaration that you're unwilling to be a man. You'd already made that clear, thanks.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 14:11:41 GMT
Not an anomaly. I noted the second and third-largest denominations in Canada. And a grassroots-based group doesn't aim at all, putting paid to your comment about how high or wide they aim. And how are denominations you weren't aware of not aiming high or wide enough?
Your pretence that respectful discussion and co-existence is not possible within a religion is part of the problem. Similarly, outside the US and Africa (the latter largely due to American missionaries), religion is not seen as being in conflict with evolution, so such is a minority take. Not getting it Skyhawk. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) I have already commented in regards to the dualistic notion of God and what religions "think" they understand about what it is all about, hence not aiming high or wide enough. And of course they aim, they still have agendas and that is integral for them to exist. I am not concerned with how they rate on a scale in terms of influence. Since I am not religious, whatever respectful discussion or co-existence they may put forward regards homosexuality, their notion of God is still ego dominated and based around archaic beliefs that don't wash with me. If they want to resolve wholly, it won't happen until they stop limiting themselves by feeling separate from God. I don't know what your beliefs are Skyhawk, but from my perspective, if homosexuals want to marry, it should be outside of the church. They are the ones who have condemned it for so long, and regardless of what progress some denominations wish to make, that is just not good enough. No, you're certainly not getting it. First of all, religions don't require gods. Second, as already noted, not all religions are top-down. Third, your positing a singular mindset behind all religion is exactly the mindset you're decrying. You're simply pronouncing such without any rational basis to do so. Is that also ego-dominated? Fourth, gays married within religion throughout history. Early European settlers to North America coined the term 'berdache' to refer to their male Native 'wives' once they came across the practice here. Finally, I'm an atheist. One who appreciates rationality and sense. Which is why I can't accept your empty pronouncements. I don't care what religious form anyone accepts on marriage, as such is up to them. My concern is with equal treatment before the law. However, when things you write are clearly false, I'll call you on simplistic overarching statements. The history and scope of the world is not the US from the 50s to today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:59:35 GMT
Without reading through 75 pages, I'm just curious,...did this question ever get answered about why people care if gay people get married? If you're gay, it means you're being given permission by some authority power (the law or God) for recognition of your relationship. If you're straight,...it means absolutely nothing to you.
|
|
DairyHeiress
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Soooooo....soooooo tired of WINNING.
@dairyheiress
Posts: 2,497
Likes: 1,664
|
Post by DairyHeiress on Mar 5, 2017 22:24:26 GMT
And in all these 73 pages, not a single person has been able to suggest a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married!
There are good reasons why gays shouldn't marry, for practicing Christians.
Ding ding ding ding!!!! See the balloons dropping from the sky and you holding an oversized check for one million dollars? That is EXACTLY the right answer. Thus, the minority of "practicing" Christians will not be forced to marry someone of the same gender, nor will their houses of worship be obliged to render marriage services that go against their biblically mandated beliefs. You will not be asked to give wedding showers in your house or attend a wedding that offends your "God." So, wait...what's the problem, exactly?
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 5, 2017 23:10:16 GMT
Take it however the hell you want to take it and then tell me which nonsense I have expressed. This: "gay" has been in use for "homosexual" since the late 19th century. So nobody living today has tried to redefine that word. The use of "asexual" in the sense of "lacking sexual desire" is relatively recent; but language evolves, and if a majority of people are ok with using this word in that sense, that's how it happens. After all, 30 years ago, nobody would have thought of the Internet when using the word "web". And I have yet to meet a person who uses "moral" and "immoral" as synonyms. Unless you can provide evidence that someone does, this part really is "nonsense". From your point of view surely it may be that way, and truly it is "nonsense" to you, quotation marks included. However, the truth of it does not change. I could 'debate' and discuss each of those 'points' you try to make but it would only just go on a vicious cycle of repetition, where you will choose to see things the way you want to see them anyway (because they 'suit' you), rather than how they really are. For example, the word 'gay' meaning 'homosexual' was NOT used since the "late 19th century" as you say that it was. Rather, it is an opinion expressed by a homosexual scholar, which is an opinion refuted by data and by other experts in the field. And when you say: I wonder if you THINK that I tried to imply those two words are or can be synonyms, because I didn't. So in this part, may I point out that this is your 'nonsense'? Or maybe you tried to mean something else? Your words have no strength.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 5, 2017 23:24:45 GMT
There are good reasons why gays shouldn't marry, for practicing Christians.
Ding ding ding ding!!!! See the balloons dropping from the sky and you holding an oversized check for one million dollars? That is EXACTLY the right answer. Thus, the minority of "practicing" Christians will not be forced to marry someone of the same gender, nor will their houses of worship be obliged to render marriage services that go against their biblically mandated beliefs. You will not be asked to give wedding showers in your house or attend a wedding that offends your "God." So, wait...what's the problem, exactly? I didn't say their was a problem. So it would seem you're the one with a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 23:30:51 GMT
And in all these 73 pages, not a single person has been able to suggest a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married!
There are good reasons why gays shouldn't marry, for practicing Christians.
Pardon me, I was sloppy with my wording; I actually meant nobody has given any good reason to prevent other people from getting gay married. If you're a christian and believe gay marriage is sinful or against god's wishes or whatever, then by all means that's a great reason for YOU to not get gay married. But legislating to require other people to follow the tenets of your religion would, of course, be a disgusting thing to do.
|
|