Let’s also look at how that greatest of republican presidents interpreted the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
He's not talking about how we need to restrain people and force them accept values and lifestyles that are not their own, he's talking about the vast sacrifice that was being made to assure that liberty and a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
edit- added a line to see if I can get past the spam filter... you really need to fix this
A few people using their status and wealth to impose their values, religion and beliefs on everyone else is a complete betrayal of what America is and has been paid for with incredible amounts of blood.
Keep in mind that a former KGB agent and mass killer now likely has the ear of the conservative backed US president.
Tell us just one more time how it's liberals that are problem in America.
You need a psych eval]
I'm not going to do your work for you. use the google thingy. I found a couple of these from US insurers, and a couple from other countries with nationalized health care.
This isn't the Rush Limbaugh show. We don't just start out with some wild idea that anyone can have their member cut off if they want and start discussing from there.
What criteria, other than the mental state of the subject, do medics have available to them with which to make a determination about whether someone should be subjected to gender reassignment? What test is there to show there are physiological factors that show a distinct abnormality in someone's sexual orientation? There are none, and it's based on subjective feelings and psychological factors that cannot be proved. Yet doctors and surgeons are quite prepared to perform invasive and potentially dangerous procedures on people based solely on a wish to change their sexual identity. Where is the scientific evidence that supports the notion that people are born in the wrong body?
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
You need a psych eval]
I'm not going to do your work for you. use the google thingy. I found a couple of these from US insurers, and a couple from other countries with nationalized health care.
This isn't the Rush Limbaugh show. We don't just start out with some wild idea that anyone can have their member cut off if they want and start discussing from there.
What criteria, other than the mental state of the subject, do medics have available to them with which to make a determination about whether someone should be subjected to gender reassignment? What test is there to show there are physiological factors that show a distinct abnormality in someone's sexual orientation? There are none, and it's based on subjective feelings and psychological factors that cannot be proved. Yet doctors and surgeons are quite prepared to perform invasive and potentially dangerous procedures on people based solely on a wish to change their sexual identity. Where is the scientific evidence that supports the notion that people are born in the wrong body?
Have you looked up those questions. They have answers. I'm not going to try teaching you anything that you aren't interested in learning. You're argument is that we have been studying this for 150 years, but we still don't know anything, we just go with our gut feelings and start slicing up genitalia for the heck of it.
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.
It’s not hard to see how a man who defines himself by how ignorant he is fits in with a party that also defines itself by how well it denies the facts.
The republicans have devoted so much time and energy in twisting the facts and pretending that their ideology forms the world and not the other way around that they didn’t even see Trump coming. They live mostly in a fantasy land where a man beholden to a hostile foreign power is allowed to hold the highest office in the US because he said the right things to motivate people who have been fed on a steady diet of bullshit for decades.
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.You're overlooking the fact that sexuality/gender is only complex when it's DISORDERED - as it is in a very small segment of the population. For most humans, sexuality/gender is very simple.
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.
I think I have already pointed out that people are a mixture of male/female characteristics but it is a question of moral standards and how we want to see society function. I, you, anybody else, are free to sleep with whomever we wish. We might even choose to indulge in sex with animals and you could argue that this is simply a particular way of expressing our sexuality. What about pedophiles? Pedophiles express their sexuality in a certain way, and to use your argument they do so because their sexual preferences have been influenced by biological and early fetal developments beyond their control. Yet I do not suppose you approve of pedophiles. So, you are probably right when you point out that sexuality is a complex mixture of factors, however, that does not mean it is acceptable to allow ourselves to become victim to the perversions that sexuality can all too easily lead us into in the current climate of social permissiveness and 'trendiness.' Your position seems to be that we allow ourselves to indulge in hedonistic pleasures based on whatever whims happen to sway us.
People used to hang and quarter others who had sinned against the state or stone women who were thought to have transgressed against God. Was this due to early fetal experiences in the womb? Human beings are capable of a range of behaviors, both noble and ignoble and to use excuses of complexity is to ignore societal standards that are put into place to maintain a healthy, integrated society.
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.
I think I have already pointed out that people are a mixture of male/female characteristics but it is a question of moral standards and how we want to see society function. I, you, anybody else, are free to sleep with whomever we wish. We might even choose to indulge in sex with animals and you could argue that this is simply a particular way of expressing our sexuality. What about pedophiles? Pedophiles express their sexuality in a certain way, and to use your argument they do so because their sexual preferences have been influenced by biological and early fetal developments beyond their control. Yet I do not suppose you approve of pedophiles. So, you are probably right when you point out that sexuality is a complex mixture of factors, however, that does not mean it is acceptable to allow ourselves to become victim to the perversions that sexuality can all too easily lead us into in the current climate of social permissiveness and 'trendiness.' Your position seems to be that we allow ourselves to indulge in hedonistic pleasures based on whatever whims happen to sway us.
People used to hang and quarter others who had sinned against the state or stone women who were thought to have transgressed against God. Was this due to early fetal experiences in the womb? Human beings are capable of a range of behaviors, both noble and ignoble and to use excuses of complexity is to ignore societal standards that are put into place to maintain a healthy, integrated society.
No I don't approve of pedophiles because it is a crime for very good reason. Children are unable to give informed consent and are often under the total control of the adults who are abusing them. The same applies to bestiality, so for any rational person neither are considered an expression of sexuality.
Adults engaging in fully informed consensual relationships is not illegal and for most people in western society is no longer seen as immoral or illegal. Except for those who are unable to accept these things in their own nature.
It must be a special kind of hell, but in the end it's yours not ours, trying to control your own nature by restricting others isn't just incredibly selfish, it's also pointless.
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
He says the exact opposite. He says children are incapable of giving informed consent. That's because they are not informed, they don't understand what consent means. You are the one trying make this an "anything goes" situation, with no way of determining what's right, so then you can just say what's right, based on your feelings.
Informed? How?
Just because someone is an adult does not mean they cannot be misguided and, in fact, can be worse because they can allow themselves to enter into situations that they have been led to think are fashionable and trendy.
I’m not the saying anything goes. I am saying consent alone is not sufficient reason for acting how you want.
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
The term is "consenting adults", which assumes that adults are able to make considered decisions.
An animal cannot be considered a "consenting adult.
Seems you are making it more complicated than it is.
The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.You're overlooking the fact that sexuality/gender is only complex when it's DISORDERED - as it is in a very small segment of the population. For most humans, sexuality/gender is very simple.You're incorrectly implying that because something applies to a small segment, it is a DISORDER. If that were true, then you yourself, and each of us, is a DISORDER.
How many people here would allow or encourage their minor daughter to marry a man who had sex with her? How many people here would agree to charges of sexual contact with a child being dropped against the man as long as a marriage takes place? Who here would like a pedophile as a son in law?
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
What I actuallysaid:
Children are unable to give informed consent and are often under the total control of the adults who are abusing them. The same applies to bestiality, so for any rational person neither are considered an expression of sexuality.
I''m not the one who has brought up pedophilia and bestiality as an expression of sexuality you are, all I've said is that they are illegal and why.
If you're unable to tell the difference between the concepts of consensual sexual expression and abuse then there's no point in discussing this topic with you.
Or any other as far as I'm concerned, you're way over on the other side of a ideological divide that I'm not going to waste any more time trying to cross.
In my opinion this discussion here has never been about the morality or possible harm that open expression of LGBT has on individuals or society.
People like the thread starter who are the most vociferous and adamant that no open expression of LGBT be allowed in society are effectively trying to force it back into the closet…where many of them spend their lives.
How do we know this, by the many conservatives who are publicly strongly opposed to LGBT rights but who are then revealed to be closeted LGBT.
Partial list:
Larry Craig
Bob Allen
Randy Boehning
Steve Wiles
George Rekers
Pastor Eddie Long
Troy King
Richard Curtis
Ted Haggard
Glenn Murphy
David Drier
Bruce Barclay
Roy Ashburn
Ed Schrock
…
So the evidence isn’t that LGBT rights harm society, the evidence is that individuals who are the most opposed to open expression by other adults of their LGBT nature are themselves closeted LGBTs. This likely isn’t about the damage that liberals do by allowing a much fuller expression of informed and adult behavior, this is quite likely about someone in denial of aspects of their own nature trying to control that by controlling others. Trying to equate LGBT with pedophilia and bestiality is something the most vociferous opponents of LGBT rights do, not the most rational. And it’s become cliche that they take that position not from any concern for others but because they are simply unable to accept their own sexual nature.
As I said before, it must be a special kind of hell.
Informed? How?
Just because someone is an adult does not mean they cannot be misguided and, in fact, can be worse because they can allow themselves to enter into situations that they have been led to think are fashionable and trendy.
I'm not the saying anything goes. I am saying consent alone is not sufficient reason for acting how you want.
I can't tell if you are trolling or just stupid. Children can't give informed consent to have sex with an adult, because they are not capable of understanding what they are are giving consent for, therefore, it can't be informed, according the definition of the word according to law and common sense.
Of course adults can be misguided, so we have definitions like "vulnerable adults" or "registered pedophile" for them. We don't care if they think what they're doing is trendy, it's still illegal. This is exactly what pedophiles are fighting for. They think there is some segment of the population for whom this should be normal. They use other cultures and history as their precedents. So far, they haven't gotten very far. Certainly no one on this forum is advocating for them. So quit arguing like anyone here is or accusing of us of some kind of slippery slope. It ain't happenin.
And just in case someone actually took this nut job at face value, this is what the experts have to say about human sexuality.
The American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM in 1974, and the NCPA and APA strongly oppose discrimination against LGBT people in hiring and in any other context."
According to the APA’s website: “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex) and bisexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to both men and women)."
Conservatives don't equate LGBT with pedophilia and bestiality because they are considered to be related by professionals and almost everyone else, they do so to generate the kind of hate that is all to often acted on against vulnerable groups.
It's basically hate speech...
I think I have already pointed out that people are a mixture of male/female characteristics but it is a question of moral standards and how we want to see society function. I, you, anybody else, are free to sleep with whomever we wish. We might even choose to indulge in sex with animals and you could argue that this is simply a particular way of expressing our sexuality. What about pedophiles? Pedophiles express their sexuality in a certain way, and to use your argument they do so because their sexual preferences have been influenced by biological and early fetal developments beyond their control. Yet I do not suppose you approve of pedophiles. So, you are probably right when you point out that sexuality is a complex mixture of factors, however, that does not mean it is acceptable to allow ourselves to become victim to the perversions that sexuality can all too easily lead us into in the current climate of social permissiveness and 'trendiness.' Your position seems to be that we allow ourselves to indulge in hedonistic pleasures based on whatever whims happen to sway us.
People used to hang and quarter others who had sinned against the state or stone women who were thought to have transgressed against God. Was this due to early fetal experiences in the womb? Human beings are capable of a range of behaviors, both noble and ignoble and to use excuses of complexity is to ignore societal standards that are put into place to maintain a healthy, integrated society.
I reported this for being possible hate speech, I think that someone who includes LGBT with pedophiles and people who commit bestiality clearly hates the community at large.
Based on the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM over 40 years ago and is now fully recognized by science and most of society as part of the normal spectrum of human orientation, claiming that it is equal to something that is still fully regarded as not just inappropriate but illegal because of the well documented harm it does to victims, I don't see how this kind of speech has any other purpose but to motivate others to express hate towards an identified group.
Ben Carson quickly withdrew similar comments out of recognition of the damage they can and will do to others, is something like this acceptable here.
Far from being a voice of reason I think the poster of these comments is entering the same area of harmful behavior that he is trying to place the entire LGBT community in. Considering the long record of violence and discrimination against LGBT people he is attempting to make them targets and potential victims. In the same way a pedophile would with a vulnerable child.