Good one bro, did you spend all day looking that one up? Back to the discussion!=TFF=Omen_NataS wrote:
I'm sorry but i do not see how people can turn Gay Look at this Pic and tell me it doesn't disturb you
http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/1032/00315zv.jpg
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-27 12:11:44)
No but i'm trying to prove a point.........!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Good one bro, did you spend all day looking that one up? Back to the discussion!=TFF=Omen_NataS wrote:
I'm sorry but i do not see how people can turn Gay Look at this Pic and tell me it doesn't disturb you
http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/1032/00315zv.jpg
That is a good point, and one I had thought of, but had decided not to include in the initial scenario, as I felt that I had already given enough "what if" options. Just didn't want to make it too convoluted, but it is a valid point.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I didn't say that you did disapprove I was just comparing it to down syndrom because that is a diese that they do detect early on in the stages.
And what is your point?=TFF=Omen_NataS wrote:
No but i'm trying to prove a point.........!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Good one bro, did you spend all day looking that one up? Back to the discussion!=TFF=Omen_NataS wrote:
I'm sorry but i do not see how people can turn Gay Look at this Pic and tell me it doesn't disturb you
http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/1032/00315zv.jpg
And at what point do we stop with the diseases?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
That is a good point, and one I had thought of, but had decided not to include in the initial scenario, as I felt that I had already given enough "what if" options. Just didn't want to make it too convoluted, but it is a valid point.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I didn't say that you did disapprove I was just comparing it to down syndrom because that is a diese that they do detect early on in the stages.
I believe it is ultimately up to the woman to decide, but when you throw science into the mix, it can get a lot more difficult. As medical science advances, and we can better detect fetal defects, are we going to become a society that throws away unborn children that are "defective"?
That was exactly my point. I'm sure without much difficulty we could name many famous people that had a medical condition of one kind or another. Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of our time. Mozart was deaf, and the list goes on.Erkut.hv wrote:
And at what point do we stop with the diseases?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
That is a good point, and one I had thought of, but had decided not to include in the initial scenario, as I felt that I had already given enough "what if" options. Just didn't want to make it too convoluted, but it is a valid point.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I didn't say that you did disapprove I was just comparing it to down syndrom because that is a diese that they do detect early on in the stages.
I believe it is ultimately up to the woman to decide, but when you throw science into the mix, it can get a lot more difficult. As medical science advances, and we can better detect fetal defects, are we going to become a society that throws away unborn children that are "defective"?
Imagine the next Stephen Hawking is aborted because it was deemed that his ALS would develop at some point in his life, and his parents couldn't bear the thought of him living like that.
Since ADD is considered a disease now, do we abort babies who we might deem hyper in the future?
As we all know, there was a group 60 years ago who was trying to do the very thing we speak of. We need to tread VERY carefully in this area.
Last edited by Fubar/fox (2006-06-27 15:52:49)
Still a man and a woman, and if it was found that we carry this gene, we either 1- Enjoy our nephews, or 2- adopt. Simple as that. point is we are what the bonds were INTENDED to be, MAN AND WOMAN! Does that answer your question?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
And so you support abortion on demand?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
I would have it aborted, Id treat it as an incurable birth defect. Sorry if this offends, But you wanted an answer.
In fact, lets take this hypothetical one step further. Let's say that you and/or your wife carry a recessive gene and causes homosexuality. Are you going to divorce your wife since there is no reason for your to be married. Let me quote you from the "US in 2008" thread.Since you won't procreate a gay person, as you noted in your comment, you no longer have a reason to be married. Especially if you are the carrier of the recessive gene that causes the "defect", as you call it.Ok smacktard first off lets see, Gays Shouldnt have rights as do a man and a woman in MARRIAGE! The whole meaning behind MARRIAGE is to procreate the population. How the fuck is a Gay suppose to do that? Shit one out?
Please, I'd really like to hear you comments regarding this.
Last edited by <[onex]>Headstone (2006-06-27 18:54:09)
How does marriage promote procreation? We can all procreate without being married. Besides, half of all marriages fail, does that mean our population is going reduce?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Still a man and a woman, and if it was found that we carry this gene, we either 1- Enjoy our nephews, or 2- adopt. Simple as that. point is we are what the bonds were INTENDED to be, MAN AND WOMAN! Does that answer your question?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
And so you support abortion on demand?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
I would have it aborted, Id treat it as an incurable birth defect. Sorry if this offends, But you wanted an answer.
In fact, lets take this hypothetical one step further. Let's say that you and/or your wife carry a recessive gene and causes homosexuality. Are you going to divorce your wife since there is no reason for your to be married. Let me quote you from the "US in 2008" thread.Since you won't procreate a gay person, as you noted in your comment, you no longer have a reason to be married. Especially if you are the carrier of the recessive gene that causes the "defect", as you call it.Ok smacktard first off lets see, Gays Shouldnt have rights as do a man and a woman in MARRIAGE! The whole meaning behind MARRIAGE is to procreate the population. How the fuck is a Gay suppose to do that? Shit one out?
Please, I'd really like to hear you comments regarding this.
Id like to add, i didnt get married for benefits or insurance, or for a tax break(because there isnt one) Got married to the woman i love. Im dissabled from a military accident and from a work accident where i broke my back, I Still have to pay full price for my own insurance, she has her own. So my views on this truely are not do to any beliefe in a religon. Its based on Upbringing and the morals instilled in me by my parents(no matter how flawed there upbringing of me was) I atleast learned some sense of morals.
Last edited by Havazn (2006-06-27 19:27:07)
The only prob with that is that moral is submitted to change Moral is just what people think is right at a given point and i can change<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
I atleast learned some sense of morals.
To answer your first question, Promiscuous sex spreads disease, and Causes a HUGE strain on the population because of unwed mothers having to rely on the welfare system to raise there kids. Another fact is, Children raised without a father(usually because they don't know who the father is) are many more times likely to turn to a life of crime. To answer your second question, As i said before its a matter of morals. Not being Christian, i still believe its wrong.Havazn wrote:
How does marriage promote procreation? We can all procreate without being married. Besides, half of all marriages fail, does that mean our population is going reduce?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Still a man and a woman, and if it was found that we carry this gene, we either 1- Enjoy our nephews, or 2- adopt. Simple as that. point is we are what the bonds were INTENDED to be, MAN AND WOMAN! Does that answer your question?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
And so you support abortion on demand?
In fact, lets take this hypothetical one step further. Let's say that you and/or your wife carry a recessive gene and causes homosexuality. Are you going to divorce your wife since there is no reason for your to be married. Let me quote you from the "US in 2008" thread.
Since you won't procreate a gay person, as you noted in your comment, you no longer have a reason to be married. Especially if you are the carrier of the recessive gene that causes the "defect", as you call it.
Please, I'd really like to hear you comments regarding this.
Id like to add, i didnt get married for benefits or insurance, or for a tax break(because there isnt one) Got married to the woman i love. Im disabled from a military accident and from a work accident where i broke my back, I Still have to pay full price for my own insurance, she has her own. So my views on this truly are not do to any belief in a religion. Its based on Upbringing and the morals instilled in me by my parents(no matter how flawed there upbringing of me was) I at least learned some sense of morals.
In response to your edit: If your marriage wasn't for any benefits than why do you oppose a same sex couple to get married? If its for love, than its the same as yours. Love is not a scientifically measured unit so you cannot say you love her more than he may love a man.
Last edited by <[onex]>Headstone (2006-06-28 04:25:49)
