I am fully against allowing mentally r****ded folks from procreating. Letting them procreat ensures very expensive state or fed supported kids and education - taking away funds from non-r****ded kids. Marriage is ok by me, it's a sham in the US for a large proportion of Americans, why deny it to them.
Wow dude, that might be the meanest thing I've read today. That beats all the T_J SF bashing that was going on. Why won't you let r****ded people procreate and love, they aren't hurting anybody.
You're the one that referred to them as *r****ds*. They can do whatever they want as long as they don't have children. If you wish to pay for it, fine, that's OK with me, get the abortion protesters to adopt and raise the kids. That's all I ask. Also, these abortion protesters step up to the plate and adopt all these unwanted kids in foster homes.
A lot of them do jackarse. So you think I hate *mentally handicapped* people because I said r****ds, which was more for effect than anything else.
But I still haven't stooped to ad hominem attacks like you. Anyways, I will shut up on the abortion issue when abortion protesters start emptying the orphan homes and foster homes of the world. Put their money where the mouths are if it's so important to them. Otherwise, it really wasn't that important to them.
Wait, where was the Ad hominem attack? You know what that means right? Calling you a jackarse (which was simply force of habit when I disagree with someone so don't take it personally, I say it to my best friends) doesn't constitute an ad hominem either.
From your response: "Encarta dictionary: nat·u·ral [ náchərəl, náchrəl ] adjective 1. of nature: relating to nature 2. conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature natural symptoms of aging 3. produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, rather than being artificial or created by people a natural sapphire" Notice this line? "present in or produced by nature, rather than being artificial or created by people" Specifically this? "rather than being artificial or created by people" My "isolation of a single incident" is only the truth being revealed. Several isolated incidents compiled and misconstrued as "evidence to suggest a pattern" vs. the billions upon billions of animals over time that have not demonstrated such behavior (the "evidence" I am claiming...) is what leads me to say that this "evidence" for homosexuality in animals -as a behavior CHOICE (not by design) - is IMHO "artificial or created by people." I see no concrete, several century pattern as I do to the contrary in all known science and research of animals. I do not feel that these studies were "produced by nature" as much as compiled, organized and interpretted i.e. "created by people." If an incident can stand on its own, then what happens to it when 100,000 other incidents show it to be obscur and irradic? It was for this very reason IMO that the initial article of this thread said something to the effect of "not jumping to conclusions." Which I take to mean that the current, widely accepted evidence in place suggest that this behavior is not "natural", even though it has been found "in nature". If I walk into a garage, does it make me a car? If I attend college, does it make me a scholar? If I go int the cooler at the back of the grocery store, am I milk? If I choose to vote for Clinton, does it mean I'm a Democrat? If I make a choice, does it mean I am that choice? Single occurances may make up who I am in their sum, but do not singularly determine how I will remain. WHile a choice or action may give an indication as to my identity, preferences, beliefs, convictions, or aspirations... they are still but a split second of my life, and in and of themselves cannot alone be the determiner of what I am, or will be. And that's tricky because sometimes a choice can lead to conciquences that may take a long amount of time to live out or live down, or may lead to a realization on my part as to preference, but even then more choices are presented, and we must choose. Choice in a matter is not the issue. Whether or not something is "natural" or "circumstancial" is. Roll eyes. Mock. Call me a "bigot" in a unfounded manner. Either way I want more proof that this "in nature = natural across the board without examination" is not another THEORY being promoted as fact, by some. It seems as though you would side with the THEORISTS in this debate, rather than the established fact that the very reason it was encouraged to "not jump to conclusions" by the writer was to indicate that there is... Not enough evidence to change known belief. That's why my jury says "no." Just as a jury in a court should. That is also why a court cannot convict on "circumstancial" evidence. The weight of all human knowledge, aside from any religion, face it or not, that says homosexual behavior is not an innate, built-in, "I was made me this way" behavior pattern, is a far more reaching in history, science, etc. body of evidence than is this recent opposite theory. Simple proof would be that the human race continues to exist and multiply. If natural was homosexual attraction - by design - then quite simply, eons ago we would have ceased to exist. The same case would be true for any animal species. But that does not make me a bigot, it make me a realist. I'm looking agian at the obvious. Tell me something. How could I be more of a bigot than you because you may choose something that I don't? I never said it's not right for someone to choose a homosexual relationship. It is most definitely the choice of the individual. What I do say however, is that it is obsurd to try and make it out to be anything but a choice. If it is natural, then why all the fuss over your right to choose? How do you choose what is already natural? Does a bird choose to be a bird before it exists? Does a female or male choose his gender before birth? If something is born a certain gender... then it is NATURAL for it to live, function, perform, and thrive as what it was made to be. Anything else from the NATURAL role, function, is not its natural function... sometimes these changes in life are not chosen by the party in question itself, but are placed into motion by outside forces. But outside forces may not be solely to blame once accountable maturity has been reached by the party in question. Simply put... if you plant a fig tree you expect figs to come from it. While it certainly would be obsurd to think the fig tree served its purpose if it was bearing no figs at all... it would be far more obsurd to praise a fig tree for beariing oranges. It would not be... NATURAL. But oddly enough the tree would still be "in nature." Of course we know that trees do not make choices cognitively. Trees have no brains. But we've established before that while animals in general have brains, truly only humans actually produce cognitive thinking and are the only animal capable of making choices. We as humans can choose. Choose then. But don't try and prove a pattern by a series of random anomalies, or prove patterns by compiling hundreds, or thousands compared to millions or billions over time. It's unscientific. Your choice is your choice. But if I don't choose it, it does not mean I hate you. If I choose to eat spinach, and you choose to eat carrots, it does not mean you hate me or the spinach, it means you chose differently. But there cannot be a misinterpretation, although exponentionally greater in porportion, of the same scenario if I choose heterosexual patterns, and you choose homosexual patterns... it does not mean you hate heterosexual patterns, or me. Or vice-versa. That is bigotry defined. Bigotry, like jealousy, pity and other dreaded human traits, loves company. But I do not hate you, or your choices. I trust you can believe me. If not, I am truly sorry. Mad Max did hit the nail on the head I believe in his case about alcoholism, and other similar issues. Choice is great, but it leaves us with yet more choices. Our freedom to choose binds us to our choice, often, more than it frees us to choose. I have an open mind. Do you?
ummm..they do adopt...they also provide job training and money for education for young women who want to keep their babies. there are countless non-profit groups that do this. adoption agencies have waiting lists for couples trying to adopt kids here in the states. see, natural parents have to sign away parental rights in order for a child to be adopted by someone else. and don't disparage foster homes where people provide a loving home for these children, if only for a little while. at just one of the locations of the carenet pregnancy centers here in Houston this year, 1500 "clients" came in weighing the abortion issue in their mind, not as some far-off debate topic but as a real experience...seeking support...only 17 went on to have abortions. clearly they were presented with an alternative of support.
