Yeah.
The "more solid ground" of "because fxashun says, despite being proven wrong by reality and science".


Yes. You did just say bullshit.
You claim I "don't refute it".
But then in your VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you admit I am "debating several of them in one post"???

You complain that I debate things in "one dimension", but that I "don't refute" your claim of "interrelation"?

I swear. You just are this stupid, aren't you. Contradicting yourself WITHIN THE VERY SAME SEGMENT of your post...


The absurdity you demonstrate is staggering.
Suppose we have an all guy's baseball team.
Using just the members of the team, can they procreate?
NO.

Does that make them "dysfunctional"?
NO.

Cause nobody joined the team expecting that they would have to make a baby out of the team members.
And it's stupid to insist that they have to. There is no sense in it. No logical requirement.

Likewise, there is NO logical requirement that ACTUALLY EXISTS in requiring procreative capability in a married couple, or any type of couple.
That may be YOUR PERSONAL requirement, but it doesn't make a couple "dysfunctional" if they can't or don't.


What do you think you actually just said?
Suppose I have to buy climbing equipment to climb a mountain. Does that mean that me buying climbing equipment means the act is not justified?
Does it mean climbing the mountain is somehow "dysfunctional"?
NO.

If I were to walk on my hands, does that make me "dysfunctional"? No.
If I were to use a butter knife in place of a screwdriver, does that make me dysfunctional? No.

You create all these ridiculous requirements that have long since been abandoned by most rational people.


Like I said earlier with no response, show me any better way of determining scientific consensus.
You try to denigrate the idea of "voting", when it's actually the best method.
And you take that approach cause you don't have any better attack attempt to use.

That's pretty darn pathetic!


Also see your above for why you supposedly don't care about consensus...
Making you pretty much a hypocrite...


The proof is in the numerous arguments you lack the cajones to even try to broach.
I have refuted every one of your statements in that sentence repeatedly, and to the best of my recollection, no real response on the issues.

Purpose for existing?
Having a mate, gay or straight, ENHANCES A PERSON'S LIFE. Even to the extent of a person living longer.

Evolved facilitation?
Again, it's a evolutionary advantage to have a flexible segment of society that can work to fill in the gap of under-procreation if needed, and help cover the excess of over-procreation if needed.


You talk about things being "interrelated", but all it really boils down to is you try to make associations that aren't there, so I simply destroy them individually.
One thing has NOTHING to do with the other.

Suppose "human sexuality" was not diminished by age.
HOW would that make ANY difference in your assessment of gays?
The honest and intelligent response, since I can count on your for neither, is that it WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING about your assessment.

It's not "related" at all.
It's just another stupid little pointless observation that you throw out there to try and bolster your claim.

"Human sexuality" being "fragile as to age" has nothing to do with it.
We STILL OVER-PROCREATE despite such a "limitation".
Can you imagine how we would over-procreate WITHOUT such a "limitation"?

How this REALLY "inter-relates" is in showing how things would be WORSE in your world if we didn't have these things that you label as "dysfunction". MORE over-population.

The comparison is vague considering the context of what I said.

I said the pregnant women would abort a homosexual baby if a test found that it was gay, just like they do for other congenital defects. More below...

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Media Matters - Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Not really. Since committing crime isn't the same as a baby born retarded, with no face, or to some people, homosexual. I doubt you will have much success convincing a woman of any race to abort her fetus because they happen to be the race that she herself is.

Good luck with dat analogy elsewhere tho. Maybe white women ought to abort their babies because they can't jump. LOL.

I'm done with these long ass posts tho. Considering my initial comment was not read and we have gotten this far gone, it's just silly to continue this. Holla.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Not at all.
The comparison is quite concrete.
We are looking at motivations for why people should abort.
You brought up "doesn't give grand-children", which has already been proven false, but we'll move past the underlying ignorance and bigotry that leads to such a statement for now.

I am comparing cutting ACTUAL CRIME to a rational of "doesn't give grand-children". Which is a stronger rationale.


And if that woman thought her child would rape somebody?
Or worse, murder somebody?

What then?

I admit some women due abort for congenital defects, which is neither here nor there considering we are talking about homosexuality which is not a "congenital defect". Furthermore, polls show that MOST people consider it an "acceptable lifestyle", which further undercuts your association.

But back to the issue of COMPARING MOTIVATIONS, we already execute people who commit certain crimes of rape and murder.
We don't execute adults who have "congenital defects".

Society has already shown a justification and enactment for reducing crime based on executing people, so it's obviously MORE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE to go forth with my alternative, isn't it?


Which brings me back to the real point of my analogy.
The stupidity of your approach, and the bigotry of the idea of aborting gay babies.

You aren't even arguing the "justification".
You're just arguing about what YOU THINK people would and wouldn't actually do.

A man might LOVE to have a rich doctor date his daughter.
But if that rich doctor happened to be of a different race, suddenly it would be a problem for some...

And on your side of thing, you foolishly sit back and proclaim that it would be a problem, without trying to figure out WHY it would be a problem.
Or maybe it's more of an issue where you KNOW WHY it would be a problem, and it's not convenient for you to acknowledge that BIGOTRY is at the heart of the difficulty.

The idea of cutting crime is a much stronger rationale than simply "doesn't have grand-kids". Preventing a rape or a murder is a much stronger rationale than simply "doesn't have grand-kids".
You postulate that a woman wouldn't want to abort her child just because it's of the same race?
What if it were the white women (or men) who got to make that decision. Would you feel so confident then on the potential actions?

Of course not, because then BIGOTRY plays a bigger picture.

But of course, NONE of this is sinking in. Or else, you'll never honestly address this.


< yawn >
As usual, you are to thick to grasp the analogy, so you dismiss it.
To you, an analogy's purpose revolves around the "poisoning the well" fallacy, so you can't grasp the nuances of simple comparisons.

We currently execute a LOT of black people because they commit a LOT of murders, rapes, etc...
Society does that already. That ACTUALLY happens, for a purpose that doesn't involve anything regarding "bigotry", but simple societal protection.

But executing a kid because they can't jump?
Maybe you need to look in the mirror to figure out the TRUE source of stupid analogies...


And thus the coward turns tail and runs, yet again.
He lies about me not reading his initial comment. Yet he knows he has been pulverized on this topic, so he runs with a lie to try to bolster his exit.

What do you want to bet that he'll be more than happy "to continue" other anti-gay topics that he thinks he has a better chance at?

@ foundit

I doubt a person will abort their own child thinking that it might commit a crime. No person kicks a child out pre-emptively thinking they might break the law. But plenty of parents have kicked their kids out for "coming out". Your analogy is fundamentally broken.

Just as broken as the first one.

Nothing since your premise make no sense. We have parents that kick their kids out for being gay, we have a parent that attacked his son for literally shagging the dog. Do you have an example of a parent kicking their own child out for being the same race that they are? Good luck with dat.

Most people don't. Most humans still find it aberrant. Especially if it their own child.

Depends on the "we". Many countries still execute homosexuals. We execute fetuses with congenital defects every day. Doctors recommend it for many ailments. You are just jumping all over the place aren't ya.

Yeah sure. But when you kill all the black people then you are left with white people committing a lot of the crime. Lets kill them too. Your analogy is broken...still.

Your bigotry is another persons not wanting to raise a deviant child. Which is a human/animal trait to want to raise healthy offspring.

You gotta be kidding me. We have people kicking out their children who they have raised for years. If you think there won't be people aborting gay children you are more deluded than I thought you were. No [insert race here] woman is gonna abort her child if she finds out that it is, god forbid, her own race. Your entire premise is laughable.

And that compares to aborting a fetus, which people do for no reason other than convenience, in what way?

Again, your bigotry is another person just thinking something is wrong with homosexuality. Which there is.

But that's another issue altogether isn't it? Society forcing people to have abortions is an entirely different deal that a person making their own mind up to abort a perceived defective fetus. You are jumping all over the place dude. Your correlations are laughable.

I've been nothing but honest with you. Not wanting a gay child is no more bigotry than not wanting a retarded one. I thought women had "choice".

No, to me an analogy should make sense. Yours don't.

But we are talking about homosexuality and a woman deciding to abort a fetus for that reason. If an adult, Black, White or Asian commits a crime, he should be punished. And if that punishment is death, so be it.

There you go not reading the sarcasm....Again.

Naa you lie and say you did when you have demonstrated more than once that you didn't. Run? From you? You gotta be kidding. Just tired of that line of long ass posts. We can start a new one about this if you like tho'.

Who is the "you" that you keep referring to? LOL.

I have a great chance here. You just bore me. And unlike you, when I'm bored, instead of making a long ass post about it, I just stop posting about something.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Forest for the freakin' trees.
And what's even more amusing is that you often MAKE MY ARGUMENTS FOR ME and don't even have a clue that you're proving my point.

You mentioned it earlier. The person will not abort their own child THAT IS LIKE THEM. Demonstrating the prejudice factor.
Would you be comfortable putting that decision for aborting a BLACK child in the hands of a WHITE mother?


Again, demonstrating the prejudice. "Same race that they are".
The analogy exemplifies that the REASONING involved is PREJUDICE and IGNORANCE.

Which is a bigger issue? Your kid killed somebody? Or he may not give you grand-kids?


Actually, "Most" people find homosexuality to be an acceptable lifestyle. Period.
"Most" people want equality for gays, with the ONLY subject that "most" shifts against gays is gay marriage.

The "abortion" thing is NOT what "most" would do.


Ahhh yes. Again you backtrack and try to resort to failed arguments.
Those "many" include countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia....
Prime examples of countries which have backwards mentalities on MANY issues.

Those countries that grant homosexuals equality are typically bastions of EQUALITY and FREEDOM.
Key factors you leave out of your analysis.


And yet, doctors DO NOT recommend it for homosexuality.
And you can't bring yourself to note the obvious discrepancy which makes "homosexuality" significantly different ...


You're the idiot who brought up abortion in the first place, and now you try to blame me for it?


And yet again, you open your mouth revealing yourself woefully lacking in knowledge.

Let's repeat what Bennett said:
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
The point is that the crime rate WOULD GO DOWN.
Nobody said anything about ELIMINATING crime. Just making it GO DOWN.

Try to pay attention. These posts get longer when I have to repeat myself cause the village idiot couldn't trouble himself to listen the first time...


It's funny how you pretend that just rephrasing something denies the existence of bigotry.
It doesn't.

Likewise, I could say "bigotry in genociding the entire black race is another person's reduction in crime rate".
That response doesn't do anything to negate the fact that the original statement is STILL BIGOTRY.

Killing a child just because it is gay IS bigotry.
Calling the kid "deviant" does not eliminate the view of bigotry.
LOL! Actually, you EPITOMIZE the bigotry in calling it such.
Gays are "healthy offspring" just like straights.
Only a bigot would try to claim otherwise...


I swear. You lack the intelligence to READ.
I never said there would be no people aborting gay children, if they knew in advance.
I have no problem admitting that SOME would. The bigotted ones.
Just like there would be white folks who would abort their child if they knew he would be black. Right?


ROFLMAO!
Hey idiot. Do ya think that the "gay" children are gonna be of a different race than the mother?
The problem with your above response is that it ignorantly side-steps the REAL reason the baby would be aborted.
I wasn't talking about black women "aborting their child if the child is going to be black".
I was talking about black women aborting their child if they found out their child would KILL somebody someday.


Again, the post gets longer cause ya were too 'tupid to get it the first time.
The point is that the bigotry on the ONE attribute over-shadows the other issues.
So a woman might abort her otherwise happy and healthy child just based on ONE characteristic. Being gay, which isn't a defect or a "dysfunction" any more than being a rich doctor, and black, makes an illegitimate suitor.


Again, you either lie or are too stupid to grasp the difference.
No. I do NOT think that somebody "just thinking something is wrong with homosexuality" is bigotry.
We were talking about WOMEN KILLING GAY BABIES, and THAT is what I referred to as bigotry.
These threads would be a LOT shorter if I didn't have to keep repeating myself for you...


I never said anything about that.
I'm removing "race" from the picture, cause it's obviously not relevant for gay babies that are going to be the same race as the mother, right?

I am talking about the hypothetical whereby "being of the same race" is removed from the picture.


Only cause you're too thick to not get the obvious.
As I stated, your idea of "analogy" revolves around the "poisoning the well" fallacy. You try to compare gays to any sort of negative thing imaginable.
You PROVED my statement when you tried to accuse Tristan Robin of "racism" just because he had an analogy with blacks in a negative light.
In THAT EXAMPLE AS WELL, you foolishly lept to the conclusion that he was trying to denigrate blacks. Instead, he was MAKING AN ANALOGY.

You seriously don't understand what an analogy is.


Speaking of missing the point.
We are talking about aborting homosexuality, with an ABORTING BLACK BABIES ANALOGY.
And there I just talked about the analogy, and you try to refute that by saying "we are talking about homosexuality..."???

To go further with your "reply", If a gay "black, white, or asian commits a crime, he should be punished. And if that punishment is death, so be it"
Often, your replies just don't grasp the point involved at all.


And you didn't include "/S", did you...


Where did I "demonstrate more than once" that I didn't?
I cut you a break and didn't respond to the more BLATANTLY STUPID parts of the original post.
Then, when you whined that I didn't respond to every nuance, I actually went back and responded to the more idiotic parts.
AND YOU DROPPED THE ISSUES AFTERWARDS.
So why did you complain about me not responding to the more stupid stuff when you don't even have the cajones to defend what you complain I didn't reply to?


The rest of the viewing audience who think you're a waste of airspace.


"chance" for what?
Killing time?
Cause you have no "chance" for convincing anybody of your credibility, or your cause.

But as for your "stop posting about something", that's pure b.s., and we both know it.
TOO many times that you have spent endlessly posting about gay crap to ever believe "getting bored" is an actual justification.
Hate to say it fxashun, but you're too damn easily predictable. Too much ego and too little thought.
And it bugs you that you KNOW I'm right...

If it was rape, yes. If a white woman who is pregnant with a black baby doesn't know why she is such, she's an idiot. If the rest of this post is as dumb as this one part, this ought to be fun when I address it later.

Name one circumstance why a woman of any race would abort the child of her husband because it happened to be the race of her husband. That premise is too dumb for words.

Although I still question your constant use of "black" and "white". You do know there are 190 something countries and a small minority have an issue between "black" and "white" people. Race issues sure, but specifically "black" and "white", not so much. Curious to say the least. Over 90% of them forbid gay anything and 80 of them criminalize sodomy. Again a huge difference when viewed from a species level and not just locally.

Holla.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

anybody else find it pretentious to read wanna-be ghetto-speak on the internet?

just curious

I'm sorry, I thought you were realizing how idiotic your original assessment of "aborting a baby because of gay genetics was".
I was responding on that type of playing field. Hypothetical scenarios.

If we're going to ignore the hypotheticals because of their irrational basis, let me point out how ridiculous it is to talk about "aborting a baby because of gay genetics".
Identical twins have identical DNA. Right?
So does that guarantee that a baby with a "gay gene" will actually be gay? No.

What it does do is point to the fact that there are a lot more things going on than just a "gay gene" at work.

I was talking on the hypothetical plane, because that's the only way your proposal makes sense.
It obviously doesn't make any sense for the anti-gay ignoramuses of the world out there aborting a baby because of "gay genetics" when they typically think that being gay is a choice in the first place.


Your lack of imagination is too dumb for words.
Getting the wrong sperm at the sperm bank.
IVF whereby the wrong fertilized embryo gets implanted in the woman.

I came up with two and I wasn't even trying.


This has nothing to do with the actual colors of "black" and "white".
This has to do with the fact that BLACKS are STATISTICALLY more criminal, per capita.
THAT is the reason for abortion.
Not because they are specifically "black".

You have tried your hardest to divorce the issue of "aborting gays" not being correlated to bigotry.
You should at least try to recognize that the discussion on "aborting blacks" is correlated to criminality.


I would love to see the stats on "90% of them forbid gay anything".

But regardless, we've already discussed this.
The countries that take such a hard stance on gays are the countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.
Hardly known for freedom and equality.

The countries that don't have a problem with gays are more modern countries. England. France. etc, etc.

But yet again, you come back with the repeated comment, while being completely impotent in responding to the fact that those countries that behave that way are typically not "good role models" for much of anything.