[ubermik]

@johnboy25 wrote:

I don’t think anyone is actually born gay, though some have no alternative but to choose it as a lifepath – those with the gay voice (Anthony Cotton) or the gay face (Will Young & Anthony Cotton, who has both factors in his possesion) so it’s debatable.

What exactly is a “gay face” or a “gay voice” tho? There have been countless singers with effeminate voices who were straight as well as some positively (allegedly) hetero girly looking people and an absolute mass (pardon the pun) of blokey looking women with gruff manly voices who werent bull dykes

Infact a kid who went to my school was an absolute bonefide “mincer”, he would have made Julian Clary seem as butch as Arnold Scwartzneger by comparison and yet turned out to be hetero and still was some 15 years after leaving school despite being one of the “gayest” people I have ever seen

But if you looked at his queen of a father who was his only parent and the mincing crowd of friends he hung about with it was easy to see where he got his mannerisms from which subsequently made his life hell throughout school

Someone who worked for about 10-12 years ago was the complete opposite, a dead spit for antonio banderez (sp??), seemingly oozing masculinity and “maleness” in looks, build, mannerisms and vocals, but was as bent as a 9 bob note and had been since puberty

Society tends to dictate what “seems” gay, much of which is coincidental and circumstantial rather than inseperably linked to fact although sometimes and with some people I would also bet it probably did contribute to some degree to their chosen sexuality but it obviously wont apply to everone

[ubermik]

@sweetass wrote:

What constitutes normality :?: i think you have an underlying issue with homosexuality Uber as you seem to be posting a few threads concerning this issue ….It no longer has the same stigma attached as is did in the 60’s .. embrace your true feelings and be happy with who you are :wink: :lol: 8)

What constitutes “normality” is whats “normal” surely? And if being gay was “normal” we would have been extinct millions of years ago wouldnt we? So being hetero sexual, having two legs, and two arms amongst a myriad of other things are all the “normal” state for a human being

As for “stigma” tho, the claim that gays are born gay is one most loudly spread by gays, so it hardly counts as a “stigma” really when its claimed by the people it applies to

[ubermik]

@r.O.T.T wrote:

in the 21st century
does it matter

More specifically tho, yes it matters

Because if being gay was ONLY genetic then it could be tested for at the foetal change, the causes of it could be identified and either avoided or corrected if the parents to be would prefer a normal child as well as it possibly being hereditary meaning it could be avoided by the selection of better partners where having a gay child was or wasnt wanted

If on the other hand it was found to be enviromental this would be important to separated parents who didnt want their kids “turned” gay by their gay ex and also a consideration of people putting their kids up for adoption and social services when finding foster parents and adoptive parents surely?

And those are just the areas it might “matter” that sprung to mind without really trying to find some so I am sure there will be loads more reasons why it might matter

[ubermik]

@r.O.T.T wrote:

in the 21st century
does it matter

Seems to matter to the gays quite a bit actually, and doesnt matter any less or more than any of the other totally eroneous threads on here that dont directly affect 90% of posters

But where social changes are likely based on any issue it then becomes open to scrutiny of and questioning of everyone who wants to question it, thats the whole concept an oligarchy is based on

[ubermik]

As a funny afterthought on the topic

Imagine the puzzlement an alien race would face if they had a first contact scenario with that spaceship?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Countless hours spent trying to decipher the language followed by an endless amount of time trying to figure out how they managed to reach the level of technology required to build and lauch a space craft hehe :lol:

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

The Russian space agency has blasted ten gerbils into space for a 12-day mission to test the possible effects on humans of a flight to Mars. Hmmm I think I see a flaw in their thinking here, how exactly will sending Gerbils into space tell us anything at all about HUMANS?

Apparantly sand gerbils can live for a month without using liquid, well theres the first thing we DONT have in common with them.

Seems like a pointless and cruel excerise to me :twisted:

But we regularly send humans into space too dont we? So how is it cruel to do it to gerbils but not humans?

And many people are queueing up to pay millions of dollars to go into space, yet these gerbils can go for free

Sounds pretty rodentalicious really

[ubermik]

Seriously tho, this is a very similar discussion to the abortion one, a select few wanting to dictate what “should” be someones way of life to others via oversimplification and quite deliberate selective viewing of society in general

Religious arguements fall by the wayside as 1) they should and can only apply to someone who has CHOSEN to follow that faith and abide by its directives, nobody else needs to pay any head whatsoever to their overzealous rantings plus it being “against god” would apply to ANY sterile couple or woman the world over, as obviously “god” chose that they SHOULD be sterile and innable to conceive

Socially, being a kebab muncher is a lifestyle choice, as such if having a non majoratively normal lifestyle means you cant have IVF then that would apply to women who choose to have a career or stay single too, leaving procreation till it needs helping along

It also for many relies on the rather simplistic assumption that maternal urges are only the domain of straight women, and that a lesbo shouldnt really have them as theyre not “exactly” a women, and therefore by choosing to be gay shouldnt want kids

But then theres the child isnt there? Whether a child is more balanced and prepared for society by having a parent of both genders is defined by the current political position which in turn controls public opinion

When its convenient then yeah, its agreed that children do seem demographically to flourish better with a stable home and both parents, but when the current topic or climate is focused on women primarily, single parent families or gay rights those same demographic studies get hidden away in a dark corner because they then become inconvenient truths

Such is the way things are when politics is about self interest and when the majority of the electorate are mindless sheep waiting to be told what they should think on a particular topic

I personally dont really buy into the need for so much IVF anyway, after all the world is full of orphans and people aborting foetuses so I thing more inroads should be made into exploring the possibilities there and less effort put into making parenthood the new “McTrend” and children the latest fashion accessory

Someone “wanting” a kid isnt the important fact here IMO, its whether they are wanting it for the right reasons, can create a decent enviroment for the child to grow up happy and balanced and will therefore give it the best start in life whether gay, straight, left wing, right wing or just plain old thick

The sins of the father (parent) tend to be inherited, and lets face it, gay couples arent any less likely to be flawed parents than straight ones, they ARE still people at the end of the day

Screw gay rights, who looks out for childrens rights nowadays?

And has anyone had the balls to do an indepth psychological study appertaining to people becoming parents who are old, gay, disabled or have any other potentially impactive influences on the childs upbringing?

Maybe that should be done so that a knowledgeable decision could be made rather than emotive and politically driven ones as is the case now

[ubermik]

If we deny Lesbians IVF just because they are from Lesbia who next? Albanians, Ukranians, Romanians, Klingons?

Its a bit racist really innit :shock:

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

Abortion can take place up to the 24th week. At this stage of pregnancy, the child can hear and recognize mother’s voice. Though still small and fragile, the baby is growing rapidly and could possibly survive if born at this stage. Fingernails and fingerprints appear. Sex organs are visible. Using an ultrasound device, the doctor can tell if the child is a girl or a boy.

This is a baby at 20 WEEKS – I find the idea of someone aborting the child at this stage utterly barbaric

Specifically responding the claims of barbarity tho

I simply see it as their choice, their womb, their body and their life that will be irrevocably altered if they dont abort

How many anti abortionists would be happy paying for the following years for the life of that child? Every penny?

Maybe thats the answer tho

Perhaps we should have a list of anti abortionists, and each time someone wants to abort a child the option is given that an antiabortionist then has to sign up for that baby when born to avert the abortion, they would adopt it from birth, and be totally emotionally and financially responsible for that child as tho it were their own

That way the anti abortionist isnt detrimentally affecting the unwilling mothers life as well as every other tax payers life at their whim but is CHOOSING to take responsibility for the abortion they stop from happening

How many people would then stop supporting the anti abortion cause and would then agree with “freedoms, rights and choices” as if by magic?

As I know many women dont easily choose abortion I am sure millions of them would jump at the chance to have some wittering whining do gooder raise their unborn foetus rather than abort it

So maybe we should give anit abortionists the chance to put their money, free time, careers, life style and the standard of living of them and their existing kids lives where their mouth is rather than trying to dictate all of those things to other people for a change

Coz I’m sure when it was THEIR lifestyle that was threatened all of a sudden NOT having someone elses views negatively affecting THIER lifestyle would suddenly and quite hypocritically would be a big and important right and freedom for them to defend

Shame they dont show the same courtesy to other people tho innit lol

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

Abortion can take place up to the 24th week. At this stage of pregnancy, the child can hear and recognize mother’s voice. Though still small and fragile, the baby is growing rapidly and could possibly survive if born at this stage. Fingernails and fingerprints appear. Sex organs are visible. Using an ultrasound device, the doctor can tell if the child is a girl or a boy.

This is a baby at 20 WEEKS – I find the idea of someone aborting the child at this stage utterly barbaric

The complication here tho is one of contradiction

Firstly I think most would agree that the father of a foetus has more of a link towards that foetus than anyone except the mother, whos say is more prevalent due to it being her body the foetus is growing within

Now were a father to want to subvert the mothers decision and “force” her to have a child she wanted to abort irrespective of where in the legal time it can be aborted the sway of public opinion would side with the mothers wish to abort, claiming that the father of the foetus has no right to MAKE that woman carry full term a foetus she doesnt want to give birth to, a child she doesnt want to have, a life she doesnt want to be responsible for in anyway at all

But anti abortionists, many of whom would also side against the fathers wishes would quite conveniently then totally want to remove that womans right to make her OWN choice about what happens to her own body when its them that doesnt want the abortion rather than “merely” the father and think its fine for “society” to try and force a woman to have a child she doesnt want to have, just not for the father of that child to have a say

So the thing here is that either it is or it isnt the womans right to decide what happens to her body, thats the ONLY relevant decision to be ascertained with, for a change, some degree of consistency of purpose rather than the more flailingly conveniently contradictive manner that is commonly used

Religious arguements are vaccuous ones as they only have meaning to practicers of that particular faith, and as they would want the right to practice their faith IF they choose shouldnt then hypocritically seek to force their beliefs onto others who choose not to share their faith and beliefs

Even morality is a bit transient, as morality is a social construct formed within the confines of a culture, and as people would want the right to have and protect their own culture without someone elses being forced onto them should to avoid hypocrisy not then seek to force their culture onto someone else

So that leaves us with the individual element, as each individual will have their own unique brand of the culture they life in which goes along with the concept of freedom and rights in westernised society, meaning that many aspects although the “norm” arent enforced and brainwashed into being compulsory thus making them optional

So as its a personal choice to either be promiscuous or not, a drinker, or not, a smoker or not, have a faith or not abortion is simply another lifestyle choice

So in the same way anti abortionists want THEIR rights and freedoms to CHOOSE to not have abortions do or should they then give up their rights and freedoms to have any rights or freedoms the second they try to remove someone elses rights and freedoms to choose what they want to do with their own body and the contents therein?

The concept of a freedom and the right to exercise that freedom dictates that where someone exercises it in a way we dont agree with but is within the confines of the freedom we should accept thats their innalienable right to do so and respect their choices and decisions as they ONLY affect that person and not us whilst we exercise our freedom and right to choose the opposite which in turn wont affect them, a choice and freedom they might equally dissagree with, but would (we hope) respect our right to exercise

When people on one side of an issue seeks to control, subjugate and dictate to the other side you lose freedom and rights and end up with dictoratorial wishes of the self righteous telling the “wrong” people what they should think and do even tho right and wrong on such topics are subjective delusions no different to what would be there if muslims told christians they were “wrong” and that they should all be muslims and vice versa rather than each simply doing what they want whilst respecting mutually the others right to exercise the freedom to do what they prefer

Shouldnt people be a bit more concerned about their own lives and what they do with their bodies and less intrusive into other peoples lives? Because they would be the first to complain if the shoe was on the other foot and something they had the right to do was being sought to be dictated otherwise to them, a point they conveniently choose to overlook when interferring in the lives and choices of other people as a rule

Obviously thats an ideal, and people as a rule tend to be too bereft of consistency for living by ideals that dont perfectly suit them as an individual. But it is still the foundation of the concepts of rights and freedoms even tho some seem to think rights and freedoms are there for them to curtail the rights and freedoms of others with less entitlement to have rights and freedoms with which to decide their own path in life

But that is also a massive delusion

[Author]

Posts