Liberal ignorance of Biology

[martybegan]

The brain telling you your gender is something other than what you were born with is a abnormality.

Oh yeah, doctor Marty? And the recommended treatment is?

Maybe therapy to make you work through it? Cosmetic surgery to pretend you are a gender you are not should be a last resort.

So you don't know what the recommended treatment is? You spoke as though you were an expert.

Where did I post any credentials?

Why do you always appeal to authority to escape discussing the topic at hand?

You posted that transgendered people have an "abnormality". I'm asking what the recommended treatment is for those that "seek professional help" for their "abnormality".

I have a feeling it's not what you, who is not an authority on the subject, would recommend.

Seek therapy first, then only if nothing else works get the cosmetic surgery and hope you don't regret it.

Sometimes there isn't a perfect solution.

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't answer the question.

Answer the question.

The answer is that not everyone needs to procreate..... so if someone is homosexual, infertile or just doesn't want kids does not matter

Again, not answering the question.

Does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you just answer the question?

There is no mandate to reproduce.

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

 

[martybegan]

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

They have said they are not refusing service of point of sale items, just items for the ceremony.

And no, it's not the same because that discrimination was systemic and promoted by the local governments via Jim Crow laws.

Plus, only idiotic interpretations of the bible advocate racial discrimination, as opposed to almost all interpretations that condemn homosexuality.

Same thing, different century

Not even close. Wholesale denial of access to the higher tier economic system is not the same as a baker here and there just asking for someone to go somewhere else for one specific event.

 

[martybegan]

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

I agree only for contracted, non point of sale, non-vital or timely services.

 

[martybegan]

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

 

[martybegan]

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

there are plenty of gay bakers, why cant you use one of them?

Because that is not the way this country works

Separate but equal was abandoned in the 1950s

yeah, about that....

U-M Protesters Demand Separate But Equal Space For Black Students

 

[NYcarbineer]

The answer is that not everyone needs to procreate..... so if someone is homosexual, infertile or just doesn't want kids does not matter

Again, not answering the question.

Does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you just answer the question?

There is no mandate to reproduce.

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

 

[martybegan]

Again, not answering the question.

Does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you just answer the question?

There is no mandate to reproduce.

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

None.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no mandate to reproduce.

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

None.

lol, you already admitted that you want businesses to have the right to discriminate against gays and blacks and anyone else they feel like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no mandate to reproduce.

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

None.

So now you support legal marriage equality, for same sex couples?

 

[martybegan]

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

None.

lol, you already admitted that you want businesses to have the right to discriminate against gays and blacks and anyone else they feel like.

No, I prefer that a person's 1st amendment civil right to free exercise be considered in certain situations.

So denying a point of sale cake over the counter would be illegal, but not wanting to provide a cake for a specific event (SSM wedding) would not be.

You are the one who wants to deny religious people THEIR civil rights.

 

[rightwinger]

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

 

[martybegan]

I never said there was. All I asked was does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

Not in the 21st Century it does not.

Still can't answer the question....

So what civil rights exactly do you wish to deny Americans who either cannot or choose not to reproduce?

None.

So now you support legal marriage equality, for same sex couples?

I've always supported it as long as the Marriage contract was modified via legislative action or referendum. What i don't see is the right to it in the constitution forced via judicial fiat.

To me Obergfell should have allowed States to decide on their own to ISSUE SSM licenses, but be forced to ACCEPT valid SSM licenses from other States under full faith and credit.

Australia is doing it the right way, although most people don't realize the referendum was non-binding, and their Parliament must still write and pass the appropriate legislation.

 

[martybegan]

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

 

[rightwinger]

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

 

[martybegan]

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

I would say yes. But if they walked into the store to buy something off the shelf, then no.

 

[martybegan]

If a black business owner doesn't want to serve whites or gays. . . They should be free to deny themselves that source of revenue too.

For the most part, that problem will eventually take care of itself. Money talks.

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

Easy there Tommy two times...are you gonna go get the papers, get the papers?

 

[rightwinger]

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

Easy there Tommy two times...are you gonna go get the papers, get the papers?

Stupid thing didn't post so I hit it again

 

[rightwinger]

We resolved this shit 50 years ago

Your side lost

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

I would say yes. But if they walked into the store to buy something off the shelf, then no.

That's where we differ

You run a public business you do not get to choose which weddings you find appropriate

How about if you object to a pregnant bride?

 

[martybegan]

it was resolved for systemic discrimination, government enabled, based on race.

So now you support discrimination.....as long as it is against fags

I support PA laws for actual PA's, and support anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in those situations.

Unlike you however, I don't dismiss a person's free exercise rights out of hand.

So they don't get free exercise rights when selling a box of cupcakes, but should when asked to provide cake for a ceremony they find immoral.

OK...So a person who finds interracial marriage immoral (and there are many) should be able to decline providing service for an interracial wedding

I would say yes. But if they walked into the store to buy something off the shelf, then no.

That's where we differ

You run a public business you do not get to choose which weddings you find appropriate

How about if you object to a pregnant bride?

Again, point of sale no, contracted service yes. In fact some of these cake or t-shirt people refuse to make halloween items because they consider them Satanic.

You don't give up your 1st amendment rights just because you have to sell them.

Like any right they can be limited, but only for a compelling government interest, and only using the most minimal method of limiting.

It's also a case of the involvement in the end use of the product or service. Someone picking up a cake and leaving doesn't have to tell you what they are using it for. Once a contracted service is involved for a specific event, then the question has to be asked.