An Important Law proposed to Protect Gay Rights

[Broken Glass Can]

<snip>lawmaker in Maine has introduced a bill to prohibit abortions based on the sexual orientation of the unborn baby.

State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.

He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a "homosexual gene."

"I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong," <snip>

<snip>Duprey said: "Technology is changing every day. They could map the homosexual gene tomorrow."

A spokesman for the governor's office told the Portland Press Herald the administration will review Duprey's bill but declined to comment on it. <snip>

[Dead]

I know you love this, because it pits two leftist groups against one another(gay rights groups and abortion groups), but I have to side with the abortion rights lobby on this one.

If this technology pans out, then I have no problem with women aborting for this reason.

Btw, the sponsor of this bill is a Republican tool who opposes gay rights.

Check it out:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/statehouse/050224bill.shtml

" Duprey drew attention to the issue of gay rights last month. He proposed a bill to legalize same-sex marriages but opposed it himself. He said he put it forward after a constituent asked him to."

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/statehouse/050224bill.shtml

"I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong," said Duprey, who got the idea while listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show.

----

So basically, Duprey is an anti-choice, anti-gay rights maggot who introduced this bill as a ploy. He doesn't give a [censored] about gay people.

http://www.progressivereason.com/blog/archives/2005/02/

"JEERS to sleazy tactics. Anti-gay Maine State Representative Brian Duprey wants abortion outlawed...because of the sexual orientation of the fetus. It forces progressives to choose between two causes they champion...and of course he got the idea from Rush Limbaugh: link. May a Moose take a dump on your lawn jockey."



Nice try, BGC. You can go back to watching Fox News now.

Go 'Murika.

[bholdr]

nh, dead.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
nh, dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty


Perhaps I should elaborate a little on one of my comments as well. It would disappoint me to know that women were aborting for this reason, but it would disappoint me far more if their right to choose was stripped away from them, as I think this bill is attempting to do.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
If this technology pans out, then I have no problem with women aborting for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is homophobic thinking. It is not OK to kill gays just because they have a "gay gene".

I suggest you get to tolerence training to get your head on straight.

I think Paul Wellstone would certainly be against killing those with a gay gene. Is this the new eugenics? You are creeping me out.

[The Truth]

read his 2nd post.

[The Truth]

this is a slippery slope /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you love this, because it pits two leftist groups against one another(gay rights groups and abortion groups), but I have to side with the abortion rights lobby on this one.

If this technology pans out, then I have no problem with women aborting for this reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetical situation. My wife is pregnant, and we have a genetic analysis done on our unborn child. The analysis comes back, and it turns out that our child is likely to be an effeminate homosexual. I say, screw that, I don't want a gay child, let's kill it. Would you support that?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how are they going to know if the woman chooses to end the pregnancy for that reason, or for some other reason (or combination of reasons)?

Sounds like even if passed it will be an unenforceable law unless the woman announces why she is having the abortion. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how are they going to know if the woman chooses to end the pregnancy for that reason, or for some other reason (or combination of reasons)?

Sounds like even if passed it will be an unenforceable law unless the woman announces why she is having the abortion. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The same is true of "hate crime" laws in general, but that doesn't stop these laws from being passed or enforced.

We have turned into a "thought police" society. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know you love this, because it pits two leftist groups against one another(gay rights groups and abortion groups), but I have to side with the abortion rights lobby on this one.

If this technology pans out, then I have no problem with women aborting for this reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetical situation. My wife is pregnant, and we have a genetic analysis done on our unborn child. The analysis comes back, and it turns out that our child is likely to be an effeminate homosexual. I say, screw that, I don't want a gay child, let's kill it. Would you support that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that I wouldn't stop it. Jeez you Republicans need to come up with better stuff.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this technology pans out, then I have no problem with women aborting for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is homophobic thinking. It is not OK to kill gays just because they have a "gay gene".

I suggest you get to tolerence training to get your head on straight.

I think Paul Wellstone would certainly be against killing those with a gay gene. Is this the new eugenics? You are creeping me out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. "That's homophobic thinking?" Please, BGC, that's like David Duke calling someone a racist. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Oh and read my second post:

"Perhaps I should elaborate a little on one of my comments as well. It would disappoint me to know that women were aborting for this reason, but it would disappoint me far more if their right to choose was stripped away from them, as I think this bill is attempting to do. "

Go back to listening to OxyRush now. Aren't they archives on his website that you can get your fix from?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. "That's homophobic thinking?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement that it is ok to kill those with a "gay gene" is homophobic.

That you deny being homophobic is not surprising, most homophobes will deny it. But you wrote the words in favor of killing those with gay genes. I can't give you a pass, when you have written something so truly awful. And now you just laugh it off.

Pathetic.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. "That's homophobic thinking?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement that it is ok to kill those with a "gay gene" is homophobic.

That you deny being homophobic is not surprising, most homophobes will deny it. But you wrote the words in favor of killing those with gay genes. I can't give you a pass, when you have written something so truly awful. And now you just laugh it off.

Pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear BGC,

after This (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1806143&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1) thread, you are really in no place to comment on what another user, did, or did not say, as you have been proven to be a liar and a joke. You are also in no place to call anyone pathetic.

Best wishes,

Partygirl.

[Broken Glass Can]

Apparently I hijacked Dead's computer and your computer to make you post things that you guys later say you do not believe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Saying it is OK to test for a gay gene with the intent of killing someone only if they test positive for the gay gene is pathetic. I'm saddened that you can not see why.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently I hijacked Dead's computer and your computer to make you post things that you guys later say you do not believe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Saying it is OK to test for a gay gene with the intent of killing someone only if they test positive for the gay gene is pathetic. I'm saddened that you can not see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really must stop putting words in my mouth.

[Tacjedi]

Too bad there isn’t a “slutty” gene that can be tested for. Mothers would then have the “choice” of aborting baby girls that are going to follow in their footsteps. There wouldn’t even be an abortion issue in a generation or two. Everyone could have their right, but no one would use it.

[Dead]

You're being stupid. Is there any other way to say it? I don't think so.


If you read my second post above you'll see that I stand behind my comments. I don't edit them or delete them, unlike some people.

Now, I never said that I would endorse someone aborting for this reason. But that doesn't mean I want to ban someone aborting for this reason. I believe that women have an unconditional right to choose at least until viability.

This doesn't make me a homophobe. Look the word up. That's like calling someone a racist because they oppose affirmative action. I guess you're a racist because you oppose AA, BGC. That makes a lot of sense.

This is kinda off-topic, but is it wrong to picture you as a big fat elephant?

You've gotten pwned way too many times, fat elephant, by both Partygirl and myself.

[bholdr]

you arguments are as transparent as your ideology, BGC, it's time to give up on this one.

it's pretty clear that you're trying to 'divide and conquor' here, and it's failing miserably. lol. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Dead]

He's a poor wittle Limbaugh worshipper.

I wonder if BGC is an OxyContin addict as well.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
He's a poor wittle Limbaugh worshipper.

I wonder if BGC is an OxyContin addict as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your willingness to demonstrate the intolerance of liberals. All the talk of tolerance by liberals is just talk, and Americans with real values see right through the phoniness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a poor wittle Limbaugh worshipper.

I wonder if BGC is an OxyContin addict as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your willingness to demonstrate the intolerance of liberals. All the talk of tolerance by liberals is just talk, and Americans with real values see right through the phoniness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Dumb Murikans who've been watching too much Fox News.

[LomU]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a poor wittle Limbaugh worshipper.

I wonder if BGC is an OxyContin addict as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your willingness to demonstrate the intolerance of liberals. All the talk of tolerance by liberals is just talk, and Americans with real values see right through the phoniness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]



You are one of the reasons there is exactly ZERO, enlightened political debate on this board. Dumb threads like this and your snide little cheap remarks, just turn this forum into lowest common denominator debate. Anyone who joins him in the childish name calling and steroetyping just encourages him. Just stop the noise and ignore him. Maybe he might contribute something worthwhile.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I already said that I wouldn't stop it. Jeez you Republicans need to come up with better stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I'm a registered Democrat.

2. There is a fundamental difference between what I suggested and the point brought up in the original post.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]

You are one of the reasons there is exactly ZERO, enlightened political debate on this board. Dumb threads like this and your snide little cheap remarks, just turn this forum into lowest common denominator debate. Anyone who joins him in the childish name calling and steroetyping just encourages him. Just stop the noise and ignore him. Maybe he might contribute something worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you paid any attention at all to this thing, you'd see that your left-wing friend Dead was the one doing most of the name-calling and basically being a lot more immature than BGC. But then, some of you liberals just have to stick together in your little ivory towers, don't you?

In other words, since your only reason for posting here was to say BGC is dragging this down, what precisely have you added?

I will agree with you on one thing, though. There are far too many mindless trolls (such as Dead) on this forum for intelligent discussion to happen. Sure, you might disagree with BGC and his views, and that's all well and good, but Dead's the one who has consistently gone into childish name-calling and immature insults.

That is all.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should elaborate a little on one of my comments as well. It would disappoint me to know that women were aborting for this reason, but it would disappoint me far more if their right to choose was stripped away from them, as I think this bill is attempting to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you support the right of an employer to choose to terminate the employment of someone if he found out that person was gay?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should elaborate a little on one of my comments as well. It would disappoint me to know that women were aborting for this reason, but it would disappoint me far more if their right to choose was stripped away from them, as I think this bill is attempting to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you support the right of an employer to choose to terminate the employment of someone if he found out that person was gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not if he was terminating the guy for being gay. That's just as wrong as terminating someone because of their race. And fortunately neither scenario is legal in NY.

The difference in this case is that the fetus is not even close to being a fully developed human, and the gay person is a human being.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, not if he was terminating the guy for being gay. That's just as wrong as terminating someone because of their race. And fortunately neither scenario is legal in NY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think any employer should legally be able to terminate any employee at any time for any reason--just as any employee should be able to legally quit any employer at any time for any reason. Hell, I think an employer should legally be allowed to fire you if he just doesn't like your haircut or your aftershave.

It's just basic contract law: unless there is a contract or clause between the two parties stating otherwise, the arrangment is "at will" for both parties.

Essentially, the government should stay out of all such matters.

Gov't out of overtime laws.

Gov't out of affirmative action laws.

Gov't out of 90% of whatever it is currently into;-)

Then maybe we'll have a more rational society.

Now: I do agree it is "wrong" to terminate someone's employment for bigoted reasons, or for frivolous reasons. However I don't think it is the proper role of government to be involved in such matters.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I think any employer should legally be able to terminate any employee at any time for any reason--just as any employee should be able to legally quit any employer at any time for any reason. Hell, I think an employer should legally be allowed to fire you if he just doesn't like your haircut or your aftershave.

It's just basic contract law: unless there is a contract or clause between the two parties stating otherwise, the arrangment is "at will" for both parties.

Essentially, the government should stay out of all such matters.

Gov't out of overtime laws.

Gov't out of affirmative action laws.

Gov't out of 90% of whatever it is currently into;-)

Then maybe we'll have a more rational society.

Now: I do agree it is "wrong" to terminate someone's employment for bigoted reasons, or for frivolous reasons. However I don't think it is the proper role of government to be involved in such matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMM, I always enjoy your posts. I agree with this idea in theory, but how would this work in a real world context? Wouldn't essentially open the door for any company to fire or not hire based upon race, creed, etc. Would we have to rely on citizens to police these companies?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMM, I always enjoy your posts. I agree with this idea in theory, but how would this work in a real world context? Wouldn't essentially open the door for any company to fire or not hire based upon race, creed, etc. Would we have to rely on citizens to police these companies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, I'm not sure they would need much "policing" in this regard.

The employment world today is far broader, deeper and more diverse than that of yesteryear's. If employers today are bastards towards employees, word will get out and they'll have a harder time getting hirees from the job maket. Similarly, if they exclude a broad cross-section of employees for some stupid reason, they will be hurting themselves competitively and economically. Employers today don't have nearly the captive audience they had in decades past. I say pretty much let the chips fall wherever they may.

[Dead]

I say it's much easier for a white person to have this laissez-faire attitude about workplace discrimination. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

What say you?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I say it's much easier for a white person to have this laissez-faire attitude about workplace discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but so what? If you don't like something in the workplace, work for yourself.

I happen to have a fairly laissez-faire view about damn near everything--especially anything involving domestic policy.

About the only exception to my laisezz-faire worldview is this: when it comes to Islamic terrorists, we should be stomping them out of sight in the mud. Also, I don't believe that totalitarian regimes have a right to exist.

[Dead]

All I have to say M6 is this: thank god most Americans don't think like you.

No offense. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

The employment world today is far broader, deeper and more diverse than that of yesteryear's. If employers today are bastards towards employees, word will get out and they'll have a harder time getting hirees from the job maket. Similarly, if they exclude a broad cross-section of employees for some stupid reason, they will be hurting themselves competitively and economically. Employers today don't have nearly the captive audience they had in decades past. I say pretty much let the chips fall wherever they may.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think for most major companies you wouldn't have to worry about it, that much. However, I think in some areas of America this would become a very big problem, forcing certain groups of people to move, or abstain from working in certain sectors.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
About the only exception to my laisezz-faire worldview is this: when it comes to Islamic terrorists, we should be stomping them out of sight in the mud.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you tweak it to terrorists in general (not just islamic), we are in complete agreement. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

There are just horrific acts going on right now (e.g. the bombing at police training in Iraq killing 150) that upset me so much. These are good people, attempting to better their country, and they are being massacred. It bugs me sometimes that we sit here arguing over completely inane details while [censored] like this is happening.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
All I have to say M6 is this: thank god most Americans don't think like you.

No offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If everybody were to think like me, there would be zero discrimination in the workplace, because I believe in hiring (and in trying to keep) the best available persons for the job, period.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I have to say M6 is this: thank god most Americans don't think like you.

No offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If everybody were to think like me, there would be zero discrimination in the workplace, because I believe in hiring (and in trying to keep) the best available persons for the job, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everybody did that's true. But I said most. And there would still be people discriminating then.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I say it's much easier for a white person to have this laissez-faire attitude about workplace discrimination. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
What say you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say read three Thomas Sowell books and call me in the morning.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How so? If everybody were to think like me, there would be zero discrimination in the workplace, because I believe in hiring (and in trying to keep) the best available persons for the job, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everybody did that's true. But I said most. And there would still be people discriminating then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there would still be employers who discriminate. There will also be businesses that lose money, and I believe a strong correlation between the two. Hiring and firing based on anything other than job performance is bad business. Racial discrimination (including "reverse" discrimination) is a -EV move.

I think people misunderstand the libertarian stance on issues because they associate legalization of an action with approval of it. That isn't the case. We want to legalize narcotics, but that doesn't mean we wish crackheads to be accepted into the mainstream of society. We want to legalize private sector discrimination, but that doesn't mean we expect employers to discriminate without social or financial consequences from those of us who find such activities abhorrent.

[jaxmike]

I love how moronic this topic is. First, it tries to make homosexuality something other than a choice. Second, it tries to attack "abortion rights" only if the fictional "homosexual gene" is found. The funny thing is the paradoxical situation this position represents. Just another fine example of a non thinking liberal.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

I say it's much easier for a white person to have this laissez-faire attitude about workplace discrimination.


[/ QUOTE ]

racism at its finest. what more do you expect from a liberal.

you racist.

[Il_Mostro]

It looked to me like the proponent of this bill was a republican, at least that's what dead said above. I really think you need to make your definition of "liberal" clear, since it seems you put that label on absolutely anyone who does not agree with you.

[jaxmike]

just because you are a republican doesnt mean you cant be a liberal. liberal is not a political party, its a sickness.

[Il_Mostro]

Again, what is your definition of a liberal? Liberal in it self doesn't really mean much, or rather, it means different things to different people, making it silly to use as a label.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
just because you are a republican doesnt mean you cant be a liberal. liberal is not a political party, its a sickness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill sponsor is not a liberal you fool. He got the idea from the Rush Limbaugh show. Think and read before you spew your reactionary bilge.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say it's much easier for a white person to have this laissez-faire attitude about workplace discrimination. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
What say you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say read three Thomas Sowell books and call me in the morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that Tom Sowell benefited from affirmative action and is a hypocrite for opposing it. Black conservatives are in demand.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
He got the idea from the Rush Limbaugh show.

[/ QUOTE ] And that means what to me? That supports your point somehow?

[ QUOTE ]
Think and read before you spew your reactionary bilge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would rather not, thank you.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

I love how moronic this topic is. First, it tries to make homosexuality something other than a choice. Second, it tries to attack "abortion rights" only if the fictional "homosexual gene" is found. The funny thing is the paradoxical situation this position represents. Just another fine example of a non thinking liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm, the wonderful smell of ignorance... I suppose the instances of homosexual animals was a conscious choice made by them during their rebellious teen years?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Think and read before you spew your reactionary bilge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would rather not, thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you make me laugh sometimes /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Mmmm, the wonderful smell of ignorance... I suppose the instances of homosexual animals was a conscious choice made by them during their rebellious teen years?

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt some homosexual animals exist, but I've never seen one.

[jaxmike]

i would contend that the animals choose to do what they do.

[jaxmike]

i knew youd like that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mmmm, the wonderful smell of ignorance... I suppose the instances of homosexual animals was a conscious choice made by them during their rebellious teen years?

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt some homosexual animals exist, but I've never seen one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geri Halliwell, the ex-Spice Girl, has two gay dogs.

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/14332004.htm

"The sexy singer, who performed at London's G.A.Y. nightclub at the weekend, has revealed her pet Shih Tzu, Harry, and tiny Pomeranian, Daddy, never stop canoodling - even though they are both male.

Geri, who travels everywhere with her beloved pooches, revealed: "They are always kissing each other - but are both boys!"



Further proof that homosexuality is not a choice.... further proof that jaxmike is even more ignorant than originally thought.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]



"The sexy singer, who performed at London's G.A.Y. nightclub at the weekend, has revealed her pet Shih Tzu, Harry, and tiny Pomeranian, Daddy, never stop canoodling - even though they are both male.

Geri, who travels everywhere with her beloved pooches, revealed: "They are always kissing each other - but are both boys!"

Further proof that homosexuality is not a choice.... further proof that jaxmike is even more ignorant than originally thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez--that's how animals show affection--they're not having sex. Haven't you ever had cats or dogs? Hasn't Geri ever had dogs before?

[thatpfunk]

Ok this is NOT what I am talking about.

There are actual instances in nature of animals of the same sex picking each other as life partners and raising their young etc.

There was actually two male penguins at a SeaWorld who refused every other peguins company but their own. When the trainers seperated them and put them in an area with only females (during mating season, for this very purpose) the two penguins went on a hunger strike (figuratively speaking).

They actually starved themselves until they were reunited. The trainers then let the couple "adopt" some babies and they raised them as a regular penguin family would.

Crazy world we live in...

[MMMMMM]

OK, thatpfunk, the penguin example sounds more like the real thing. But I think that sort of thing is far more rare in the animal kingdom than it is amongst humans.

Amongst humans it is rather uncommon but not truly rare. Amongst animals I would say (without being an expert) that it is truly rare.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



"The sexy singer, who performed at London's G.A.Y. nightclub at the weekend, has revealed her pet Shih Tzu, Harry, and tiny Pomeranian, Daddy, never stop canoodling - even though they are both male.

Geri, who travels everywhere with her beloved pooches, revealed: "They are always kissing each other - but are both boys!"

Further proof that homosexuality is not a choice.... further proof that jaxmike is even more ignorant than originally thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez--that's how animals show affection--they're not having sex. Haven't you ever had cats or dogs? Hasn't Geri ever had dogs before?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how straight humans show affection too. Homosexuality isnt all about having sex. Lmao.

[MMMMMM]

Dead, you're really starting to twist things here.

You should reread the last few posts in this sub-thread and reconsider part of your argument.

[Dead]

M6, my main argument is not that homosexuality is innate.

I was arguing that it's morally correct to have anti-discrimination laws in place.

[thatpfunk]

MMM,
To the best of my knowledge (from articles and information I recieved while working at SeaWorld) homosexuality is found in many different species (I remeber lions, some types of bears, and monkeys, but this was a while ago...) and is fairly uncommon.

However, it is difficult to observe this in nature, most studies have been found while in captivity, so the sample size is not that big.

I believe you are inferring that homosexuality is a choice, and I believe it may be for some (for whatever reason) but for many this is not the case.

I actually find it interesting to look at different examples throughout history as well. Human sexuality is quite complex (and I am no expert in the field).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you are inferring that homosexuality is a choice, and I believe it may be for some (for whatever reason) but for many this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not; I don't think it has been proven either way. I would guess for some it is. It also seems odd that it is (apparently) much more common amongst humans than animals.

[thatpfunk]

Apologies... I try not to put words in peoples mouths, as is very common here.

[MMMMMM]

No need to apologize.

Often, if I say "I don't believe X", and Y is a generally contrary position, people think I am implying support for Y--but that is not always the case. Often I am just striving for accuracy.

[jaxmike]

roflmao. Geri Halliwell is going to tell you her dogs are gay and your going to believe her? you take a source like this and claim gospel? I pitty you.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that Tom Sowell benefited from affirmative action and is a hypocrite for opposing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that Sowell, because he is black, was incapable of achieving his socio-economic status without affirmative action?

Do you actually have evidence that would point to his using or even needing racial preferences?

[Dead]

First off, it doesn't matter whether he needed it or wanted it. Most African-Americans have benefited from it, simply by virtue of it being in place.

Secondly, I wasn't referring to the affirmative action in colleges that we commonly think of.

I was referring more to affirmative action in the workplace. Republicans are desperate for black conservatives because they want to win more African-American votes. So they put Tom Sowell out there instead of a white economist.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, it doesn't matter whether he needed it or wanted it. Most African-Americans have benefited from it, simply by virtue of it being in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the presumptive assertion. There is also, in case you didn't know, the argument that affirmative action has actually hurt more blacks than it has helped. I doubt if you are qualified to even make a good guess as to which is more likely to be true.

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring more to affirmative action in the workplace. Republicans are desperate for black conservatives because they want to win more African-American votes. So they put Tom Sowell out there instead of a white economist.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this: Thomas Sowell doesn't need for anyone to "put" him out there; his work stands on its own merit. Thomas Sowell "puts" himself out there.

[jaxmike]

thats what the racist liberals think apparently. there is no other reason to support affirmative action today.

[jaxmike]

there are plenty of black conservatives, they are just called "uncle toms" by liberals, maybe not in the direct use of the term, but through inferrence. their existance is a huge threat to the liberal need of a dependent state to stay in power. i am so glad the democratic party is falling apart.

[jaxmike]

you cant say that to a liberal, you are wrong, they dont care.

[Dead]

Look at Armstrong Williams. Affirmative action has sure helped him.

The man can't even get a coherent sentence out, it just sounds like garble.

Now compare him to someone like Al Sharpton. You can disagree with him all you want(I do on a lot of things), but Al Sharpton is both smarter and a better communicator.

Or how about Clarence Thomas? The classic case. Lots of people(myself included) think that Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court because he was black. He only had about a year of judicial experience, but Bush Sr. wanted an African-American justice.

Affirmative action has helped a lot of unqualified people get to places they never dreamed of. They could at least be grateful for it.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
thats what the racist liberals think apparently. there is no other reason to support affirmative action today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee what an informative and thought provoking post. Not. Racist liberals? Give me a break. It's your party that always resorts to race-baiting and white-appeal to win elections. Look at Bush and the confederate flag scandal. look at Bush going to Bob Jones University.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, it doesn't matter whether he needed it or wanted it. Most African-Americans have benefited from it, simply by virtue of it being in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

No $hit, Sherlock. Most white people benefitted from slavery. You wanna support that too?

Racial discrimination is racial discrimination, and whether one benefits from it is irrelevant. The bigotry that affirmative action is based on is the idea that blacks simply can't make it any other way. That's bullcrap and you know it.

Proponents of affirmative action depend on blacks believing in the notion that they're not good enough. That they don't have a prayer of achieving success except by the grace and goodwill of enlightened white people who pass racial preferences into law. Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character?? That idea must have died with Dr. King.

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans are desperate for black conservatives because they want to win more African-American votes. So they put Tom Sowell out there instead of a white economist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again. Forget that Dr. Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. Forget that he got his masters in economics before MLK was even on the scene, let alone affirmative action. Forget that he's been teaching economics for 40 years and has written over 20 books on the subject. No. He's black. Blacks are stupid. Blacks can't think for themselves and choose to be conservative. Blacks can't be good economists. The Republicans just use him as a puppet to buy votes. He wouldn't be where he is today had the Republicans not put him there. You're disgusting.

[jaxmike]

are you one of the incredible ignorant people who actually thinks that clarence thomas is not qualified to sit on the supreme court? if so, the degree of your stupidity just went up further than I had previously believed. and if you do believe that he is not qualified than I have two words for you..... anthony kennedy. (yes i know he was appointed by ford.)

[jaxmike]

good post

[jaxmike]

omfg i think you really are an idiot.

sorry, but seriously.

are you too stupid to see that republicans want people judged on their merits, not the color of their skin?

if republicans are so racist then why are there more minorities in Bush's cabinet then anyone else ever? why did he not get rid of all the minorities when he was reelected and cheney is not going to try to run in 08?

look at the tactics used by the democrats. affirmative action, active racism, and they support it. naacp, an organization that should do good for all people in the country, yet harms those who its meant to help above all others. the thing about democrats is this, they use one of the machiavellian(sp) (i believe it was niccollo, but I might be wrong) rules to perfection, "accuse others of that to which you are guilty". you are so racist and incapable of thinking for yourself that you cant see the truth when its staring you in the face. you need to go to a deprogrammer so that you can live your own life again, free from the tyrrany of the liberal propoganda machine.