To my gay friends

[Florida Cracker]

Ed, what would you call a persistent fear of homosexual behavior in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being irrational?

Take out the word homosexual and you are describing yourself against anyone that doesn't agree with your pandering, pablum, and putrid progressive blabbering.

 

[Florida Cracker]

Whose pretty picture is this? WhaT WAS THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE FINDINGS? who did they ask? hOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PICKED not AT RANDOM TO DETERMINE THE DESIRED OUTCOME?

Every year, acceptance goes up.

 

[Flying Viking]

I have no problem with siblings getting married, but the retarded kids they will end up having becomes an issue.

Oh the temptation...

 

[Kristin]

There are some (women) who make that claim from a philosophical point of view. I look at the chromosomes. And yes I'm familiar with all the trisomy issues that go along with a simple test of XX vs XY. Y chromosome, you are and always will be a male regardless of phenotype. No Y chromosome, you're female.

Gee! That is so simple. I wonder why hospitals have a whole team to try to figure it out when there is a question. Of course, you have hormonal abnormalities that leave you with a normal looking female with XY chromosomes and normal looking males with XX chromosomes. These are sometimes not found out until they seek treatment for infertility. What do you do with these?

 

[EdFred]

Gee! That is so simple. I wonder why hospitals have a whole team to try to figure it out when there is a question. Of course, you have hormonal abnormalities that leave you with a normal looking female with XY chromosomes and normal looking males with XX chromosomes. These are sometimes not found out until they seek treatment for infertility. What do you do with these?

It's easy make simple things complex. It keeps many people employed who otherwise wouldn't have jobs.

As I said, genotype over phenotype.

 

[Becky]

What religion is it that promotes homosexuality? I am not familiar with one, though there some to be any number that wish to impose their religious views onto the individual liberties of the citizens of this country.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are to protect the minority from the majority. At any rate, it appears that all the polls agree that Americans now support gay marriage. That is likely irreversible considering the demographics involved.

Kristin, you know the really funny thing about all this is that if gay people conducted themselves with consideration for those who differ from them (exactly what they're asking for, but apparently not wiling to return), you'd probably see even more than the 57% or so percent of Americans (not all, as you imply) going "fine, whatever!"

If those two gay men had NOT sued the florist I happen to know, and if the vitriol toward her (a loving woman) from the left had not occurred, prompting our State Attorney General to unleash the full power of the State against her, as of today I'd be disappointed in the Supreme Court for its disregard for the basic tenets of federalism, but would not even have commented on this thread.

In my state, around half the voters were still uncomfortable with gay marriage, and the ink was barely dry on the law when the florist's treatment by these men hit the news. In talking with people about this, I've found that most thought that gays would get to marry, fine, and they'd respect the freedom of others to participate, support, or be involved in such marriages OR NOT. That's what I expected. But we were all wrong.

 

[Florida Cracker]

It's easy make simple things complex. It keeps many people employed who otherwise wouldn't have jobs.

As I said, genotype over phenotype.

I must be too straightforward for all that.

You are either an innie, or an outie. the rest is playacting, except for very very few exceptions.

 

[EdFred]

I must be too straightforward for all that.

You are either an innie, or an outie. the rest is playacting, except for very very few exceptions.

I've played ball with one of the exceptions. Had all girl parts, but XY chromosomes. After her(his) stint was in the Army was up, she(he) was getting surgery so the outside matched the chromosomes. But even though she(he) had T&V, she(he) looked rather masculine.

 

[Kristin]

It's easy make simple things complex. It keeps many people employed who otherwise wouldn't have jobs.

As I said, genotype over phenotype.

Simplicity rules! Who cares if some get hurt as long as the rest of us don't have to think too hard or be uncomfortable.

 

[EdFred]

Simplicity rules! Who cares if some get hurt as long as the rest of us don't have to think too hard or be uncomfortable.

I'm a chimpanzee. Me making a statement saying as such does not make it so. My genes say otherwise.

 

[Kristin]

Kristin, you know the really funny thing about all this is that if gay people conducted themselves with consideration for those who differ from them (exactly what they're asking for, but apparently not wiling to return), you'd probably see even more than the 57% or so percent of Americans (not all, as you imply) going "fine, whatever!"

If those two gay men had NOT sued the florist I happen to know, and if the vitriol toward her (a loving woman) from the left had not occurred, prompting our State Attorney General to unleash the full power of the State against her, as of today I'd be disappointed in the Supreme Court for its disregard for the basic tenets of federalism, but would not even have commented on this thread.

In my state, around half the voters were still uncomfortable with gay marriage, and the ink was barely dry on the law when the florist's treatment by these men hit the news. In talking with people about this, I've found that most thought that gays would get to marry, fine, and they'd respect the freedom of others to participate, support, or be involved in such marriages OR NOT. That's what I expected. But we were all wrong.

I agree that there are times when a bit of good manners has been called for, and the call not answered. I disagree with dragging a small business owner through the mud and thickets to prove a point, even though I have some sympathy with the point being made. That is one thing I don't like about activists. They tend to think the end always justifies any means they devise.

I think that a little class should be called for, given that demographics are on the side of the gays. The young really don't care.

 

[Kristin]

I'm a chimpanzee. Me making a statement saying as such does not make it so. My genes say otherwise.

That is an idiotic analogy and such hyperbole does not change the fact that the issue is more complicated than that and equal protection under the law doesn't permit discriminating against a minority group, no matter that it is a small minority.

 

[EdFred]

That is an idiotic analogy and such hyperbole does not change the fact that the issue is more complicated than that and equal protection under the law doesn't permit discriminating against a minority group, no matter that it is a small minority.

Why? It's no different. It's a littler further out there, but it still comes down to genes. A lot of people are born not liking things about themselves or wishing they were different, but at some point it becomes absurd to recognize every variation that is out there.

 

[Kristin]

Why? It's no different. It's a littler further out there, but it still comes down to genes. A lot of people are born not liking things about themselves or wishing they were different, but at some point it becomes absurd to recognize every variation that is out there.

Of course it is different, you admit it in the next sentence.

Why can't we accept people as they are? Why the need to pound them into an artificial box? So what, someone is born XX with some condition that causes them to develop male. They find out at age 20. Is there a need to pound them into the female mold just because some lab test confirmed that they were XX, even though they have socialized as male and have all the secondary sex characteristics of a male? This all for society's comfort level? What is wrong with you people and what about individual liberty don't you get?

 

[EdFred]

Of course it is different, you admit it in the next sentence.

Why can't we accept people as they are? Why the need to pound them into an artificial box? So what, someone is born XX with some condition that causes them to develop male. They find out at age 20. Is there a need to pound them into the female mold just because some lab test confirmed that they were XX, even though they have socialized as male and have all the secondary sex characteristics of a male? This all for society's comfort level? What is wrong with you people and what about individual liberty don't you get?

I never said anything of the sort on how they should or shouldn't be treated. But the FACT is they are genetic females. No matter what they say they feel like. If they want to continue to act like a guy, dress like a guy, date women, or men, I don't care. But they are still a female.

And no, it's not different. Claiming to be something I'm genetically not is the same no matter if it's a single chromosome or all 46 of them.

 

[RJM62]

Of course it is different, you admit it in the next sentence.

Why can't we accept people as they are? Why the need to pound them into an artificial box? So what, someone is born XX with some condition that causes them to develop male. They find out at age 20. Is there a need to pound them into the female mold just because some lab test confirmed that they were XX, even though they have socialized as male and have all the secondary sex characteristics of a male? This all for society's comfort level? What is wrong with you people and what about individual liberty don't you get?

I frankly don't give a rat's ass if someone believes that they're General Patton. Sure, they're delusional; but as long as their delusion doesn't affect me, why should I care? Their delusions are their business.

But don't try to make me salute, because then it becomes my business.

Rich

 

[Kristin]

I never said anything of the sort on how they should or shouldn't be treated. But the FACT is they are genetic females. No matter what they say they feel like. If they want to continue to act like a guy, dress like a guy, date women, or men, I don't care. But they are still a female.

And no, it's not different. Claiming to be something I'm genetically not is the same no matter if it's a single chromosome or all 46 of them.

As far as I can tell, that is your definition and not the legal, social, or or generally accepted scientific definition. Your definition would be a bit chaotic if SCOTUS had let stand the notion that marriage is only between a male and a female. Going by your definition, everyone who go married would have to have their chromosomes tested.

 

[nddons]

Kristin, you know the really funny thing about all this is that if gay people conducted themselves with consideration for those who differ from them (exactly what they're asking for, but apparently not wiling to return), you'd probably see even more than the 57% or so percent of Americans (not all, as you imply) going "fine, whatever!"

If those two gay men had NOT sued the florist I happen to know, and if the vitriol toward her (a loving woman) from the left had not occurred, prompting our State Attorney General to unleash the full power of the State against her, as of today I'd be disappointed in the Supreme Court for its disregard for the basic tenets of federalism, but would not even have commented on this thread.

In my state, around half the voters were still uncomfortable with gay marriage, and the ink was barely dry on the law when the florist's treatment by these men hit the news. In talking with people about this, I've found that most thought that gays would get to marry, fine, and they'd respect the freedom of others to participate, support, or be involved in such marriages OR NOT. That's what I expected. But we were all wrong.

Agreed. As Ann Coulter said, and I paraphrase, now that the gays have won the war, they now want to go door to door and shoot the survivors.

 

[EdFred]

As far as I can tell, that is your definition and not the legal, social, or or generally accepted scientific definition. Your definition would be a bit chaotic if SCOTUS had let stand the notion that marriage is only between a male and a female. Going by your definition, everyone who go married would have to have their chromosomes tested.

Going by my definition, there would be no court decision because the government would not recognize ANY marriages.

Which brings up another question. If we (the courts) have decided that marriage is a fundamental right that shall not be denied to anyone, why is there the need for a license?

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ed, whatever is below Namaste flashes too fast for me to make it out. Could you please tell me, or slow it down?

 

[pilot_dude]

We are talking motive here, not method.

Motive is irrelevant as dead is dead.

 

[azure]

It's easy make simple things complex. It keeps many people employed who otherwise wouldn't have jobs.

As I said, genotype over phenotype.

Unless there is an ambiguity, phenotype wins over genotype in deciding what goes on the birth certificate. Even if there is an ambiguity, I believe today it is usually phenotype. In any case, I don't think any state requires genetic testing to decide whether you get an M or an F. Plenty of XY kids out there with Fs on their BC who are not discovered until they reach their teens. And their BCs are not routinely changed after diagnosis.

 

[SkyHog]

Ed, you are making it too conplex. Gender identity is most easily determined the same way we sex every living being:

Does it have male reproductive organs? Male
Does it have female reproductive organd? Female

From a legal perspective that is all that should matter. Theres no need to devolve into chromosome checking.

Now, from a "being treated fairly" perspective, I don't think we need to be lifting skirts to sex people. if someone says they're a dude, who cares. Let em be dudes. If they want to be a female, let em be females.

Now that anyone can marry anyone, I don't really see how it matters. Short of an operation, though, legal identification should be based on what equipment you're packing at birth.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Unless there is an ambiguity, phenotype wins over genotype in deciding what goes on the birth certificate. Even if there is an ambiguity, I believe today it is usually phenotype. In any case, I don't think any state requires genetic testing to decide whether you get an M or an F. Plenty of XY kids out there with Fs on their BC who are not discovered until they reach their teens. And their BCs are not routinely changed after diagnosis.

And then, there is the bone marrow transplant recipient who bleeds blood of the gender of the donor without regard to his or her own gender...

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ed, you are making it too conplex. Gender identity is most easily determined the same way we sex every living being:

Does it have male reproductive organs? Male
Does it have female reproductive organd? Female

From a legal perspective that is all that should matter. Theres no need to devolve into chromosome checking.

Now, from a "being treated fairly" perspective, I don't think we need to be lifting skirts to sex people. if someone says they're a dude, who cares. Let em be dudes. If they want to be a female, let em be females.

Now that anyone can marry anyone, I don't really see how it matters. Short of an operation, though, legal identification should be based on what equipment you're packing at birth.

Does the person have both? or neither?

 

[DJTorrente]

Oh the temptation...

So clever... ICWYDT. Aren't you smart, insulting the neanderthal who was too stoopid to know he was being insulted. Never seen that before from your side of the aisle (/snark).

You leftists are all class. Not to mention a dime a dozen. You revel in your "individuality", ignorant to the fact that you march in lock step to your chosen drumbeat more tightly than anyone you would call a goose-stepping nazi.

 

[DJTorrente]

Equality seems to be confusing you. First of all, you are incorrect that gay couples had everything that hetrosexual married couples had. If if there was a workaround for a couple to get to the same status as a married couple enjoys, the fact that a workaround is required means it is not equal.

Or, the fact that the workaround was necessary could mean that the two things in question (in this case, a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship) were not, in fact, equal in all ways. 2+2 = 5, according to you, right?

 

[RJM62]

Ed, you are making it too conplex. Gender identity is most easily determined the same way we sex every living being:

Does it have male reproductive organs? Male
Does it have female reproductive organd? Female

From a legal perspective that is all that should matter. Theres no need to devolve into chromosome checking.

Now, from a "being treated fairly" perspective, I don't think we need to be lifting skirts to sex people. if someone says they're a dude, who cares. Let em be dudes. If they want to be a female, let em be females.

Now that anyone can marry anyone, I don't really see how it matters. Short of an operation, though, legal identification should be based on what equipment you're packing at birth.

That's my feeling, Nick. I really don't care.

I did for a while, particularly with regard to adolescent boys who might wish to declare themselves girls so they could scope out the chicks in the locker rooms and showers; but then I decided that since my only daughter is grown, that's not my concern anymore. Let those whose concern it is duke it out, if they so choose.

So now my only remaining objection is when someone demands that I accept their self-assignment, which in effect forces the question to be my business. My opinion is that the vast majority of people who decide that they're TG are either delusional, seeking attention, scamming, or some combination of the three. So if a self-professed TG person demands my opinion, that's what they're going to hear.

Truly, though, with regard to those TG people who are just trying to live their lives in what they believe to be their gender, rather than scamming or seeking attention, it really shouldn't be an issue. I'd never know about their situation to begin with. It would remain their business until they made it mine by demanding my acceptance and endorsement.

Rich

 

[Florida Cracker]

The homosexual mafia is the worst kind of demanding. They insist everyone celebrate their particular perversion, or risk never ending persecution.

That reminds me, remarkably so, of progressives, which is who is behind the queer mafia, anyway.

 

[Stevel]

Oh the temptation...

I already went there, but decided not to hit "post".

Edit for clarification: The reason for not posting was that I was only going for the laugh, but this thread is "heavy" enough that the insult would probably be taken seriously.

 

[SkyHog]

Does the person have both? or neither?

Despite what some may think, no one has both a penis and a vagina. They may have other indicators of being hermaphroditic, but having both sets of primary sex organs is not one of them.

As for neither? Well, for that VERY small number of people, I'm sure there are options for sexing. It isn't like we're talking about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 deal, where 1/3 have a penis, 1/3 have a vagina, and 1/3 have neither...its more like 49%, 49%, 2%.

 

[Stevel]

Regarding the bakers and florists

That is not the issue, any more than your marriage is about the wedding. I took an unscientific, non-random poll of the gay folks I know. The selection criteria was "who did I happen to see since this conversation started".

I spoke to four, one of which asked two others, so the sample size was six. Not one of them would want someone to be forced to participate in their wedding if that person didn't want to do so. They shared a low opinion of the activists who are stirring that pot, and assured me that those activists do not represent them. They all support gay marriage, and don't think that the SCOTUS decision was about florists and bakers, but about the benefits associated with marriage.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Despite what some may think, no one has both a penis and a vagina. They may have other indicators of being hermaphroditic, but having both sets of primary sex organs is not one of them.

As for neither? Well, for that VERY small number of people, I'm sure there are options for sexing. It isn't like we're talking about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 deal, where 1/3 have a penis, 1/3 have a vagina, and 1/3 have neither...its more like 49%, 49%, 2%.

Hermaphrodite is used to describe any person incompatible with the biological gender binary, but in medicine, it has recently been replaced by intersex. Humans with typical reproductive organs but atypical clitoris/penis are called pseudohermaphrodites in medical literature. Pseudohermaphroditism also refers to a human possessing both the clitoris and testicles.

People with intersex conditions sometimes choose to live exclusively as one sex or the other, using clothing, social cues, genital surgery, and hormone replacement therapy to blend into the sex they identify with more closely. Some people who are intersex, such as some of those with androgen insensitivity syndrome, outwardly appear completely female or male already, without realizing they are intersex. Other kinds of intersex conditions are identified immediately at birth because those with the condition have a sexual organ larger than a clitoris and smaller than a penis. Intersex is thought by some to be caused by unusual sex hormones; the unusual hormones may be caused by an atypical set of sex chromosomes.

Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal (ovotestes) and genetic sex.

Another common cause of hermaphroditism is the crossing over of the SRY from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome during meiosis. The SRY is then activated in only certain areas, causing development of testes in some areas by beginning a series of events starting with the upregulation of SOX9, and in other areas not being active (causing the growth of ovarian tissues). Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.

 

[DJTorrente]

Despite what some may think, no one has both a penis and a vagina. They may have other indicators of being hermaphroditic, but having both sets of primary sex organs is not one of them.

As for neither? Well, for that VERY small number of people, I'm sure there are options for sexing. It isn't like we're talking about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 deal, where 1/3 have a penis, 1/3 have a vagina, and 1/3 have neither...its more like 49%, 49%, 2%.

No need to guess. According to statistics, 1 in 1,666 (0.06%) are neither XX nor XY. To put it in perspective, sex chromosome anomalies are to homosexuality, roughly what homosexuality is to the general population.

But now the entirety of the population needs to tie itself in knots and disrupt a social institution that has served humanity for millenia in order to address the insoluble needs of 1 in 1,666 people? The people pushing gaymarriage are the same people who say that religious objectors need to "get over it" for the good of the whole. There are a hell of lot more than 1 in 1,666 religious objectors. But it doesn't count to the militant homosexualists when those people's rights are trampled.

 

[Kristin]

I frankly don't give a rat's ass if someone believes that they're General Patton. Sure, they're delusional; but as long as their delusion doesn't affect me, why should I care? Their delusions are their business.

But don't try to make me salute, because then it becomes my business.

Rich

One person's reality may be another's delusion.

As far as I can tell, there is nowhere in the law that requires us to like anything in particular.

 

[Kristin]

Going by my definition, there would be no court decision because the government would not recognize ANY marriages.

Which brings up another question. If we (the courts) have decided that marriage is a fundamental right that shall not be denied to anyone, why is there the need for a license?

We weren't talking about whether government should be involved in marriage. I happen to agree with that, but we are talking about the current reality. Nice duck of the question.

 

[Kristin]

Motive is irrelevant as dead is dead.

Motive is never irrelevant when one is trying to figure out why something happened.

 

[poadeleted21]

One person's reality may be another's delusion.

As far as I can tell, there is nowhere in the law that requires us to like anything in particular.

No but people fundamentally opposed to the act are being compelled by law to participate In it.

 

[Kristin]

Or, the fact that the workaround was necessary could mean that the two things in question (in this case, a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship) were not, in fact, equal in all ways. 2+2 = 5, according to you, right?

Yes, civil unions were not legally equivalent to marriage. When it came to federal tax benefits, there was no work around.

 

[DJTorrente]

Yes, civil unions were not legally equivalent to marriage. When it came to federal tax benefits, there was no work around.

I've got an easy solution to that one - flat tax for everybody! Then no need to redefine marriage into gaymarriage, and no florists, photographers or bakers need to pay fines because of who will or will not work any particular job.

How many leftists are with me?!?

Yeah, that's what I thought...