Gay Rights

A pregnant man? That goes against the laws of nature.

 

Yeah, I'm pregnant you guys....
Don't know who is the dad...

Ain't it on Oprah or something. They say that he was a girl before then turn into a guy.

 

Lolz, that is weird. I wish I had seen that. Still, you can't take everything on T.V. at face value.

 

Oh, wow.
*Jaw Drops*

 

Jesus. That is twisted. But we have to have all the baby caring stuff. We guys don't have that because the genes that make those are turned off. You would have to alter which is its own little debate.

 

I think you're mistaken. Their wife had a hysterectomy and is unable to conceive...so since they had gender reassignment surgery, but opted to keep their female reproductive organs (minus the breasts if you consider those a repro. organ), they opted to receive artificial insemination. Nothing in the male body is as nutrient-rich as the female placenta (heck; it's got to be replaced every month to keep it top of the line). If it was implanted into a male's stomach, it would just be digested. If it was 'grafted onto the liver' or some other such organ, the person would die.

Unfortunately...this doesn't say anything about males 'evolving' a form of sustaining life. Girls' bodies are just too good at it. (Sexist content not intentional)

 

i dont really care either way, gay people have rights and should be completely equal. But there is a difference between being gay, and having a partner. and being one of those guys who dresses up in drag and walks the streets in heels, proclaiming and showing everyone that they are gay...those people i dont like, though they still have the right to do the things they do, its slightly annoying.

 

Agreed. And thanks for getting us back on subject, and I am still weirded out about the Governator deal.

 

Not when you have science!

 

That's something of a screwed up scenario isn't it. If it's going to be up to the states to decide this, than it should be legal based on federal law.

 

I agree with that. Why not just get it all in one stone?

 

Sure, gays can have a binding union, and all the 'stately' things associated with it, as California has done.

What I don't understand though, is why it's so important for this union to be not only known as 'marriage' but to be one and the same as (for instance) a Christian rite of marriage. Every time I comment on the matter, I suggest making a 'new' union, with a different name, which is basically the legal side of marriage (marriage license etc), leaving 'marriage' as a strictly religious ritual. Thus meaning people wishing a christian marriage would need to also have a 'legal' marriage in order to obtain benefits.

And yet...this never seems to appease anyone. Why? Is it a need to belong to that group, to not be 'discriminated against' ? If a little kid has a clubhouse that says no girls allowed...there won't be any girls there, regardless of whether or not this is a wise decision.

Since many churches ban religion...it's much like this little kid. The church (in my opinion) doesn't have the right to deny any sort of legal thing...they do however have the right to 'deny membership' as does any club, regardless of the reasons.

I mean heck, I'm certainly not going to win any NAACP awards. Why? Discrimination.

 

Because people like to make fun of each other. This is just one way to prove "I am better than you." Its a bunch of bull and I wish people would get a life, but that is not going to change. <Laughs in shame of the human race>

 

But then the blame lies with parishoners (ie. the people doing the making fun of), not the church, or the law, the government, anything like that.

The government should pass a law in tact, in politeness. That would kill like eight hundred birds with one stone.

 

Basically you said what I said. The only problem is that we all could careless about anyone else's problems. The government would rather worry about themselves than solve an age old debate. You can't make everyone happy so I wish they would just decide.

 

The way I see it, these are those useless types of debates that shouldn't even exist anywhere in the world. what's the problem with being lesbian or gay?? if women don't like men, but like other women and there are TONS of people like that in the world, why can't they be considered normal people? I see this is the side of many women, actually, that say it's disgusting and all.... if they can't remember, those lesbian also have boobs, also have female sexual organs, they just like something different. If I remember well, everyone is different in some way. for me, those people are the same as racists. seriously.

and one other problem that I hear about gay and lesbian couples, is that they shouldn't be allowed to have children. and who's gonna stop women from doing it?? and why can't a gay couple, that can take care of a child, adopt one that's in need of love? The way I see it in this case, sure, they can have children, but they have to let the kid decide if it want to be hetero, or gay/lesbian (sex dependable), because that's not for the parents to decide. They can't get involved in that type of judgement, and can't make the kid be what they are. that's the only thing I'm against, and that is very possible to happen, for the rest... gay couples, gay marriage, gay having children: go ahead.