"attitudes like mine"... whatever dude.

Biological anomalies where someone has both male AND female sets of chromosomes are not 2% of the population, seriously...

Well, it saddens me to see how many attendees here at the Gulch have so many iron-clad beliefs about sex, marriage, gays, trans-people and the obvious damage done to them by all of those driving forces.

I'm not gay but I've met MANY gay and lesbian people through work and friendship relationships, and TO A PERSON, not ONE of them has ever shown any behaviors which would evoke or provoke the kind of hatred and anger expressed here.

Yes, the SAME "they're going to destroy society" arguments came out when blacks DARED to hold hands with, LET ALONE MARRY whites. OMFG... how horrible!

Visible damage? Only in or to the minds of the bigots. And the illogic of the alleged 'arguments against everything from polygamy to incest to 'marrying your pet' is astounding. Two infertile people, even if brother and sister from the same parent, have NO logical 'reason' to be refused 'the right to marry.' Neither one is going to get pregnant, and if they were to adopt a child or a hundred children, there is no fucking way that anyone could accurately predict the 'damage to' or outcome for the children which might result.

Then someone tosses in the concept of 'sin,' as if there were a legal definition which somehow sprang into being without being sourced from some religious holy book or fire-breathing preacher.

All I am seeing here is just too many examples of pseudo-libertarians who are really right-wing conservative bigots under the skin.

If any of them (you) think you've offered any rational reasons for your opinions, you are sorely mistaken. If you had any self-awareness, you'd be taking a good, hard look at who or what or when those ideas infiltrated your minds and took root.

I only hope that society outlives your bigotry much as it's come SO far in battling racial prejudice (and still has a long way to go, too.)

If you have those horrible beliefs about gays, I'm pretty sure you haven't socialized with any of 'them' or known them or their families or who they are as people or citizens.

Friday night, my wife (female) and I are going to see one of the kids of such a FAMILY perform in Seussical... a lovely, beautiful girl with perfect pitch and bubbly personality, who calls one of her parents Mom and the other Mommy. Nor is her fraternal twin brother confused, either.

Just you.
Your attitudes (other than Susanne's) may drive me out of this group if the hypocrisy and bigotry continues.

Allegedly, at the Portland Golf and Country Club when they first started allowing women to play on the course, a group of women complained to the Board of Directors that men were peeing behind trees on the course. After the next month's Board Meeting it was announced that an answer had been arrived at. Women were now allowed to pee behind trees as well.

I agree with your points...except you missed the part about coercion of everyone else in policies

Just repeating some of what I heard, dude.

I read the article...then reread some of it. I find it quite lacking in logic. To me, the root of the problem is that it is no business of the government to 'allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union'. Who gave the State the prerogative to recognize the definition of a family?! The State should not be in the business of defining marriage or family in the first place. No, this should not be shoved down our throat - it should not be part of their venue in the first place.

Let's take a look the accuracy of the quoted statement itself : We have known since around 2000 that it is hypothetically possible for a man to have a baby. What happened to illuminate us on this was that a woman who had had a total hysterectomy was delivered of a child by c-section: (She had an ectopic pregnancy and the placenta had formed on the outside of her colon.) So - given modern techniques - it is not really necessary for the genetic or physical parents to be a man and a woman. Two women are possible; two men are plausible given a female egg-donor (enucleated - so not nuclear genetic component from the woman) to provide mitochondrial DNA.

We can go a step further. You can have a single parent child - we call it a clone, but it is really just a twin with an age offset. You could have your clone-child implanted and deliver it. We may soon be able to have an external gestational device that allows the embryo/fetus to be nurtured independent of a biological host altogether. None of these things mean that a child is less of a child or that that their parents are less parents.

None of these things imperil the existence of the family or the tendency of the human species to form male-female pairings. This will probably remain the norm.

Insofar as 'calling' people different things, I will point out that Tagalog does not have personal pronouns that distinguish gender. This does not seem to inconvenience the people of the Philippines (any more than English speakers are inconvenienced by not having a 'chair' be 'female' as it is in Romance languages).

Get the government out of our personal lives, and let the gay and trans people have their own fine families (which they do) and work and play with people who accept them. As I do: I have a number of friends in that community and I qualify them for 'people I want to hang around with' (or hire) the same way I do everyone else.

Jan
(Incidentally, about one in 13K births is an XY female - the person does not even know that she has a Y chromosome but thinks she is a normal woman. If you add up all the possible syndromes, the number of babies whose genitalia or sex chromosomes are 'different than normal' are about one percent.)

Actually here's a better explanation. I am filled with hate. Hate for lies and misrepresentation being presented as truth. I hate that, more than almost anything else on this planet. And the trans agenda and LGBT agenda is almost exclusively filled with lies. I don't care what someone does with their life. I mean, I CARE, but if they want to do something, I'm not going to force them to stop, so long as it's not hurting someone else.

This whole gay "marriage" thing (not civil unions, "marriage"), and the trans agenda encroaches on my life in forcing me to recognize and support it. And I hate that

That's funny. Must be hiding something. Pardon me on not being up to date on what the latest mainstream "science" says about people who "identify" as another gender. I could really care less what they tell you about transgender people, I'm talking to you from common sense. If people are too stupid today to recognize common sense, and instead believe the mainstream crap in the media about transgender people, so be it.

Since they are classifying it as a profession now, will they be giving you a salary?

Part of a profession is pay after all.

sorry forgot the citation...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarrie...

It isn't just the African-American community, white births out of wedlock percentages are up there as well.

72.2% for blacks, 29.4% for whites. If I remember right that 29% is as high as it was for blacks in the 60s. The aggregate out of wedlock birthrate for all groups is 40.7%.

Think about that, just over 40% of ALL births are out of wedlock.

You can't call them children of "broken homes", we need a new term....

Children of "unformed homes" or can you even call half a home a home?

OMGosh, I just got an email from "Certified Professional Guardian Board Communication Plan" with an e-address of "@courts.wa.gov". Is this coincidental to my post about my daughter a few hours ago or are they spying on us at Galt's Gulch.

It turns out it was coincidental, I think, it says "The Certified Professional Guardianship Board is establishing a new communication process to facilitate increased involvement in developing standards, rules and regulations to guide the guardianship profession. Refer to the link below for explanation of the process. The process is evolving and will likely change as we move through the development phase. We’ll keep you informed about changes as they occur. The linked document also requests comments on the issue of guardianship agency ownership, revisions to two regulations and a proposed new Standard of Practice." Just more bureaucracy to keep us confused and in line.

Muchas gracias!

Time for a stupid joke...

What does a Man do standing...

A woman do sitting...

And a dog do on 3 legs?


(Aw c'mon, you know...)


Shake hands.


Now go wash your mind out with soap! --giggles--

Someone just read your comment over my shoulder and made the comment, "He's hiding something. His reaction is way too strong, and too out there." Then they scrolled up, read some of the other stuff. "Yep. There's something going on here. He's either really ignorant, or he's working too hard to not be in denial. " He also made a couple other choice comments I won't repeat. But it did get a laugh out of me.

I wasn't going to reply to this nonsense, but I thought that was worth repeating.

lo siento
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVuEC3r7...

:( I can't get that video...

You've hit squarely on the issues that are at the core of our primate heritage. Humans are social animals geared to a specific social structure, and disruptive behaviors (like homosexuality) cause negative effects that are difficult to incorporate into the larger society.

Blaming religious intolerance for society's resistance to these disruptive behaviors is an act of misdirection. We are genetically geared to resist unconventional behavior. Homosexual proponents point to the occurrence of their kind of activity in primates like chimpanzees as being "normal", but they avoid discussion of what happens to the homosexual actors in primate culture, where most are brutally punished or banned.

If anything, humans are far more tolerant of dysfunctional behavior, and Christians are the one who espouse love of the misbehaving, while disavowing the negative behavior. For the record, I'm not a Christian, but I do contribute to Christian organizations like the Salvation Army, mainly because of their tolerance of "sinners".