Actually, the only thing I was "after" was letting people here know that a well known poster had been featured in an article. I hadn't realized that Zack Addy had a new handle. Of course, I'm a lesbian, so I can't just do something for its own sake, it always has to have some nefarious purpose, right Talkhard? BTW, the man in the avatar is straight. Someone's gaydar is on vacation.
I think they need a loving mom and dad. I know you posted about some social science research that indicates there is no difference, but I'm not convinced yet. However, I will grant that a loving gay couple as parents is certainly better than an abusive home or a home in which they neglect the child. Because of this I have to change my stance on disallowing gay couples to adopt. I think I would have to support it now.
what do you think I think? I was being facetious. People who fuck dogs and kids are fucked up in the head beyond repair IMO. But you've got to realize that people thought of those groups as they thought about blacks and homosexuals in the past. As socities get more "progressive", they get more tolerant of what was previously fringe behavior. Look, there are even advocacy groups for man-boy love (NAMBLA) and in the ancient roman days, men had boys called catamites (credit: HS vocab) that were solely used for sexual perversion. Hot Female teachers are fucking more and more young 8th graders and high schoolers and generally society is kind of like "who gives a shit" about that......
Is it just me, or is the above (including the name "Shoter") just oozing with homoeroticism? Reminds me of this Onion classic. It's good to see that Talkhard has only changed his name (which also always struck me as needlessly lewd), not his tune.
Would you say animals having sex with different species is "natural"? According to your theory, if I can find a video of a dog having sex with a cat, then it would be "natural", right?
yeah, i think he's locked up in a mental hospital for helping a serial killer or something right now : )
Well who would have guessed it. ***************************************************** **************************** You actually thought that was appropriate? - The Joker
The Democratic party isn't very left-leaning, which I've noted many times. A long way to go, but not to illustrate the trend. The trend has been for more and more individual rights, insofar as they aren't infringing on other people's personal autonomy. This can be seen as a progressive chain from the end of slavery, through legal interracial marriage, civil rights for racial minorities, women's rights. The trend is pretty clear, IMO. How long it will take for gay rights to become an obvious, assumed part of American society I don't know, but I think it's fairly clear that it will happen. Massachusetts and now Connecticut allow gay marriage (rather than civil unions). Both sides of the fight in California pretty much agree that once gay marriage has had a chance to happen for a few years, it will be gain public support permanently. So now it's just a matter of time for it to win on the ballot, with sentiment fairly close to evenly divided. I think that once it passes in California, and California proves that legalizing gay marriage doesn't create any negative repurcussions, it will open the way for it to be legalized in other left-leaning states like New York, Oregon, etc. Once it's been adopted by a number of states, including big ones like California and New York, it will gradually spread across the nation. Slowly, but inevitably. It may or may not unfold exactly like that, but I think the trend, even regarding merely gay rights, is clear. Americans are much more tolerant of gay marriage today then they were 100 years ago. They'll continue to become more tolerant as older generations fade away and are replaced by younger generations.
How would you define "natural" then? The naive among us assumed that "natural" meant "occurring in nature". That doesn't mean moral (or immoral) but I can't see how it couldn't mean natural.
If we want to be able to feed well all of the population on this planet and do so with the least amount of soil, water, landscape, and forest damage, and with the least impact towards global warming, and with the least impact on sensitive ecosystems - we should move as quickly as possible towards reducing consumption of animal products - particularly livestock.
Yes, I've read that. A pound of vegetables takes far less land and resources to produce than a pound of beef, pork or chicken.
Well for one, cats and dogs are different species. A man and a man are not different species. Secondly, there are actually animals that have been created when animals procreated outside of their "type". (See Ligers and mules). So....there goes that argument.
It doesn't matter if they're different species. You said if it happens in nature, then its natural. So, according to your previous logic, mating of different species is natural if it occurs anywhere in nature. So I don't know where "that argument has gone", according to your previous logic, it is valid so it looks like you need to revise your initial justifications.
