tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post3408615625821775119..comments2024-03-20T10:19:56.838+01:00Comments on the beatroot: New word in Polish dictionary: homoagitacja?beatroothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-5182792366540144492021-04-25T16:54:39.654+02:002021-04-25T16:54:39.654+02:00yeezy
yeezy boost 350
yeezys
yeezys
golden goose s...<a href="http://www.yeezyshoessupply.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.adidasyeezyboost350.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy boost 350</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezyshoes.in.net" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezys</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.adidasyeezysupply.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezys</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.goldengoosessale.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>golden goose sale</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.kobe.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>kobe byrant shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezy-shoes.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezys</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.russellwestbrookshoes.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>westbrook shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.offwhite.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>off white clothing</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezy-500.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy boost 500</strong></a>yanmaneeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229165146687805497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-81087644986727212332011-11-26T16:21:23.650+01:002011-11-26T16:21:23.650+01:00Thank you for the post, really useful data.Thank you for the post, really useful data.www.muebles.cnhttp://www.muebles.cnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-41698983755855919702010-01-12T14:09:26.163+01:002010-01-12T14:09:26.163+01:00Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your ol...Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!IVF Clinic Indiahttp://surrogacyabroad.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-67409438230257056932007-05-23T13:36:00.000+02:002007-05-23T13:36:00.000+02:00opamp said... So, why does it have to be state san...<I>opamp said... <BR/>So, why does it have to be state sanctioned? Why not just do themselves tatoos or something and be done with it.</I><BR/><BR/>Because (i) the state gives special rights to married couples as a result of the state sanctioned status of marriage, and (ii) either everybody is equal or some people are ubermenschen and others are untermenschen, you seem to consider yourself to be one of the ubermenschen, I disagree: you are equal to other people and should have equal rights to other people. Pity that you won't give other people equal rights to yours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-34193044838814234962007-05-22T22:35:00.000+02:002007-05-22T22:35:00.000+02:00"Makes some sense to me..."I'll also mention the r..."Makes some sense to me..."<BR/><BR/>I'll also mention the rest of the US cultural conservative argument (not overtly stated but very much there) It goes (roughly): "Of course no real man would ever want to get married and give up happiness to raise children, so we have to trick them into it, for their own good."michael farrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232229721381140090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-32853559651696647742007-05-22T22:33:00.000+02:002007-05-22T22:33:00.000+02:00Not to mention that 'the state' is the only party ...Not to mention that 'the state' is the only party that can enforce commitment. When a person commits they also make themselves vulnerable.<BR/>An awful lot of marriage law is devoted to making sure that both parties live up to the commitment and neither takes undo advantage of the other. Those that aren't allowed to marry the adult of their choice can either be very lonely or be very vulnerable (and private contracts can't make up for the legal shortfall between married and unmarried couples).michael farrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232229721381140090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-9441758564229848112007-05-22T21:38:00.000+02:002007-05-22T21:38:00.000+02:00It has to be sanctioned by the state because the s...It has to be sanctioned by the state because the state is where the 'people' are expressed.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-8138070389489600322007-05-22T21:33:00.000+02:002007-05-22T21:33:00.000+02:00just a public show of commitment.So, why does it h...<I>just a public show of commitment.</I><BR/><BR/>So, why does it have to be state sanctioned? Why not just do themselves tatoos or something and be done with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-72498962386612310682007-05-22T19:46:00.000+02:002007-05-22T19:46:00.000+02:00OpampIt has nothing to do with kids. For non relig...Opamp<BR/>It has nothing to do with kids. For non religious people - especially evangelical root veg humanists - it is just a public show of commitment. That's it. I know. I am one.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-52729090226607774342007-05-22T19:32:00.000+02:002007-05-22T19:32:00.000+02:00"Makes some sense to me..."Good, that makes one of..."Makes some sense to me..."<BR/><BR/>Good, that makes one of us.michael farrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232229721381140090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-28277348727488631742007-05-22T18:00:00.000+02:002007-05-22T18:00:00.000+02:00@harry:Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot...@harry:<BR/><BR/><I>Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot why you think that he should be banned from marrying his partner?</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I still see no reasons why he should be <I>a priori</I> banned. I do however see reasons why homosexuals shouldn't be <I>a priori</I> allowed to marry. <BR/><BR/>If you call that bigotry, I can live with it. <BR/><BR/>@michael farris:<BR/><BR/>Uhm, thanks. Makes some sense to me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-84133941837922979872007-05-21T23:23:00.000+02:002007-05-21T23:23:00.000+02:00Okay, I'll give opamp his talking point (he really...Okay, I'll give opamp his talking point (he really should start reading national review).<BR/><BR/>Non-fertile straight couples should be allowed to marry because by being straight they benefit by and benefit the childbearing/raising potential of fertile straight couples. That is allowing them to marry doesn't dilute the link between marriage and having and raising children. <BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't make sense to me either but it is the party line for US cultural conservatives.michael farrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232229721381140090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-62197653245737493392007-05-21T22:53:00.000+02:002007-05-21T22:53:00.000+02:00Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot why yo...Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot why you think that he should be banned from marrying his partner? Or you just going to keep on putting out smoke in an attempt to hide your bigotry?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-27739429243116223572007-05-21T21:10:00.000+02:002007-05-21T21:10:00.000+02:00Opamp,I apologise and retract my comment, in that ...Opamp,<BR/>I apologise and retract my comment, in that case. I thought that the suggestion that homosexuality is curable, and thus a disease or disorder, was implicit in your earlier post. Again, my apologies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-35269532773639376802007-05-21T19:05:00.000+02:002007-05-21T19:05:00.000+02:00I'm not even gonna touch the suggestion that gayne...<I>I'm not even gonna touch the suggestion that gayness may be curable in your other post there</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? I never meant that. Gayness is not a disease!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-42091354086610879622007-05-21T18:51:00.000+02:002007-05-21T18:51:00.000+02:00[IVF for lesbians scenario]because that seems kind...<I>[IVF for lesbians scenario]<BR/><BR/>because that seems kind of ridiculous to me... and probably everyone else as well</I><BR/><BR/>Well, the idea of legalized gay marriage probably seemed ridiculous to everyone 100 years ago. <BR/><BR/>The reasoning is in fact quite very simple. LGBT groups want homosexual unions to be equal in rights to the heterosexual unions. They are trying to achieve it gradually, i.e. gay rights -> gay marriage -> gay adoption. (And we have that already!) <BR/><BR/>And if gays didn't want to have children, LGBT groups wouldn't be pushing for their right to adopt children. So if the "reproductive cloning" I describe becomes viable, I see no reason why homosexuals <I>wouldn't</I> want to benefit from this, given developments up to date. <BR/><BR/>And you can bet that then some activist will come up talking about an inherent right of every couple (heck, of everyone by him/herself) to have children in their own image. <BR/><BR/>Not that this would be <I>evil</I> or something. The question is -- would this <I>be worth it</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-15986532951703040532007-05-21T18:25:00.000+02:002007-05-21T18:25:00.000+02:00I can tell you right now that somebody who has had...<I>I can tell you right now that somebody who has had both testicles removed because of testicular cancer is not going to be having children anytime soon. </I><BR/><BR/>And he will of course have no problem with finding a potential marriage partner. Nor with a lack of sex drive. <BR/><BR/><I>Of course, the same is also true for two women. DNA from one could be used to make a sperm and then used to fertilise the other woman</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. I have dealt with this very idea above. <BR/><BR/><I>I assume you think that gay people should now have tax cuts</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting. The conventional wisdom is that gays are richer precisely because they don't have to spend money on children. So you say that we should favor the rich(er) with the tax cuts?<BR/><BR/>One more question. Consider the following: the Polish family code states that if a married woman gets pregnant, the child is automatically assumed to be of her husband, unless he petitions the court to establish if he is indeed the child's father.<BR/><BR/>Assume now, that we have two married lesbians. One of them gets pregnant with a man. How should we apply the law now? <BR/><BR/>1. Assume that the other lesbian is the child's father, which is analogous to a heterosexual couple but absurd? And, should the biological father have any parental rights in this case?<BR/><BR/>2. Lay the responsibility on the child's biological father, which is logical, but means that homosexual and heterosexual couples are not equal before the law?<BR/><BR/>Next, assume that the child's mother dies. Who should be given the custody now? Her partner, or the biological father?<BR/><BR/>In short, homosexual marriage looks good on paper, but it leads to a lot of legal mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-21201820451707396152007-05-21T11:52:00.000+02:002007-05-21T11:52:00.000+02:00opamp said... The difference between homosexualism...<I>opamp said... <BR/>The difference between homosexualism and infertility is that the latter is (at least sometimes) curable. Therefore there is no reason to a priori deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples. This holds true even with presently incurable cases, because there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future.</I> <BR/>I can tell you right now that somebody who has had both testicles removed because of testicular cancer is not going to be having children anytime soon. <BR/><BR/>Although scientists at Newcastle university in 2006 did manage to create an artifical sperm and then graft DNA from a donor mouse onto that sperm and use it to fertilise a mouse. Six of the seven baby mice born as a result lived into adulthood. So maybe a man who has lost both testicles can have babies thanks to modern science.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the same is also true for two women. DNA from one could be used to make a sperm and then used to fertilise the other woman. And for two men DNA from one could be used to make an egg and then after being fertilised it could be put into a surrogate mother. <BR/><BR/>So there is no reason to ban gay marriage because soon gay people will be able to have children of their own. <BR/><BR/>Of course if you want to ban gay marriage only because you are a narrow-minded bigot, just say so.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BTW: if you think straight people should not pay for gay people to have children I assume you think that gay people should now have tax cuts because they do not get any benefit from the education system for their children and their children make no use of the health care system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-47825248968139769572007-05-21T03:39:00.000+02:002007-05-21T03:39:00.000+02:00Opamp,I was in no way suggesting two parents is be...Opamp,<BR/>I was in no way suggesting two parents is best for purposes of economic viability. My point was merely that in a single-parent family, sacrifices have to be made that inevitably affect parent/child contact time. Likewise with two parents where one of them (normally the dad in every society I've known) works 60+ hours a week, the child grows up not knowing its own parent. Whether male or female, that's gotta be detrimental. I think michael put it rather well, and more importantly succintly, in the post up there ("What children need are good adult role models, period."). <BR/><BR/>I'm not even gonna touch the suggestion that gayness may be curable in your other post there, other than to ask if you think 'the difference between homosexualism [sic] and infertility' really is curability? Do gay men the world over dream of one day taking a pill that will rid them of their bottom love, suddenly looking at Liza and Shirley in a red-blooded, manly way?<BR/><BR/>What is a human right and as such should be enshrined as such in codified law is difficult, particularly taking into account access to biotechnological developments such as the lesbians having IVF scenario you describe. For one, straight couples don't have a right to IVF, they have to pay. Assuming capitalism, we ensure that if something is possible, the right amount of money can secure it - from owning a property to travelling into space. Based on that, however, the concept of 'inherent' rights isn't something I think could be extended beyond the big ones, such as right of movement through public spaces, to IVF: for straight or gay couples. Don't presume to know what LGBT activists would support, cos I've never heard a homosexual expressing a wish that everybody be thus. <BR/>Also, taxing everybody to pay for the upkeep of the nations youth regardless of whether the taxpayers in question are straight, gay, infertile or proud parents of 12 - this is an interesting idea you posit, tell us more; perhaps we could even pay for their schooling and basic healthcare?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-43438948458335721722007-05-21T01:35:00.000+02:002007-05-21T01:35:00.000+02:00@opamp: "So maybe we should write in the constitut...@opamp: "So maybe we should write in the constitution that having children via artificial insemination is an inherent right of lesbians. And since it is an inherent right, it should be financed by the state. But how do we get the money for this? Oh, I know, tax everyone!"<BR/><BR/>can you base this on past precedent??<BR/><BR/>because that seems kind of ridiculous to me... and probably everyone else as wellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-3304728203217010862007-05-20T23:36:00.000+02:002007-05-20T23:36:00.000+02:00In some and indeed many cases, there is NO possibi...In some and indeed many cases, there is NO possibility of any treatment being developed in the near or distant future or ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-74915957616514031482007-05-20T22:54:00.000+02:002007-05-20T22:54:00.000+02:00"there is no reason to a priori deny the right to ..."there is no reason to a priori deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples ... there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future."<BR/><BR/>If you tortured your logic any more, it would report you for violating the Geneva conventions.<BR/><BR/>You're starting at your conclusion (gender status quo) and working backwards to justify it, not impressive at all.michael farrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232229721381140090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-61815708514642408762007-05-20T22:15:00.000+02:002007-05-20T22:15:00.000+02:00Not to mention that your idea of a mandatory ferti...Not to mention that your idea of a mandatory fertility testing is completely impractical; introducing such requirement would only create an additional source of income (i.e. bribes) for doctors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-25955575999678907812007-05-20T22:06:00.000+02:002007-05-20T22:06:00.000+02:00The difference between homosexualism and infertili...The difference between homosexualism and infertility is that the latter is (at least sometimes) curable. Therefore there is no reason to <I>a priori</I> deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples. This holds true even with presently incurable cases, because there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-62561212333106365942007-05-20T18:45:00.000+02:002007-05-20T18:45:00.000+02:00opamp said... @harry:I am not married, thank you. ...<I>opamp said... <BR/>@harry:<BR/><BR/>I am not married, thank you. </I><BR/>You will be taking a fertility test and forcing any potential wife to take one before you get married, won't you? Please do confirm that you would not marry somebody who is unable to have children and that you will never marry if you are unable to have children.<BR/><BR/><I>And many thanks for suggesting that I should personally hate people I don't agree with; I shall consider this as the position of the more enlightened.</I><BR/>Why do you bother with such pathetic lies? At least when you were lying about Holland allowing polygamous marriage people had to click on links I posted to check that you were lying. Now all people have to do is look a little above your post, read the post which you deliberately do not quote from and see that you are lying yet again. I made no comment at all about you hating people or how you should feel towards people who disagree with you or even about anybody who disagrees with you.<BR/><BR/>Now, please post to Beatroot explaining why he personally should not be permitted (in your opinion) to marry his partner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com