Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Coyote]

Artificial insemination.

That would open the door to lesbian couples.

 

[numinus]

You can put them in tea for sweetening.


It's not a true/false question, sorry. You are once again trying to frame the discussion with a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question. Try again.



Actually, I think that it is impertinence for you to claim that your contributions to our interchange rise to the level of "debate". Demanding that your religious standards--printed in bolded capitals over and over again--be applied universally to all people for all time is not debate, at best it's shrill diatribe.

The udhr is a religious standard????

If it were, then it wouldn't be UNIVERSAL, know, would it?

 

[numinus]

Did you ever try to get sperm for artificial insemination without a male participating?

Why would I? I have an ample supply of my own.

It's self-serving advertisement and an attempt to abrogate the God-given free-will of others.

Can the pope help it if the media wishes to hear what he has to say?

No, no, I criticize it first and THEN I ignore it. I've read more Catholic dogma than you've read science about transsexuals, but you don't hesitate to criticize us. Why is that, Nums? There's no scripture to support your attacks.

prej·u·dice /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prej-uh-dis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.

–noun

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object) 6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

I don't know, Nums, you've posted a lot of stuff that calls for discrimination, so either you're wishing for that or you've been lying to us on this site for a long time. Or--I suppose--it could be that you don't have a clue what you wish or what you are writing.

I do not discriminate. I base my opinions on facts and logic.

I thought that "Eh?" was your family motto.

And when you confine YOUR religion to YOUR behavior and stop trying to make everybody else march in lockstep with you, then I will stop talking about baseless attacks on us.

But I have confined my religion to my own life. The udhr is not religious.

Then tell me why you are attacking me and other transsexuals. You've had quite a bit to say to me on the subject--some of it deliberately offensive--why?

I am not attacking transexuals. I admitted I know very little about transexuals, didn't I?

To say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and marriage is the union between a man and a woman IS NOT an attack on your particular sexual preference.

 

[numinus]

False.

Sexual attraction can be towards:

opposite sex

same sex

children (who have no sexual charecteristics prior to puberty)



Pedophiles typicaly have no attraction to or ability to create normal relationships with other adults.

Fact.

Boys get molested more often by HOMOSEXUAL pedophile males than pedophile females.

In fact, I have yet to hear of a pedophile female -- their natural maternal instinct being a hindrance, I suppose. I haven't googled any statistics but I bet they would be considerably fewer than their male counterparts.

 

[numinus]

That would open the door to lesbian couples.

Perhaps.

The point is, motherhood is exclusive to the female gender. Personally, I don't like it, but facts and logic are indisputable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The udhr is a religious standard????

If it were, then it wouldn't be UNIVERSAL, know, would it?

So far you are the only one who's made reference to the UDHR as being religious. I referred to your reliance on the Pope's encyclical and you advocation of Catholic dogma.

Your reinterpretation of the UDHR is not supported by the actual document.

You said, "I have very little to say about things I don't understand, except to say that I don't understand." in post #87. But you've had quite a bit to say about transsexuals and me in particular, some of it deliberately abusive. Why? What is your source for the vitriol you spout? It isn't in the UDHR and it's not in the Bible. This is really the only question in our discussion right now, Nums, you've said things that have no apparent basis, you've made personal attacks on me that are not supported by your Holy Book, so why don't you explain this to us?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

prej·u·dice /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prej-uh-dis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.

–noun

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object) 6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

I like it, Nums, with this definition in mind why have you attacked me and transsexuals in general? I, at least, have read the Pope's encyclical. Would you like me to post it and comment on it line by line?

I do not discriminate. I base my opinions on facts and logic.

Pretending to discriminate on the basis of logic and reason is still discrimination. And so far you've given no rational reason for your discrimination against gay or transpeople.

But I have confined my religion to my own life. The udhr is not religious.

The Pope's encyclical is religious, so is your Catholic dogma. The UDHR doesn't require discrimination against homosexuals or transsexuals. If you're keeping your religion in your own life then why attack me for being a transsexual?

I am not attacking transexuals. I admitted I know very little about transexuals, didn't I?

To say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and marriage is the union between a man and a woman IS NOT an attack on your particular sexual preference.

You just did it again, you know so little about the subject that you can't seem to write a correct sentence about us. Why the hard-on for trannies, Nums? Why write anything about us at if you are unwilling to learn anything?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Fact.

Boys get molested more often by HOMOSEXUAL pedophile males than pedophile females.

In fact, I have yet to hear of a pedophile female -- their natural maternal instinct being a hindrance, I suppose. I haven't googled any statistics but I bet they would be considerably fewer than their male counterparts.

Do you really think that posting your unsupported opinions in all CAPITALS gives you added credibility? There are indeed femals pedophiles, but if you did a bit of research you would discover that all sex-related crimes occur less in the female of the specie because we are not afflicted by the incessant male sex drive.

Bigots bash away at gay men for promiscuity, sex crimes, and STD's, but they never talk about the lesbian community because they have less of those things than any other group. The simpleminded argument that AIDS is God's punishment on homosexuals falls woefully flat when you discover that the lesbian community has less AIDS than heterosexuals.

Here is another example of you talking without knowing what you're talking about. You call transsexuality a "sexual preference" when it isn't and you continue to deny that pedophillia is a sexual preference when it is. You are so anxious to support your opinions that you are posting them in CAPITALS and claiming they are facts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps.

The point is, motherhood is exclusive to the female gender. Personally, I don't like it, but facts and logic are indisputable.

Even here your indisputable "facts and logic" are neither. Research has shown that an artificially-induced ectopic pregnancy could allow a man to become pregnant and bear a child by C-section. This is of course assuming that in your post you meant "child-bearing" as the definition of "motherhood" since you rarely define words--thus allowing you to dance around the various meanings when I catch you up posting another fallacy.

 

[numinus]

So far you are the only one who's made reference to the UDHR as being religious. I referred to your reliance on the Pope's encyclical and you advocation of Catholic dogma.

Your reinterpretation of the UDHR is not supported by the actual document.

You said, "I have very little to say about things I don't understand, except to say that I don't understand." in post #87. But you've had quite a bit to say about transsexuals and me in particular, some of it deliberately abusive. Why? What is your source for the vitriol you spout? It isn't in the UDHR and it's not in the Bible. This is really the only question in our discussion right now, Nums, you've said things that have no apparent basis, you've made personal attacks on me that are not supported by your Holy Book, so why don't you explain this to us?

Nope.

YOU are the only one refering to the udhr as religious. I do not fashion arguments based solely on religious grounds.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nope.

YOU are the only one refering to the udhr as religious. I do not fashion arguments based solely on religious grounds.

Lacking the courage of your convictions makes it difficult for you to present a cogent philosophy. Saying something and then pretending that you didn't is just another sign of a lack of convictional courage.

 

[numinus]

I like it, Nums, with this definition in mind why have you attacked me and transsexuals in general? I, at least, have read the Pope's encyclical. Would you like me to post it and comment on it line by line?

I have not attacked transexuals in general. That is all in your imagination -- a vain appeal to emotions.

Pretending to discriminate on the basis of logic and reason is still discrimination. And so far you've given no rational reason for your discrimination against gay or transpeople.

Sigh

'To discriminate on the basis of logic and reason' IS A CONTRADICTION.

When an action is based on logic and reason, IT IS NO LONGER DISCRIMINATORY.

Duh?

The Pope's encyclical is religious, so is your Catholic dogma. The UDHR doesn't require discrimination against homosexuals or transsexuals. If you're keeping your religion in your own life then why attack me for being a transsexual?

Humanae vitae is CONGRUENT to the udhr in PRINCIPLE.

You just did it again, you know so little about the subject that you can't seem to write a correct sentence about us. Why the hard-on for trannies, Nums? Why write anything about us at if you are unwilling to learn anything?

Did you just drop 20 points from your iq?

 

[numinus]

This is of course assuming that in your post you meant "child-bearing" as the definition of "motherhood" since you rarely define words--thus allowing you to dance around the various meanings when I catch you up posting another fallacy.

Using your definition -- a petri dish is a mother.

Hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Lacking the courage of your convictions makes it difficult for you to present a cogent philosophy. Saying something and then pretending that you didn't is just another sign of a lack of convictional courage.

The word you are looking for is 'folly', not courage.

There is no need to pretend since my posts are there for any reasonable individual's perusal.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have not attacked transexuals in general. That is all in your imagination -- a vain appeal to emotions.

Denying your own posts is a sign of a lack of courage of your convictions.

Sigh

'To discriminate on the basis of logic and reason' IS A CONTRADICTION.

When an action is based on logic and reason, IT IS NO LONGER DISCRIMINATORY.

Duh?

A melodramtic sigh, CAPITALS bolded and underlined wow! That must be like the Word of God, right, Nums? And a quote by Homer Simpson to round it out.

Humanae vitae is CONGRUENT to the udhr in PRINCIPLE.

Oh yeah, except for maybe the parts about molesting children. No-wait, the Pope forgot to put in that part didn't he? No problem, the priests know anyway--and after last year's $526 million in reparations I guess we all know too, don't we?

Did you just drop 20 points from your iq?

You're the one who posted that being transsexual was "sexual preference", not me.