The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: DixieBelle on March 26, 2008, 09:05:09 AM
-
Thomas Beatie, who used to be a woman, appeared in the most recent issue of The Advocate, a magazine for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender readers, Portland, Ore., television station KPTV reported.
Beatie wrote the article, which includes a picture of him while he was 22 weeks pregnant. According to the story, he went through a sex change, but decided only to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy.
Beatie was able to keep the reproductive organs he was born with. The article said he stopped getting the injections and was able to get pregnant.
Beatie, who lives in Bend, wrote he was once pregnant with triplets, but the pregnancy was life-threatening and he lost the fetuses. Now, Beatie said he and his wife, Nancy, are expecting a little girl in July.
In the article, Beatie described some of the challenges he and his wife have faced -- they said doctors won't treat them. The couple met 10 years ago and Nancy is not able to have children.
He wrote in The Advocate that their situation "sparks legal, political and social unknowns."
The couple were out of town Monday and unable to speak with the station.
http://www.kptv.com/health/15702121/detail.html
-
I like how individuals like this label themselves what they really are not...a few shots of testosterone and mutilation of ones breasts or even sexual organs does not make them a male or female. If a DNA test were performed on this individual, 'he' would still be a 'she' genetically. that is hardwired. This is not a man who is pregnant. This is a partially mutilated female who is pregnant. My greatest concern is for the infant who may be exposed to wildly abnormal hormonal fluctuations due to the use of testosterone injections for so long.
-
Oh! It's a "man". ::) I was going to say...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/woncothesane/hellfrozen.jpg)
-
Yes, it's no more a man than I am. And I wonder how she got pregnant with all of those hormone shots? That really messes up what mother nature so wonderfully made.....
-
forget the gender bending/nomenclature problem . . . . the tragedy is how forked up that poor kid's life is going to be.
-
This goes back to the pet peeve thread, but It pisses me off when I hear, "God made a mistake, I'm just making my outside match what I am on the inside."
Hey, asshole, how about making the inside match the outside. Never once do you hear that mentioned. It's all about the shock and attention.
-
This goes back to the pet peeve thread, but It pisses me off when I hear, "God made a mistake, I'm just making my outside match what I am on the inside."
Hey, asshole, how about making the inside match the outside. Never once do you hear that mentioned. It's all about the shock and attention.
That's because they fought so hard to have their illness de-classified as a mental condition.
GLBT's - Agenda driven since the 60's.
-
That is such bullshit. :bs2flag: Don't mess with how God made you.
-
That is such bullshit. :bs2flag: Don't mess with how God made you.
...and God doesn't make mistakes...we do.
-
This goes back to the pet peeve thread, but It pisses me off when I hear, "God made a mistake, I'm just making my outside match what I am on the inside."
Hey, *******, how about making the inside match the outside. Never once do you hear that mentioned. It's all about the shock and attention.
That's because they fought so hard to have their illness de-classified as a mental condition.
GLBT's - Agenda driven since the 60's.
I was watching a show about this on TLC or Discovery, I can't remember. This dyke decicded she should be a man, so she goes and has a sex change. Then once she was a "man", she decides to be a gay man. People like that, just need to go ahead give Smith and Wesson a blow job.
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
-
I just put a bell on my dogs collar. Now he's a cat!
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. :o
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
They want both and if you don't, you are a bigot. :whatever:
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. :o
DING DING DING!!!!
They have contorted the meaning of the word "tolerance".
I'm going to cut and paste some things I've collected over the years because they are so relevant -
America is at a crossroads; we can choose to respect the rights of others without agreeing with them. This also means that sometimes we will have to stand up for what is right when the acts of others are harmful.
But what does it mean to be "tolerant" or "intolerant?" In the past, tolerance meant that other people have a right to their opinion, and the right to express themselves, and that even though we may disagree with their opinions, that we can tolerate their view and live in peace, with the understanding that all people are working toward truth. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean something radically different, that tolerance should be never saying that someone else is wrong. All value judgments are viewed as intolerant, except of course, the value judgment that says "value judgments are wrong." Rather than tolerating other people's opinions (or perhaps, learning from them), many people have come to believe that "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and hence not making value judgments, is the basis for tolerance.
We now believe the irony that intolerance itself should not be tolerated. As S.D. Gaede notes, "If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic." The irony of the dilemma is that people who express the most outrage toward intolerance, in this new definition, are themselves intolerant. When they call for tolerance, the effect is greater intolerance.
In an intolerant world, rational dialogue gives way to argument by insult. As Greg Koukl notes, "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult-'you intolerant bigot'-than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance." When thoughtful principled arguments can be refuted by insults or speculation about hidden motives (a hermeneutic of suspicion), rational discourse breaks down. True Tolerance is the next victim, as the enlightened few seek to impose their own version of "tolerance" on the "intolerant."
-
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
You know what? **** that! I hate EVERYONE equally
-
This goes back to the pet peeve thread, but It pisses me off when I hear, "God made a mistake, I'm just making my outside match what I am on the inside."
Hey, *******, how about making the inside match the outside. Never once do you hear that mentioned. It's all about the shock and attention.
That's because they fought so hard to have their illness de-classified as a mental condition.
GLBT's - Agenda driven since the 60's.
I was watching a show about this on TLC or Discovery, I can't remember. This dyke decicded she should be a man, so she goes and has a sex change. Then once she was a "man", she decides to be a gay man. People like that, just need to go ahead give Smith and Wesson a blow job.
While I see considerable disfunction there, I'm not going that far. I have one of those post op transexual folks in my family who is also now 'gay'. She's an imperfect human being to be sure, as we all are. I think she even has regrets about how her life has gone. I would greatly mourn her loss if she thought the answer was a "Smith and Wesson blow job".
-
im sure someone has already said this, but think about what all the drugs in his system could do to that growing child?
that is a terrible risk, no matter how badly he wants a child..
i cannot believe i just said that.. :thatsright:
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. :o
DING DING DING!!!!
They have contorted the meaning of the word "tolerance".
I'm going to cut and paste some things I've collected over the years because they are so relevant -
America is at a crossroads; we can choose to respect the rights of others without agreeing with them. This also means that sometimes we will have to stand up for what is right when the acts of others are harmful.
But what does it mean to be "tolerant" or "intolerant?" In the past, tolerance meant that other people have a right to their opinion, and the right to express themselves, and that even though we may disagree with their opinions, that we can tolerate their view and live in peace, with the understanding that all people are working toward truth. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean something radically different, that tolerance should be never saying that someone else is wrong. All value judgments are viewed as intolerant, except of course, the value judgment that says "value judgments are wrong." Rather than tolerating other people's opinions (or perhaps, learning from them), many people have come to believe that "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and hence not making value judgments, is the basis for tolerance.
We now believe the irony that intolerance itself should not be tolerated. As S.D. Gaede notes, "If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic." The irony of the dilemma is that people who express the most outrage toward intolerance, in this new definition, are themselves intolerant. When they call for tolerance, the effect is greater intolerance.
In an intolerant world, rational dialogue gives way to argument by insult. As Greg Koukl notes, "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult-'you intolerant bigot'-than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance." When thoughtful principled arguments can be refuted by insults or speculation about hidden motives (a hermeneutic of suspicion), rational discourse breaks down. True Tolerance is the next victim, as the enlightened few seek to impose their own version of "tolerance" on the "intolerant."
*cuts, pastes, and saves that in MS Word for later reference* :)
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. :o
DING DING DING!!!!
They have contorted the meaning of the word "tolerance".
I'm going to cut and paste some things I've collected over the years because they are so relevant -
America is at a crossroads; we can choose to respect the rights of others without agreeing with them. This also means that sometimes we will have to stand up for what is right when the acts of others are harmful.
But what does it mean to be "tolerant" or "intolerant?" In the past, tolerance meant that other people have a right to their opinion, and the right to express themselves, and that even though we may disagree with their opinions, that we can tolerate their view and live in peace, with the understanding that all people are working toward truth. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean something radically different, that tolerance should be never saying that someone else is wrong. All value judgments are viewed as intolerant, except of course, the value judgment that says "value judgments are wrong." Rather than tolerating other people's opinions (or perhaps, learning from them), many people have come to believe that "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and hence not making value judgments, is the basis for tolerance.
We now believe the irony that intolerance itself should not be tolerated. As S.D. Gaede notes, "If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic." The irony of the dilemma is that people who express the most outrage toward intolerance, in this new definition, are themselves intolerant. When they call for tolerance, the effect is greater intolerance.
In an intolerant world, rational dialogue gives way to argument by insult. As Greg Koukl notes, "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult-'you intolerant bigot'-than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance." When thoughtful principled arguments can be refuted by insults or speculation about hidden motives (a hermeneutic of suspicion), rational discourse breaks down. True Tolerance is the next victim, as the enlightened few seek to impose their own version of "tolerance" on the "intolerant."
*cuts, pastes, and saves that in MS Word for later reference* :)
Me too.
-
Thanks ya'll. I totally stole it but can't remember where. I have a file on my computer where I cut and paste little gems like that.
-
I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. :o
DING DING DING!!!!
They have contorted the meaning of the word "tolerance".
I'm going to cut and paste some things I've collected over the years because they are so relevant -
America is at a crossroads; we can choose to respect the rights of others without agreeing with them. This also means that sometimes we will have to stand up for what is right when the acts of others are harmful.
But what does it mean to be "tolerant" or "intolerant?" In the past, tolerance meant that other people have a right to their opinion, and the right to express themselves, and that even though we may disagree with their opinions, that we can tolerate their view and live in peace, with the understanding that all people are working toward truth. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean something radically different, that tolerance should be never saying that someone else is wrong. All value judgments are viewed as intolerant, except of course, the value judgment that says "value judgments are wrong." Rather than tolerating other people's opinions (or perhaps, learning from them), many people have come to believe that "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and hence not making value judgments, is the basis for tolerance.
We now believe the irony that intolerance itself should not be tolerated. As S.D. Gaede notes, "If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic." The irony of the dilemma is that people who express the most outrage toward intolerance, in this new definition, are themselves intolerant. When they call for tolerance, the effect is greater intolerance.
In an intolerant world, rational dialogue gives way to argument by insult. As Greg Koukl notes, "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult-'you intolerant bigot'-than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance." When thoughtful principled arguments can be refuted by insults or speculation about hidden motives (a hermeneutic of suspicion), rational discourse breaks down. True Tolerance is the next victim, as the enlightened few seek to impose their own version of "tolerance" on the "intolerant."
*cuts, pastes, and saves that in MS Word for later reference* :)
Me too.
Me three.
-
I like how individuals like this label themselves what they really are not...a few shots of testosterone and mutilation of ones breasts or even sexual organs does not make them a male or female. If a DNA test were performed on this individual, 'he' would still be a 'she' genetically. that is hardwired. This is not a man who is pregnant. This is a partially mutilated female who is pregnant. My greatest concern is for the infant who may be exposed to wildly abnormal hormonal fluctuations due to the use of testosterone injections for so long.
Exactly.
-
Thanks ya'll. I totally stole it but can't remember where. I have a file on my computer where I cut and paste little gems like that.
A search brings up this webpage... http://www.michaelh.com/tolerance.shtml
Looks interesting. :-)