Wonder why she lost her health insurance in 2012? What about COBRA? If she let it go on her own, then why should Wal-Mart be responsible? Then there is the pre-existing conditions exclusion up until Obamacare erased it.
I’m with you Jack. Married since 2004, where was the health insurance all those years? Could she have obtained coverage prior to her illness? Something is wrong with this picture.
Here we go – the next cottage industry for the bar assocation has begun at the expense of private employers even though the company followed the law …. I bet this will help employ more people and increase wages for all.
Queers, homos, whatever you want to call them, are the most militant, vindictive group in existence. They will probably tie up our court system for years cramming their deviant lifestyle down our throats.
Perplexed, now that they have the Supreme Court on their side, they will stop at nothing to force their lifestyle on us. They don’t mind trying to shut down businesses that refuse to accommodate them due to religious beliefs or try to force pastors to marry them. I was glad to see that little pizzeria in Indiana get re-opened when the good citizens raised $800,000 online for them, but that can’t be done in all cases.
Just like those negroes forced their blackness on you, right Agent? By the way, no one is saying you have to go gay. It’s not a lifestyle they are trying to force upon you. It’s natural and they are just trying to live with it in a society that has discriminated against them for too long. Boom, mic drop!
Homosexuality is not natural. One of the main drivers for behavior is to increase an individuals chances for passing on their genes. Obviously, this cannot happen in a homosexual relationship.
“Homosexuality is not natural” That’s just, like, your opinion, man
July 16, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Captain Planet says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57
41
Get your facts straight…
Is “straight” pun intended? Also, it is natural, it happens in all the sexually active animals in the natural animal kingdom. And that, my friend, is a fact. Albeit, not a straight one.
July 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41
29
Rosenblatt/Planet –
It is not “natural”. By definition, “natural” means existing in or formed by nature. The exiting in DOES NOT mean by their sheer existence. If that were true, every other circumstance that exists would be considered natural. Obviously, homosexuality cannot be formed by nature because homosexuals cannot naturally procreate.
Planet…you are living on another planet if you think ALL sexually active animals have homosexual behavior. There are very few that have been documented.
I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended.
July 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45
17
IM, you said “I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended.”
I will subscribe to your theory of “if “a” happens in nature significantly more often than “b” does, then “a” is a natural tendency.” I’ll give you that. But here’s the rub…
It would appear homosexuality in mammals is more frequent than monogamy in mammals; hence, by your theory, homosexuality is naturally intended and monogamy is not.
No, it is not just my opinion, it is science. The fact that behaviors are chosen to help distribute an individuals genes is a fact taught in biology courses.
It does not happen in all sexually active animals in the animal kingdom. That is an incorrect statement. I would argue that in the cases where homosexuality has been observed, there are usually other factors affecting the individuals that cause them to behave contrary to their natural tendencies.
Not our opinion Rosenblatt. If you want to do some research on what the Bible has to say about Homosexuality or Marriage try the following:
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:26-27
1st Corinthians 6:9
1st Corinthians 7:2-16
Ephesians 5: 23-33
Matthew 19: 4-6
You will probably say you are Jewish and disregard the Bible, but perhaps some of your non Jewish buddies will look these up. It is clearly an abomination and morally wrong.
July 17, 2015 at 8:03 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73
24
We were talking about homosexuality and monogamous relationships as it occurs in the animal kingdom, not what a higher power may think of those acts. It’s pointless reviewing those sections of the bible since we’re not talking about religion right now. Please try to stay on topic.
Those were some interesting articles you presented. I assume you do not believe everything you read on the internet. You seem too intelligent to do that.
First, there are millions of species on earth, not 5000.
Second, the 1500 species that are purported to practice homosexuality is a ficticious number and cannot be verified by any other source. I researched the person quoted in the article and he is a zoologist at the University of Norway. The exhibit he was promoting (in 2008) contained information from primarily two people, only one of which supposedly witnessed about 300 species performing these acts.
Third, if this was true, don’t you think the LGBT community and the liberal media would be shoving it down our throats to prove it is “natural”.
Fourth, even if it was as prevalent as depicted, it is still a small percentage of all the species that “sometimes” practices homosexuality.
I might be wrong that there are more monogamous species than species that engage in homosexuality, but I am not wrong that homosexuality is “natural” throughout all creation. If it was, this would be routinely observed among at least half of all species routinely.
Finally, if you read the article, the zoologist quoted also mentioned dwarf chimpanzees that routinely engaged in pedophilia and incest. It was a natural part of the family unit. I guess since you think it is natural in the animal kingdom, it should be natural for humans, too.
July 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
0
“I assume you do not believe everything you read on the internet.” You assume correctly….
“First, there are millions of species on earth, not 5000.” Agreed. That 5,000 referenced the number of species of mammals, not all species.
“Second….” This point may very well be true. If you’re correct, then I am willing to concede the study is not as reliable as I initially believed it to be.
“Third…” I’m not going speak for what people in the LGBT community would or wouldn’t do with this information if it were true.
“Finally…dwarf chimpanzees that routinely engaged in pedophilia and incest….It was a natural part of the family unit. I guess since you think it is natural in the animal kingdom, it should be natural for humans, too.”
No sir, you guess wrong. As we’ve been talking about this theory of yours, I believe it can best be summed up as: “if “a” happens in nature ***significantly more often*** than “b” does, then “a” is a natural tendency.”
The pedophile part of your reply does not meet this criteria: since it’s only one species, it cannot be deduced that it is a natural tendency since there’s no indication pedophilia occurs ***significantly more often*** than not.
I appreciate the way you approach these discussions and will be more than happy to keep talking – just not about the pedophilia ending you threw on there. I just can’t get behind that (no pun intended!)
You said, “it cannot be deduced that it is a natural tendency since there’s no indication pedophilia occurs ***significantly more often*** than not.”
I agree. Therefore, I cannot deduce that homosexuality is a natural tendency in nature, since there is no indication that homosexuality occurs ***significantly more often*** than not.
By your own deduction, heterosexuality occurs significantly more often in nature than homosexuality does. That is what is natural for procreation purposes. If it is done for sexual pleasure, it is a choice.
Just because certain sexual behaviors occur in nature, it does not make them natural. Some could possibly argue that incest occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural for humans to particpate in that activity.
I’m curious if incest occurs more often than homosexuality in nature because that would really blow the justification. (no pun intended)
I am sorry I offended you Rosenblatt. I now remember that you think a human being has no soul and is much like a dolphin. No rules, no right or wrong with human behavior in your book. Disregard the teachings of the bible at your own peril.
July 17, 2015 at 9:59 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49
28
I have no idea where you get your theories from, but you’re wrong again, Agent. (1) you did not offend me and (2) while you’re right I don’t believe in a soul, I certainly believe that humans should abide by rules that supports exhibiting “right” behavior.
July 17, 2015 at 10:48 am
Get your facts straight... says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
0
I’m curious as to how you define “right” behavior?
July 17, 2015 at 11:03 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
To me, “right” behavior usually and generally can be defined as a combination of ethical and moral decisions/actions/etc.
July 17, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Get your facts straight... says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
0
Ok, but what is your compass for determining what is ethical or moral?
July 17, 2015 at 12:49 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60
1
Seriously? You want me to explain how to determine if something is ethical or moral? On an insurance blog? In the comments section? Where people already have major issues comprehending basic posts? Why?!?
Here are just SOME of the questions one should ask of themselves to determine if something is ethical and/or moral:
Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? Which option treats people equally or proportionately? Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? What are the potential short & long term consequences of this action or decision? Who will benefit & who will suffer and to what extent? Is it legal? Are there legal consequences? Does it “feel” right? Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome and if there are concerns, are some more important than others and why?
There are MANY MANY questions one can ask to determine if something is ethical and/or moral. These are just some examples. Does this answer your question, GYFS? Why did you ask me in the first place?
July 17, 2015 at 2:51 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
29
30
Agent,
Don’t debate with Rosenblatt on religion. Atheists have to be shown by life and by God.
I would however argue about humanity…In this case with abortion. For homosexual behavior, it isn’t worth the debate as to what is natural.
July 17, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25
1
bob – I am intentionally avoiding talking about religion here. Agent can post about religion all he wants on this thread and I will continue to not engage him on that topic.
Also, shouldn’t everyone be able to talk about whatever they want with whomever they want and not just what you tell them is okay to discuss?
July 17, 2015 at 3:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt,
For someone who is not engaging, you certainly seem engaged.
Tell me, do you just like to be contrary to everything? Even when I tell agent a religious debate isn’t worth it when you are more or less saying the same thing?
I was more or less saying keep it out of the debate and talk to you on topic. You were clearly not interested in a religious debate.
July 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
More to the point Rosenblatt,
“Also, shouldn’t everyone be able to talk about whatever they want with whomever they want and not just what you tell them is okay to discuss?”
If you don’t see this as extremely condescending and rude, I don’t know what to tell you.
This is a childish phrase whether you want to admit it or not.
I told him not to take a path that would lead to you talking down to him and him to you.
You are free to do what you want. And I’m free to say it probably wasn’t a good idea to talk in that way.
July 17, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“For someone who is not engaging, you certainly seem engaged.”
I said I am not engaging Agent in RELIGION talk, not conversation entirely!
July 17, 2015 at 4:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Well then, it would seem my comment was very similar to what you want to occur. To not engage in religious talk.
And then you tell me not to tell Agent how to talk.
You sound awfully agitated today.
July 17, 2015 at 4:44 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Rosenblatt,
You said “Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? What are the potential short & long term consequences of this action or decision? Who will benefit & who will suffer and to what extent? Is it legal? Are there legal consequences? Does it “feel” right? Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome and if there are concerns, are some more important than others and why?
Many of these questions are based on opinion and not truth or any solid foundation. What “feels good” to one person may not feel good to another.
Using many of your criteria, if the consensus thinks it’s okay for pedophilia, than we should allow it. It becomes a matter of opinion, not morality, because there is no moral base.
I’ve said it before, it is a slippery slope that society continues to slide down.
The majority of the population in 1950 did not think it was acceptable to kill babies via abortion. Somehow, someone convinced the courts that it was the womans right to end a pregnancy if she wanted to under certain specific circumstances. Now it is abortion on demand and “science” wants to justify more for “research” purposes. Is someone getting damaged by this decision? What is at stake? Is there really more “good” from this than the “harm” it causes?
I agree that there are MANY MANY questions that can be asked about whether something is ethical and/or moral. However, someone’s opinion, should NEVER be asked because morality is different for everyone.
Morals and ethics should be compared to a standard. Like it or not, God has set the standard for both. Society just doesn’t like God’s standard, in their opinion.
July 20, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Get your facts straight... says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Rosenblatt,
The reason I asked is I didn’t want to assume how you made your choices. As Integrity has pointed out though, the majority of your choices are based on personal opinions. You do take into consideration whether something is legal or not, but even that answer will deviate depending on location.
The issues I have with this way of deciding is that there is no concrete way to say what is right or wrong. It all depends on the individual.
July 20, 2015 at 5:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I wasn’t going to direct this, but I will in order to direct something else at the same time.
You said that homosexuality occurs in nature so it must be good.
By the same account I can call violence, murder, and alcoholism good because it happens by nature.
I’m not saying gay behavior is the same. In fact, if you thought for a moment you would say I’m saying it is entirely not the same. Not all things that occur in nature are the same, and not all things are good or normal just because they occur.
On to your commentary about doing a Boom mic drop in comparing racism to persecution against gays who have discriminated against gays for too long:
In Greece it was not considered bad to be gay and was widely accepted. So length of time is not so much an issue as the location and culture. If we are talking the U.S. culture, there is very minimal discrimination against gays especially compared to what occurred to blacks. Segregation, lynching, tar and feathering, and slavery to name a few.
Gays are not discriminated against in this day and age. When one looks into why the state got involved in marriage it was mostly due to children birthing and making parents obligated to take care of children. It wasn’t about “love”. Ergo the horrible divorce rates. Your issue is you are polarized. Every issue to you is about discrimination.
When it comes to abortion you say it’s about discrimination against the woman.
When it’s about protecting the baby to the people who are against it. They are not “against” women. They are “for” children.
That is just one example.
You don’t have things figured out. It’s sad to watch you go through it so obstinately thinking you’re a good person when you are not.
Captain, they aren’t just trying to live with it…they are cramming it down everyone’s throats. If you don’t agree with their lifestyle and don’t want to participate they are going to make sure you suffer. Black people didn’t do that.
How about we simply start with not calling them “Queers and homos?” Whether we agree with their lifestyle, choice(s), sexual orientation, etc… can we acknowledge that they are people just like us? Perhaps their agenda wouldn’t be as aggressive if we treated them like people.
Isn’t everyone of the people in the LGBT community a homosexual and considered queer? I’m not advocating using disparaging terms but at least perplexed didn’t call them f****ts. I don’t get offended if someone calls me a hetero.
I stand corrected. I should have left the T off of the LGBT.
July 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
10
8
In that case, I would agree to your theory if it’s amended to state that “in the LGB community, all members are either homosexual or bisexual”
That said, the OP wrote “Queers, homos, whatever you want to call them, are the most militant, vindictive group in existence” and in THAT context with those words at the end of the post, I think calling them queers and homos was supposed to be derogatory and insulting
July 16, 2015 at 3:16 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
0
Additional thought on this…
So a male transexual dressing like a woman and having sex with a woman is not a lesbian. Unless, it is after a sex change operation. If that same person has sex with a man prior to the operation, he is a gay transexual, but becomes heterosexual after the operation.
Was this ever an episode on Seinfeld?
July 16, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63
46
Rosenblatt, we all know about Kaitlyn Jenner who is being hailed as so “courageous”. He/she traded in her Wheaties for Fruit Loops.
July 16, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
1
Nobody was talking about her, Agent. I don’t know what your intent was with your last post.
July 17, 2015 at 10:50 am
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
82
62
Hey Rosenblatt, since you believe that humans should abide by rules of “right” behavior, but do not believe in the bible’s rules for right behavior, where did you get your rules to believe in? Apparently, you don’t think it is against the rules of right behavior to support Homosexuals practicing deviant behavior. Yes, it is morally wrong and yes it is a choice.
Unreal Agent. I never said I don’t believe in the bible’s rules. I ***don’t believe in every*** rule set out in those books, but I ***definitely believe in a lot*** of those rules. Big difference.
To answer you: my rules of “right” behavior come from parts of the bible plus what society believes is ethical behavior/actions/etc. plus what I feel is right based on my moral compass.
“Yes, it is morally wrong and yes it is a choice.” Like I said before channeling The Dude — that’s just, like, your opinion, man. It may be morally wrong to you, but it’s morally acceptable to an ever increasing number of people in this country.
How would you know about the Bibles rules Rosenblatt since you haven’t read the passages I gave you and dismissed them. You stated that an ever increasing number of people are “tolerant” or subscribe to deviant behavior and you would be right about that, but it is just a sign of how morally corrupt this country has become. Hollywood, the left wing media and many of our politicians including our Corruptor in Chief are responsible for influencing young minds into believing that if it feels good, do it.
July 17, 2015 at 11:49 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40
29
I dismissed checking out your bible sections because nobody was talking about religion — going down that path is off-topic since we were focusing on homosexuality and monogamy in the animal kingdom, not what a higher power may think of those acts.
“How would you know about the Bibles rules Rosenblatt since you haven’t read the passages I gave you and dismissed them”
Easy – I have read significant parts of the bible before today.
July 17, 2015 at 3:09 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17
1
Bob, can you believe it that Rosenblatt thinks human beings have no soul and are about the same as dolphins? His Atheist views are now legion on this blog. What a sad existence that when the clock runs out on his life, he thinks it is just nothing more.
Bob, everyone needs a moral compass to be able to tell right from wrong. If it is not taught by parents from an early age or they don’t get it from teachers, where else is there to go for it? I happen to think the Bible is the richest source of information about how to live. It is quite apparent that Progressives really don’t know right from wrong with all their disastrous ideology that is so wrong for this country. I am afraid I cut them no slack for being stupid.
July 17, 2015 at 4:50 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As I have said many times I agree with you in many areas.
I agree they need to learn it from the Bible. But I don’t agree I can use religious quotes to get them to turn to the bible.
I feel sorry for those who have not had an awakening yet.
Every day is better than the last since I became Catholic again.
I hope the same for Rosenblatt and others some day. Even though they tick me off of course…
I suppose it helps me learn how much more growth I have to do that I have such issues with them.
July 17, 2015 at 4:57 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob – As humans, we have little patience for people that refuse to see and accept the truth. Fortunately, God is extremely patient, graceful and merciful. He pursues all of us and provides oppotunities to accept the truth.
Agent – There are a lot of “good people” that are atheists. Just like there are a lot of “christians” or other self described religious people that are bad.
In the end, one thing matters for both. Do they have someone that will advocate for them and forgive them of their sins? If they have accepted Jesus, and asked for forgiveness, they do. If not, then they will have to deal with the consequences.
It is not our job to judge, although it is getting increasingly harder to not do so.
July 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Whoa – wait a second Agent. I thought we’ve been getting along really well today! Did you really mean to say that I was a group of demons on this blog? Besides that definition, I have no idea what a “legion” is. Care to elaborate?
I think he meant legend. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Agent, but that is what I thought you meant.
July 15, 2015 at 5:08 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35
5
Well…that didn’t take long. I agree with glenbo that this will be the newest litigation issue. I guess we need to prepare for all of the new legal ads we will see on TV.
“Has your gay spouse been denied health insurance from your employer? Call Dewey, Cheatum and Howl at 800-LGBT Healthcare. After we win your case, you can look for new employment and we can represent you with a wrongful termination suit.”
Since when can someone sue someone else for breaking a law, when it wasn’t even a law yet?
Good one Integrity. Yes, the lawyers really love these cases. For a while, it was Employment Practices cases. Now, it has morphed into the gay issue and their rights. We have had Obamacare for 5 years now. Wasn’t it supposed to solve all the ills in the Healthcare industry?
Yes Integrity, why don’t we go back 20 years to solve all the perceived injustices suffered by gays? By the way, did you see the story about Planned Parenthood selling aborted late term babies body parts? They were caught on tape so it is hard to deny. This is against the law, by the way. I am sure they will skate on this and promise to stop doing it and then continue to do it. That is one nasty organization and they get taxpayer funding as well.
Your understanding of that Planned Parenthood story is wrong – they did not sell baby parts. They LEGALLY got REIMBURSED the cost of TRANSPORTING tissue to leading research centers. They did not buy nor sell baby parts.
The UNEDITED version of the video is clear on what they were doing – it’s the EDITED version Live Action released that makes it SEEM like they’re selling baby parts. They are not.
Simple yes or no question: did you view the unedited video?
“Yes Integrity, why don’t we go back 20 years to solve all the perceived injustices suffered by gays?” Your sarcasm is noted, but you realize we did go back and pay reparations to black people for slavery and Germany went back and paid reparations to Jewish families for the Holocaust? Those actions been done MANY times before.
July 16, 2015 at 11:21 am
Get your facts straight... says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61
11
Comparing homosexual “injustices” to the real injustices suffered by the slaves and Jewish peoples is ignorant at best. There is no comparison.
July 16, 2015 at 11:28 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67
48
It’s not ignorance – I was merely providing examples of when people have ‘gone back’ and tried to right the wrongs that were done. I was not trying to say what the LGBTA community has gone through is an exact parallel for what Jewish or black people have experienced.
July 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25
0
First, I want to admit that I have not heard this story or have seen any video.
That said, I have to question that they were LEGALLY reimbursed the cost of transporting tissue (pieces of a baby, let’s call it what it is, Rosenblatt. Don’t let the media desensitize what is really happening).
How were they reimbursed?? Did they get the federal mileage allowance? I doubt it. I guarantee there was significant money paid for that “tissue”.
July 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
19
10
I don’t know how they were reimbursed or if the cost was in line with Federal mileage allowances since I don’t have access to their medical documents or other financial statements.
That said – the video has them discussing “charges” limited to a range of $30 to $100. To me, that seems very reasonable for processing & shipping of hazardous materials. If they were talking about thousands of dollars in reimbursements per item, I’d be way more likely to believe there are illegal shenanigans happening.
July 16, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Alwasy Amazed says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24
1
IM! Love the 3 Stooges reference. Dewey, Cheatum and Howe! Good one. This country in going to hell in a hand basket. Caitlyn Jenner get hero status when our military heroes are deemed evil. Chris Kyle gets gunned down back in the USA by some psycho vet he was trying to help and the libs go crazy and boycott the movie. But some man who has been an man for over 60 years decides he want to be a woman and SHE (?) get hero status. Sorry, but his sex change is covered under the new healthcare laws so this does apply.
Hey Always, I don’t think the boycott of American Sniper went well for the libs since it set box office records. It was a great movie and Chris Kyle was a true American Hero. What a sad ending.
Rosenblatt, before you defend Planned Parenthood too much, let’s see where this investigation goes and what is revealed. They have lied about a lot of things like they are just providing women’s health services and we know they are the biggest abortion provider in the country. It is abhorent to think they are selling baby’s hearts, liver and other organs after late term abortions.
I agree we should not rush to judgement before making statements about their actions; however, you brought it up first, so we’re talking about it. By your own advice, maybe you shouldn’t jump to conclusions that they’re guilty too.
Can you PLEASE just tell me with a simple yes or no if you have watched the unedited video or not? If you have, okay. If you have not, you are in a much weaker position arguing they’re guilty than I am saying they’re innocent.
I saw the version O’Reilly put forth with the follow up discussion and the full version will be forthcoming. With the track record of Planned Parenthood and their cavalier attitude toward human life, I have a hard time believing any explanation they give. They only lie when they move their lips.
The clip you saw was 9 minutes out of a nearly 3-hour long video, and it was highly edited at that. I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage.
When they are talking about being sure not to harm the important organs that will be transported…
When a child feels pain in some areas as early as 8 weeks.
It doesn’t matter what the video says, or whether they are selling or donating body parts of someone they brutally murdered.
Then it would just be killing for the sake of science?
Agent is ticked from watching the clear parts where these people showed they are evil and wrong whether they were donating or not.
And you would rather focus on whether they were paid or not but not the child.
That is what is disgusting here. Not Agent’s getting irrational because he wants to protect children. Not agent not watching the whole video.
It is disgusting that you would try to call them innocent. It is disgusting you would be ok with what they do.
Abortion is murder. End of story.
July 17, 2015 at 3:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I might add…If you haven’t watched the nearly 3 hour clip, and rather just people who have cherry picked quotes that make the event look favorable for planned parenthood…You are just as guilty as agent as being assumptive.
July 17, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
4
“It doesn’t matter what the video says, or whether they are selling or donating body parts…..” AND “And you would rather focus on whether they were paid or not but not the child. That is what is disgusting here”
No, what’s disgusting is you chiming to post your nonsense.
FACT: Agent started this discussion saying, “By the way, did you see the story about Planned Parenthood selling aborted late term babies body parts?”
FACT: Selling body parts was the **specific item he brought up***, so that’s what we’ve been discussing.
FACT: If Agent REALLY wanted to discuss abortion instead, he should’ve said something about it. He didn’t.
FACT: All my replies have been on point with the initial and only concern he’s raised about this story.
Now please shut up and go away. Agent and I were getting along just fine and having a pleasant and civil discussion before you stuck your nose in here.
July 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
It is disgusting that I posted “nonsense” on what children feel during abortion?
You would rather focus on whether or not planned parent hood was paid for body parts they took from a living being, and not whether the living being felt pain or was alive?
That seems the debate to be had. Not nonsense, and my having it is certainly not disgusting.
Now you just turned the conversation sour, when I stated a comment about the seriousness of abortion and planned parenthood. That is not my making this conversation bad, it is you. You don’t get to blame me. Act like an adult.
Regarding getting along just fine:
“I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage”
This is not getting along just fine.
Regarding your other comment: I am free to talk about why Agent is so ticked off, as it flew over your head.
It’s less to do with the selling than it is listening to these people talk about tearing apart a child who feels pain, and then using their body parts whether free or not, to advance science so to speak.
Think things through more on what I say before you throw out insults please.
I know you love it when I go off, because then it makes you think very highly of yourself and allows you to make high and mighty phrases, but going off when I make peaceful ones is awfully troll like in behavior and tends to reveal this.
You might want to think that through if you want to maintain your image.
July 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41
1
Bob, let’s back up quickly.
Your 2:49 post said I would rather focus on PP selling body parts than them conducting abortions. I followed-up by saying Agent started the conversation about selling body parts and he never once brought up abortion in our talks.
I find your logic absurd that you’re arguing I am refusing to talk about something that nobody ever brought up before you popped in.
I’m not a mind reader. If Agent wanted to discuss abortions and not the selling of body parts, he should have said something about abortions AT LEAST ONCE in our discussion.
Barring reading Agent’s mind or presuming I know exactly what he REALLY wanted to discuss instead of focusing on what he wrote, how can you say I am refusing to discuss a topic that had not actually been raised in the conversation yet?
July 17, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“I might add…If you haven’t watched the nearly 3 hour clip, and rather just people who have cherry picked quotes that make the event look favorable for planned parenthood…You are just as guilty as agent as being assumptive”
I know. I am not being assumptive. That’s why I kept asking Agent if he had seen the entire video yet or not.
July 17, 2015 at 5:10 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Rosenblatt –
You said “I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage.”
You mean just like Obama and Holder in the Ferguson shooting, right. Just like the millions of people who watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, everyday!
July 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Captain Planet says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68
23
Those denying the nature of homosexuality are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own definitions and facts:
nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Demonize all you want, the fact is, though some MAY choose to be gay, the majority of gay society does not. Did you choose to be hetero? Also, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, hated? If you want to live in a land ruled by the Bible, you are in the wrong country.
Captain are you one of those who bat from both sides of the plate or all the way gay? By the way, all are born hetero and choose to be homo. Nothing natural about it and it is a big time sin to choose being that way.
He’s going to make mince meat of you with that wording.
It isn’t relevant whether he is gay or not gay or bi. His definition of Natural is correct, his understanding of natural behavior as it applies to people who are gay is questionable, but why do we even care?
This is one you should just let him believe. The only thing that can come of this is him thinking you’re judgmental, you thinking he’s a sinner, and everyone not even focusing on how to treat gay people in general.
Sorry Bob, I am not part of the tolerant crowd who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity. It is how I was brought up and it is sin and is condemned in the Bible. I can do business with them, write their coverage for them and as long as they pay their premium, we will get along just fine and we can be cordial, but that doesn’t mean I condone their lifestyle. They will have to answer for their choices in the end.
This is difficult for me to explain, I agree with you in some ways again about the lifestyle being wrong.
People like Planet are going to use you to make the lifestyle ok though. He will literally use what you just said, go to his gay friends, and use you as a reference of what straight white males are like, and it makes it disgusting to them.
Gay people have serious issues and harm due to society in a lot of ways. Sometimes we shelter them when we shouldn’t, from criticism. Others we say more than we should. And even others, we argue with people who aren’t gay about being gay. We shouldn’t let squabbles with people like Planet make the way impossible or the path invisible to people who are gay.
We have had gay people for a long time. It has been considered biblically wrong for over 2000 years, since the apostles said it was.
It’s not going to suddenly be considered biblically moral other than people like Planet making you out to be the bad guy to get people out of religion.
And this is why I said it is a complicated issue. This needs to be about how best to get people to God.
Targeted efforts. I don’t think Planet is one of those people who will be a targeted effort.
July 17, 2015 at 5:29 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Good answers, Bob. BTW, God commanded that a man should not lie with another man (like he does with a woman) very early and way before the apostles said so.
July 17, 2015 at 5:25 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
10
1
Planet – the vast majority of Christians do NOT hate gays. They simply do not condone the lifestyle. (aka love the sinner, hate the sin).
Why is it okay for gays to hate christians simply because we disagree with their lifestyle?
By the way, the last part of your definition (not made or caused by humankind) is contradictory to homosexuality being natural. Humankind made homosexuality in humans.
You are right Integrity. I might add that Christians do not like the actions of gays trying to force their lifestyle on us. Many are militant agitators who sue at the drop of a hat and cannot understand why Christians don’t just cater to their every whim, bake their wedding cakes, do their flowers and approve of them. Sorry, we don’t.
The only problem with your equation here is that you assume not choosing to be hetero is the same as not choosing to be heterosexual.
If numbers are an indication of anything, it is that heterosexual behavior is the natural thing for humanity by way of an overwhelming majority.
The only way to disregard this is to compare other animals who do not have the same societal structure or intellectual capacity as Rosenblatt did with Integrity, which just made no sense.
So in the circumstance of whether choosing to be hetero is the same as homosexual it would seem not, because for humanity it would seem that being heterosexual is the overwhelming natural way for humans to be. So being born that way makes sense.
As to the abstract human that is gay, we can have debates as to what causes it, it is certainly not the default human programming, and being gay should not be considered to be the same process (whether choosing, environmental conditioning, or by birth) as being born, conditioned, or choosing to be straight.
False equivalency in other words. I would have left it at that, but usually you lack the intelligence to know what it means.
“The only way to disregard this is to compare other animals who do not have the same societal structure or intellectual capacity as Rosenblatt did with Integrity, which just made no sense.”
(sigh) Do you know how conversations work? Blame Integrity Matters for that.
He wrote “I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended”
AFTER that, I replied to his statement with examples of where I thought that theory was wrong. I did not start that line of thinking. Your blame is once again misplaced.
For the record, my statement ““I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior” was strictly theoretical.
The statement “THAT is what was NATURALLY intended” is based on my biblical beliefs on what God intended for humans.
I know. His argument seemed better at the time theoretically.
It could be changed slightly like I worded it to make nature in humans show the tendency towards heterosexual behavior. They think they got you with your theoretical argument. They really didn’t.
You win in both circumstances if you make them aware of what I just did and I am now.
If they pointed out that it was normal in the animal kingdom, isn’t it strange that homosexual behavior is so much less prevalent in humans? It kind of shows humans are the exception to nature. This to me would show God made humans the exception, because he doesn’t like gay behavior in sentient beings.
If you were right that it wasn’t normal in the animal kingdom, then it would indeed be the abstract way of life and against nature even without God in the equation.
God made science. And science always points to God.
Either equation shows God’s will. Even the one that goes off of nature.
Wonder why she lost her health insurance in 2012? What about COBRA? If she let it go on her own, then why should Wal-Mart be responsible? Then there is the pre-existing conditions exclusion up until Obamacare erased it.
I’m with you Jack. Married since 2004, where was the health insurance all those years? Could she have obtained coverage prior to her illness? Something is wrong with this picture.
Here we go – the next cottage industry for the bar assocation has begun at the expense of private employers even though the company followed the law …. I bet this will help employ more people and increase wages for all.
Queers, homos, whatever you want to call them, are the most militant, vindictive group in existence. They will probably tie up our court system for years cramming their deviant lifestyle down our throats.
Perplexed, now that they have the Supreme Court on their side, they will stop at nothing to force their lifestyle on us. They don’t mind trying to shut down businesses that refuse to accommodate them due to religious beliefs or try to force pastors to marry them. I was glad to see that little pizzeria in Indiana get re-opened when the good citizens raised $800,000 online for them, but that can’t be done in all cases.
Just like those negroes forced their blackness on you, right Agent? By the way, no one is saying you have to go gay. It’s not a lifestyle they are trying to force upon you. It’s natural and they are just trying to live with it in a society that has discriminated against them for too long. Boom, mic drop!
Homosexuality is not natural. One of the main drivers for behavior is to increase an individuals chances for passing on their genes. Obviously, this cannot happen in a homosexual relationship.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Get your facts straight…
Is “straight” pun intended? Also, it is natural, it happens in all the sexually active animals in the natural animal kingdom. And that, my friend, is a fact. Albeit, not a straight one.
Rosenblatt/Planet –
It is not “natural”. By definition, “natural” means existing in or formed by nature. The exiting in DOES NOT mean by their sheer existence. If that were true, every other circumstance that exists would be considered natural. Obviously, homosexuality cannot be formed by nature because homosexuals cannot naturally procreate.
Planet…you are living on another planet if you think ALL sexually active animals have homosexual behavior. There are very few that have been documented.
I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended.
IM, you said “I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended.”
I will subscribe to your theory of “if “a” happens in nature significantly more often than “b” does, then “a” is a natural tendency.” I’ll give you that. But here’s the rub…
Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent [or 250 max] are known to form lifelong pair bonds. (source http://www.livescience.com/1135-wild-sex-monogamy-rare.html)
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (source: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx)
It would appear homosexuality in mammals is more frequent than monogamy in mammals; hence, by your theory, homosexuality is naturally intended and monogamy is not.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
We were talking about homosexuality and monogamous relationships as it occurs in the animal kingdom, not what a higher power may think of those acts. It’s pointless reviewing those sections of the bible since we’re not talking about religion right now. Please try to stay on topic.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“I assume you do not believe everything you read on the internet.” You assume correctly….
“First, there are millions of species on earth, not 5000.” Agreed. That 5,000 referenced the number of species of mammals, not all species.
“Second….” This point may very well be true. If you’re correct, then I am willing to concede the study is not as reliable as I initially believed it to be.
“Third…” I’m not going speak for what people in the LGBT community would or wouldn’t do with this information if it were true.
“Finally…dwarf chimpanzees that routinely engaged in pedophilia and incest….It was a natural part of the family unit. I guess since you think it is natural in the animal kingdom, it should be natural for humans, too.”
No sir, you guess wrong. As we’ve been talking about this theory of yours, I believe it can best be summed up as: “if “a” happens in nature ***significantly more often*** than “b” does, then “a” is a natural tendency.”
The pedophile part of your reply does not meet this criteria: since it’s only one species, it cannot be deduced that it is a natural tendency since there’s no indication pedophilia occurs ***significantly more often*** than not.
I appreciate the way you approach these discussions and will be more than happy to keep talking – just not about the pedophilia ending you threw on there. I just can’t get behind that (no pun intended!)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
confused was not paying attention when making his last post and agrees with agent that planet said what is being attributed to him
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
read my “Confused alter-ego” post and let it go
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have no idea where you get your theories from, but you’re wrong again, Agent. (1) you did not offend me and (2) while you’re right I don’t believe in a soul, I certainly believe that humans should abide by rules that supports exhibiting “right” behavior.
I’m curious as to how you define “right” behavior?
To me, “right” behavior usually and generally can be defined as a combination of ethical and moral decisions/actions/etc.
Ok, but what is your compass for determining what is ethical or moral?
Seriously? You want me to explain how to determine if something is ethical or moral? On an insurance blog? In the comments section? Where people already have major issues comprehending basic posts? Why?!?
Here are just SOME of the questions one should ask of themselves to determine if something is ethical and/or moral:
Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? Which option treats people equally or proportionately? Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? What are the potential short & long term consequences of this action or decision? Who will benefit & who will suffer and to what extent? Is it legal? Are there legal consequences? Does it “feel” right? Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome and if there are concerns, are some more important than others and why?
There are MANY MANY questions one can ask to determine if something is ethical and/or moral. These are just some examples. Does this answer your question, GYFS? Why did you ask me in the first place?
Agent,
Don’t debate with Rosenblatt on religion. Atheists have to be shown by life and by God.
I would however argue about humanity…In this case with abortion. For homosexual behavior, it isn’t worth the debate as to what is natural.
bob – I am intentionally avoiding talking about religion here. Agent can post about religion all he wants on this thread and I will continue to not engage him on that topic.
Also, shouldn’t everyone be able to talk about whatever they want with whomever they want and not just what you tell them is okay to discuss?
Rosenblatt,
For someone who is not engaging, you certainly seem engaged.
Tell me, do you just like to be contrary to everything? Even when I tell agent a religious debate isn’t worth it when you are more or less saying the same thing?
I was more or less saying keep it out of the debate and talk to you on topic. You were clearly not interested in a religious debate.
More to the point Rosenblatt,
“Also, shouldn’t everyone be able to talk about whatever they want with whomever they want and not just what you tell them is okay to discuss?”
If you don’t see this as extremely condescending and rude, I don’t know what to tell you.
This is a childish phrase whether you want to admit it or not.
I told him not to take a path that would lead to you talking down to him and him to you.
You are free to do what you want. And I’m free to say it probably wasn’t a good idea to talk in that way.
“For someone who is not engaging, you certainly seem engaged.”
I said I am not engaging Agent in RELIGION talk, not conversation entirely!
Well then, it would seem my comment was very similar to what you want to occur. To not engage in religious talk.
And then you tell me not to tell Agent how to talk.
You sound awfully agitated today.
Rosenblatt,
You said “Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? What are the potential short & long term consequences of this action or decision? Who will benefit & who will suffer and to what extent? Is it legal? Are there legal consequences? Does it “feel” right? Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome and if there are concerns, are some more important than others and why?
Many of these questions are based on opinion and not truth or any solid foundation. What “feels good” to one person may not feel good to another.
Using many of your criteria, if the consensus thinks it’s okay for pedophilia, than we should allow it. It becomes a matter of opinion, not morality, because there is no moral base.
I’ve said it before, it is a slippery slope that society continues to slide down.
The majority of the population in 1950 did not think it was acceptable to kill babies via abortion. Somehow, someone convinced the courts that it was the womans right to end a pregnancy if she wanted to under certain specific circumstances. Now it is abortion on demand and “science” wants to justify more for “research” purposes. Is someone getting damaged by this decision? What is at stake? Is there really more “good” from this than the “harm” it causes?
I agree that there are MANY MANY questions that can be asked about whether something is ethical and/or moral. However, someone’s opinion, should NEVER be asked because morality is different for everyone.
Morals and ethics should be compared to a standard. Like it or not, God has set the standard for both. Society just doesn’t like God’s standard, in their opinion.
Rosenblatt,
The reason I asked is I didn’t want to assume how you made your choices. As Integrity has pointed out though, the majority of your choices are based on personal opinions. You do take into consideration whether something is legal or not, but even that answer will deviate depending on location.
The issues I have with this way of deciding is that there is no concrete way to say what is right or wrong. It all depends on the individual.
I wasn’t going to direct this, but I will in order to direct something else at the same time.
You said that homosexuality occurs in nature so it must be good.
By the same account I can call violence, murder, and alcoholism good because it happens by nature.
I’m not saying gay behavior is the same. In fact, if you thought for a moment you would say I’m saying it is entirely not the same. Not all things that occur in nature are the same, and not all things are good or normal just because they occur.
On to your commentary about doing a Boom mic drop in comparing racism to persecution against gays who have discriminated against gays for too long:
In Greece it was not considered bad to be gay and was widely accepted. So length of time is not so much an issue as the location and culture. If we are talking the U.S. culture, there is very minimal discrimination against gays especially compared to what occurred to blacks. Segregation, lynching, tar and feathering, and slavery to name a few.
Gays are not discriminated against in this day and age. When one looks into why the state got involved in marriage it was mostly due to children birthing and making parents obligated to take care of children. It wasn’t about “love”. Ergo the horrible divorce rates. Your issue is you are polarized. Every issue to you is about discrimination.
When it comes to abortion you say it’s about discrimination against the woman.
When it’s about protecting the baby to the people who are against it. They are not “against” women. They are “for” children.
That is just one example.
You don’t have things figured out. It’s sad to watch you go through it so obstinately thinking you’re a good person when you are not.
Captain, they aren’t just trying to live with it…they are cramming it down everyone’s throats. If you don’t agree with their lifestyle and don’t want to participate they are going to make sure you suffer. Black people didn’t do that.
How about we simply start with not calling them “Queers and homos?” Whether we agree with their lifestyle, choice(s), sexual orientation, etc… can we acknowledge that they are people just like us? Perhaps their agenda wouldn’t be as aggressive if we treated them like people.
Isn’t everyone of the people in the LGBT community a homosexual and considered queer? I’m not advocating using disparaging terms but at least perplexed didn’t call them f****ts. I don’t get offended if someone calls me a hetero.
nope, IM, there are non-gay transsexuals too
I stand corrected. I should have left the T off of the LGBT.
In that case, I would agree to your theory if it’s amended to state that “in the LGB community, all members are either homosexual or bisexual”
That said, the OP wrote “Queers, homos, whatever you want to call them, are the most militant, vindictive group in existence” and in THAT context with those words at the end of the post, I think calling them queers and homos was supposed to be derogatory and insulting
Additional thought on this…
So a male transexual dressing like a woman and having sex with a woman is not a lesbian. Unless, it is after a sex change operation. If that same person has sex with a man prior to the operation, he is a gay transexual, but becomes heterosexual after the operation.
Was this ever an episode on Seinfeld?
Rosenblatt, we all know about Kaitlyn Jenner who is being hailed as so “courageous”. He/she traded in her Wheaties for Fruit Loops.
Nobody was talking about her, Agent. I don’t know what your intent was with your last post.
Hey Rosenblatt, since you believe that humans should abide by rules of “right” behavior, but do not believe in the bible’s rules for right behavior, where did you get your rules to believe in? Apparently, you don’t think it is against the rules of right behavior to support Homosexuals practicing deviant behavior. Yes, it is morally wrong and yes it is a choice.
Unreal Agent. I never said I don’t believe in the bible’s rules. I ***don’t believe in every*** rule set out in those books, but I ***definitely believe in a lot*** of those rules. Big difference.
To answer you: my rules of “right” behavior come from parts of the bible plus what society believes is ethical behavior/actions/etc. plus what I feel is right based on my moral compass.
“Yes, it is morally wrong and yes it is a choice.” Like I said before channeling The Dude — that’s just, like, your opinion, man. It may be morally wrong to you, but it’s morally acceptable to an ever increasing number of people in this country.
How would you know about the Bibles rules Rosenblatt since you haven’t read the passages I gave you and dismissed them. You stated that an ever increasing number of people are “tolerant” or subscribe to deviant behavior and you would be right about that, but it is just a sign of how morally corrupt this country has become. Hollywood, the left wing media and many of our politicians including our Corruptor in Chief are responsible for influencing young minds into believing that if it feels good, do it.
I dismissed checking out your bible sections because nobody was talking about religion — going down that path is off-topic since we were focusing on homosexuality and monogamy in the animal kingdom, not what a higher power may think of those acts.
“How would you know about the Bibles rules Rosenblatt since you haven’t read the passages I gave you and dismissed them”
Easy – I have read significant parts of the bible before today.
Bob, can you believe it that Rosenblatt thinks human beings have no soul and are about the same as dolphins? His Atheist views are now legion on this blog. What a sad existence that when the clock runs out on his life, he thinks it is just nothing more.
I’ve been atheist. I have some experience in it so I can believe it.
It’s not so simple as that, but it isn’t worth the religious attempt of a non religious person in religious terms. Does that make sense?
Bob, everyone needs a moral compass to be able to tell right from wrong. If it is not taught by parents from an early age or they don’t get it from teachers, where else is there to go for it? I happen to think the Bible is the richest source of information about how to live. It is quite apparent that Progressives really don’t know right from wrong with all their disastrous ideology that is so wrong for this country. I am afraid I cut them no slack for being stupid.
As I have said many times I agree with you in many areas.
I agree they need to learn it from the Bible. But I don’t agree I can use religious quotes to get them to turn to the bible.
I feel sorry for those who have not had an awakening yet.
Every day is better than the last since I became Catholic again.
I hope the same for Rosenblatt and others some day. Even though they tick me off of course…
I suppose it helps me learn how much more growth I have to do that I have such issues with them.
Bob – As humans, we have little patience for people that refuse to see and accept the truth. Fortunately, God is extremely patient, graceful and merciful. He pursues all of us and provides oppotunities to accept the truth.
Agent – There are a lot of “good people” that are atheists. Just like there are a lot of “christians” or other self described religious people that are bad.
In the end, one thing matters for both. Do they have someone that will advocate for them and forgive them of their sins? If they have accepted Jesus, and asked for forgiveness, they do. If not, then they will have to deal with the consequences.
It is not our job to judge, although it is getting increasingly harder to not do so.
Whoa – wait a second Agent. I thought we’ve been getting along really well today! Did you really mean to say that I was a group of demons on this blog? Besides that definition, I have no idea what a “legion” is. Care to elaborate?
I think he meant legend. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Agent, but that is what I thought you meant.
Well…that didn’t take long. I agree with glenbo that this will be the newest litigation issue. I guess we need to prepare for all of the new legal ads we will see on TV.
“Has your gay spouse been denied health insurance from your employer? Call Dewey, Cheatum and Howl at 800-LGBT Healthcare. After we win your case, you can look for new employment and we can represent you with a wrongful termination suit.”
Since when can someone sue someone else for breaking a law, when it wasn’t even a law yet?
Good one Integrity. Yes, the lawyers really love these cases. For a while, it was Employment Practices cases. Now, it has morphed into the gay issue and their rights. We have had Obamacare for 5 years now. Wasn’t it supposed to solve all the ills in the Healthcare industry?
Agent –
The mandate wasn’t effective until 2014, the same year that Walmart starting offering coverage to domestic partners.
If this suit actually makes it to court and the plaintiff wins, it will open up an entire train load of reparation lawsuits.
It was always about the money
Yes Integrity, why don’t we go back 20 years to solve all the perceived injustices suffered by gays? By the way, did you see the story about Planned Parenthood selling aborted late term babies body parts? They were caught on tape so it is hard to deny. This is against the law, by the way. I am sure they will skate on this and promise to stop doing it and then continue to do it. That is one nasty organization and they get taxpayer funding as well.
Your understanding of that Planned Parenthood story is wrong – they did not sell baby parts. They LEGALLY got REIMBURSED the cost of TRANSPORTING tissue to leading research centers. They did not buy nor sell baby parts.
The UNEDITED version of the video is clear on what they were doing – it’s the EDITED version Live Action released that makes it SEEM like they’re selling baby parts. They are not.
Simple yes or no question: did you view the unedited video?
“Yes Integrity, why don’t we go back 20 years to solve all the perceived injustices suffered by gays?” Your sarcasm is noted, but you realize we did go back and pay reparations to black people for slavery and Germany went back and paid reparations to Jewish families for the Holocaust? Those actions been done MANY times before.
Comparing homosexual “injustices” to the real injustices suffered by the slaves and Jewish peoples is ignorant at best. There is no comparison.
It’s not ignorance – I was merely providing examples of when people have ‘gone back’ and tried to right the wrongs that were done. I was not trying to say what the LGBTA community has gone through is an exact parallel for what Jewish or black people have experienced.
First, I want to admit that I have not heard this story or have seen any video.
That said, I have to question that they were LEGALLY reimbursed the cost of transporting tissue (pieces of a baby, let’s call it what it is, Rosenblatt. Don’t let the media desensitize what is really happening).
How were they reimbursed?? Did they get the federal mileage allowance? I doubt it. I guarantee there was significant money paid for that “tissue”.
I don’t know how they were reimbursed or if the cost was in line with Federal mileage allowances since I don’t have access to their medical documents or other financial statements.
That said – the video has them discussing “charges” limited to a range of $30 to $100. To me, that seems very reasonable for processing & shipping of hazardous materials. If they were talking about thousands of dollars in reimbursements per item, I’d be way more likely to believe there are illegal shenanigans happening.
IM! Love the 3 Stooges reference. Dewey, Cheatum and Howe! Good one. This country in going to hell in a hand basket. Caitlyn Jenner get hero status when our military heroes are deemed evil. Chris Kyle gets gunned down back in the USA by some psycho vet he was trying to help and the libs go crazy and boycott the movie. But some man who has been an man for over 60 years decides he want to be a woman and SHE (?) get hero status. Sorry, but his sex change is covered under the new healthcare laws so this does apply.
Hey Always, I don’t think the boycott of American Sniper went well for the libs since it set box office records. It was a great movie and Chris Kyle was a true American Hero. What a sad ending.
Thanks, Always. I’m glad you caught that. I loved the stooges.
I agree that we are in trouble as a society. Everything is backwards today.
Rosenblatt, before you defend Planned Parenthood too much, let’s see where this investigation goes and what is revealed. They have lied about a lot of things like they are just providing women’s health services and we know they are the biggest abortion provider in the country. It is abhorent to think they are selling baby’s hearts, liver and other organs after late term abortions.
I agree we should not rush to judgement before making statements about their actions; however, you brought it up first, so we’re talking about it. By your own advice, maybe you shouldn’t jump to conclusions that they’re guilty too.
Can you PLEASE just tell me with a simple yes or no if you have watched the unedited video or not? If you have, okay. If you have not, you are in a much weaker position arguing they’re guilty than I am saying they’re innocent.
I saw the version O’Reilly put forth with the follow up discussion and the full version will be forthcoming. With the track record of Planned Parenthood and their cavalier attitude toward human life, I have a hard time believing any explanation they give. They only lie when they move their lips.
The clip you saw was 9 minutes out of a nearly 3-hour long video, and it was highly edited at that. I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage.
When they are talking about being sure not to harm the important organs that will be transported…
When a child feels pain in some areas as early as 8 weeks.
It doesn’t matter what the video says, or whether they are selling or donating body parts of someone they brutally murdered.
Then it would just be killing for the sake of science?
Agent is ticked from watching the clear parts where these people showed they are evil and wrong whether they were donating or not.
And you would rather focus on whether they were paid or not but not the child.
That is what is disgusting here. Not Agent’s getting irrational because he wants to protect children. Not agent not watching the whole video.
It is disgusting that you would try to call them innocent. It is disgusting you would be ok with what they do.
Abortion is murder. End of story.
I might add…If you haven’t watched the nearly 3 hour clip, and rather just people who have cherry picked quotes that make the event look favorable for planned parenthood…You are just as guilty as agent as being assumptive.
“It doesn’t matter what the video says, or whether they are selling or donating body parts…..” AND “And you would rather focus on whether they were paid or not but not the child. That is what is disgusting here”
No, what’s disgusting is you chiming to post your nonsense.
FACT: Agent started this discussion saying, “By the way, did you see the story about Planned Parenthood selling aborted late term babies body parts?”
FACT: Selling body parts was the **specific item he brought up***, so that’s what we’ve been discussing.
FACT: If Agent REALLY wanted to discuss abortion instead, he should’ve said something about it. He didn’t.
FACT: All my replies have been on point with the initial and only concern he’s raised about this story.
Now please shut up and go away. Agent and I were getting along just fine and having a pleasant and civil discussion before you stuck your nose in here.
It is disgusting that I posted “nonsense” on what children feel during abortion?
You would rather focus on whether or not planned parent hood was paid for body parts they took from a living being, and not whether the living being felt pain or was alive?
That seems the debate to be had. Not nonsense, and my having it is certainly not disgusting.
Now you just turned the conversation sour, when I stated a comment about the seriousness of abortion and planned parenthood. That is not my making this conversation bad, it is you. You don’t get to blame me. Act like an adult.
Regarding getting along just fine:
“I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage”
This is not getting along just fine.
Regarding your other comment: I am free to talk about why Agent is so ticked off, as it flew over your head.
It’s less to do with the selling than it is listening to these people talk about tearing apart a child who feels pain, and then using their body parts whether free or not, to advance science so to speak.
Think things through more on what I say before you throw out insults please.
I know you love it when I go off, because then it makes you think very highly of yourself and allows you to make high and mighty phrases, but going off when I make peaceful ones is awfully troll like in behavior and tends to reveal this.
You might want to think that through if you want to maintain your image.
Bob, let’s back up quickly.
Your 2:49 post said I would rather focus on PP selling body parts than them conducting abortions. I followed-up by saying Agent started the conversation about selling body parts and he never once brought up abortion in our talks.
I find your logic absurd that you’re arguing I am refusing to talk about something that nobody ever brought up before you popped in.
I’m not a mind reader. If Agent wanted to discuss abortions and not the selling of body parts, he should have said something about abortions AT LEAST ONCE in our discussion.
Barring reading Agent’s mind or presuming I know exactly what he REALLY wanted to discuss instead of focusing on what he wrote, how can you say I am refusing to discuss a topic that had not actually been raised in the conversation yet?
“I might add…If you haven’t watched the nearly 3 hour clip, and rather just people who have cherry picked quotes that make the event look favorable for planned parenthood…You are just as guilty as agent as being assumptive”
I know. I am not being assumptive. That’s why I kept asking Agent if he had seen the entire video yet or not.
Rosenblatt –
You said “I have a hard time believing anyone who makes their assumptions of what happened when they haven’t watched 95% of the actual footage.”
You mean just like Obama and Holder in the Ferguson shooting, right. Just like the millions of people who watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, everyday!
Those denying the nature of homosexuality are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own definitions and facts:
nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Demonize all you want, the fact is, though some MAY choose to be gay, the majority of gay society does not. Did you choose to be hetero? Also, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, hated? If you want to live in a land ruled by the Bible, you are in the wrong country.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent,
He’s going to make mince meat of you with that wording.
It isn’t relevant whether he is gay or not gay or bi. His definition of Natural is correct, his understanding of natural behavior as it applies to people who are gay is questionable, but why do we even care?
This is one you should just let him believe. The only thing that can come of this is him thinking you’re judgmental, you thinking he’s a sinner, and everyone not even focusing on how to treat gay people in general.
I don’t see how this is helpful to God…
Sorry Bob, I am not part of the tolerant crowd who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity. It is how I was brought up and it is sin and is condemned in the Bible. I can do business with them, write their coverage for them and as long as they pay their premium, we will get along just fine and we can be cordial, but that doesn’t mean I condone their lifestyle. They will have to answer for their choices in the end.
This is difficult for me to explain, I agree with you in some ways again about the lifestyle being wrong.
People like Planet are going to use you to make the lifestyle ok though. He will literally use what you just said, go to his gay friends, and use you as a reference of what straight white males are like, and it makes it disgusting to them.
Gay people have serious issues and harm due to society in a lot of ways. Sometimes we shelter them when we shouldn’t, from criticism. Others we say more than we should. And even others, we argue with people who aren’t gay about being gay. We shouldn’t let squabbles with people like Planet make the way impossible or the path invisible to people who are gay.
We have had gay people for a long time. It has been considered biblically wrong for over 2000 years, since the apostles said it was.
It’s not going to suddenly be considered biblically moral other than people like Planet making you out to be the bad guy to get people out of religion.
And this is why I said it is a complicated issue. This needs to be about how best to get people to God.
Targeted efforts. I don’t think Planet is one of those people who will be a targeted effort.
Good answers, Bob. BTW, God commanded that a man should not lie with another man (like he does with a woman) very early and way before the apostles said so.
Planet – the vast majority of Christians do NOT hate gays. They simply do not condone the lifestyle. (aka love the sinner, hate the sin).
Why is it okay for gays to hate christians simply because we disagree with their lifestyle?
By the way, the last part of your definition (not made or caused by humankind) is contradictory to homosexuality being natural. Humankind made homosexuality in humans.
You are right Integrity. I might add that Christians do not like the actions of gays trying to force their lifestyle on us. Many are militant agitators who sue at the drop of a hat and cannot understand why Christians don’t just cater to their every whim, bake their wedding cakes, do their flowers and approve of them. Sorry, we don’t.
I’ll go one step further. If you DID CHOOSE to be hetero, you’re probably actually gay.
The only problem with your equation here is that you assume not choosing to be hetero is the same as not choosing to be heterosexual.
If numbers are an indication of anything, it is that heterosexual behavior is the natural thing for humanity by way of an overwhelming majority.
The only way to disregard this is to compare other animals who do not have the same societal structure or intellectual capacity as Rosenblatt did with Integrity, which just made no sense.
So in the circumstance of whether choosing to be hetero is the same as homosexual it would seem not, because for humanity it would seem that being heterosexual is the overwhelming natural way for humans to be. So being born that way makes sense.
As to the abstract human that is gay, we can have debates as to what causes it, it is certainly not the default human programming, and being gay should not be considered to be the same process (whether choosing, environmental conditioning, or by birth) as being born, conditioned, or choosing to be straight.
False equivalency in other words. I would have left it at that, but usually you lack the intelligence to know what it means.
“The only way to disregard this is to compare other animals who do not have the same societal structure or intellectual capacity as Rosenblatt did with Integrity, which just made no sense.”
(sigh) Do you know how conversations work? Blame Integrity Matters for that.
He wrote “I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior. THAT is what was NATURALLY intended”
AFTER that, I replied to his statement with examples of where I thought that theory was wrong. I did not start that line of thinking. Your blame is once again misplaced.
I did not say his argument was correct.
Is it always a good idea to then take an argument in reply that also doesn’t make sense because the person who talked to you didn’t make sense?
If you meant to not make sense I will agree with you on this one, and I will let you off the hook on it. But I don’t think that was your intention.
And even then, I would have to blame both equally.
I think my concept was correct to Planet.
I’m going to have to ask: Did you not agree?
I also feel that since my actions are being questioned here I need to say the following:
My debate with Planet is not whether or not it is sinful or ok to be gay, but whether or not his commentary on gay people is correct.
I don’t agree with debating on the basis that you want to prove being gay is a choice in order to state someone is choosing to be sinful.
If the motives are for an objective argument…Then I’m willing to have the argument.
This is why I generally separate my religious arguments for people who want to talk about religion, and my alternates for people who do not.
For the record, my statement ““I will argue that there are more male/female monogamous animal species than there are species that display homosexual behavior” was strictly theoretical.
The statement “THAT is what was NATURALLY intended” is based on my biblical beliefs on what God intended for humans.
I know. His argument seemed better at the time theoretically.
It could be changed slightly like I worded it to make nature in humans show the tendency towards heterosexual behavior. They think they got you with your theoretical argument. They really didn’t.
You win in both circumstances if you make them aware of what I just did and I am now.
If they pointed out that it was normal in the animal kingdom, isn’t it strange that homosexual behavior is so much less prevalent in humans? It kind of shows humans are the exception to nature. This to me would show God made humans the exception, because he doesn’t like gay behavior in sentient beings.
If you were right that it wasn’t normal in the animal kingdom, then it would indeed be the abstract way of life and against nature even without God in the equation.
God made science. And science always points to God.
Either equation shows God’s will. Even the one that goes off of nature.