sexual abuser??? where you hook that up from??? for a "techi" who is deal wid virus, malware etc you sure is sensitive and tender....

SpamStopper is far from tender ;)

sorry if that was not what you were insinuating then SpamStopper appologizes, but just took it that way given that we were talking (well ms. russell was) about non consenting sex with dogs and such. :D

Probability of each out of 1-10 below:
Sex Between a Man and a Man (stipulations are exactly the same as for two women below) = -100
Sex Between a Woman and a Woman (regardless of medical complications or contraceptives) = -100
Sex Between a Man and a Woman = 100 out of 10 (excluding medical complications or contraceptives) since a man produces spe** which implants itself into a womans egg thus resulting in reproduction.
So when heterosexuals have sex it is for reproduction only??

Why would someone use contraceptives if the only purpose for sex is reproduction??

So when heterosexuals have sex it is for reproduction only??

Obviously not Vicky. It can be the primary reason for some who have been trying to have a child after many failed attempts (my cousin is one of them who had 8 or 9 miscarriages who is obviously a female), but yet HETEROSEXUALS are the only ones who can have a 10 out of 10 probability option to reproduce at their own will (UNLESS THEY ARE STERILE OR MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS LIKE MY COUSIN) to correctly and thoroughly answer your question.

Why would someone use contraceptives if the only purpose for sex is reproduction??


Because of 2 MAJOR factors Vicky:

TO PREVENT PREGNANCY if the sex is obviously for pleasure only between a MAN and WOMAN (since sperm from A MAN and an egg from a WOMAN is need for REPRODUCTION which can still occur only between a MAN and a WOMAN whether pregnancy is wanted or not so again if pregnancy is not wanted CONTRACEPTIVES can greatly decrease it from occuring where as with HOMOSEXUALS what is the need for contraceptives?confused::confused::confused::confused:


Secondly HIV/AIDS Out of the 33.2+ million who presently live with disease and the 2.1+ million people it has killed, the carriers who acuired the disease from either wanted or unwanted sexual activity, I am sure they would have wish contraceptives were used to tremendously decrease the risk of catching the disease.

Vicky I een ga lie right but, I tink I need ta start charging fa my presently free Biology Lessons cause all dis free info I givin een puttin no gas in my car:sparky:

wasnt this entire thread started on a US case? and remember, I DID SAY IT IS NOT BINDING AS IN ITS NOT PRIMARY. READ BAHAMAS!!!!!!!!!! I just said it was interesting. and yes TruthHurts, i've heard about all those practices. that's why IT IS NOT BINDING IT IS NOT PRIMARY. Just interesting.
I never IMPLIED that "nothing good" ever came out of The United States of America. In fact, the story that was used at the beginning of this thread, regarding the California Supreme Court's landmark ruling last month, legalising same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state, makes California the second state in the country to grant same-sex couples the right to enter into marriages that are in name as well as substance the full equal of opposite-sex couples' marriages. And what is so significant about this landmark decision was the arguments used by the California Supreme Court in reaching its historical findings:

First, the decision holds that the California Constitution confers upon Californians a fundamental right to marry. The state, and various same-sex marriage opponents, had argued that the right to marry had to be understood in its historical context, and that was as a right of opposite-sex couples alone to marry. The Court rejected this argument as legerdemain. In so doing, the Court drew an analogy to its own 1948 decision invalidating a law barring interracial marriage, and quoted New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye's observation (in dissent in New York's same-sex marriage case) for the proposition that ìfundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.î

Second, the California Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" like race or sex—the sort of government classification that is presumptively invalid because it so often relies on stereotypes about people who, as a group, have long been the victims of discrimination.

Accordingly, the court subjected the California law to "strict scrutiny," a demanding standard of review that required the government to show that restricting marriage to opposite-sex unions was "necessary" to achieve a "compelling interest." Finding that the government interests cited in support of the restriction were barely even legitimate, much less compelling—as they appeared to send a message that the state does not fully approve of same-sex couples' unions—the Court had little difficulty invalidating the law as violating both the California Constitution's right to marriage (derived from express textual protection for, among other things, "privacy"), and its right to equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the claim that the Justices of the California Supreme Court confused their own policy preferences with the law is exactly backwards. The critics of the ruling are upset precisely because the Court did follow the law. Should the voters of California respond by overriding the decision by ballot initiative, that will not in any way prove that the Court erred. It will show only that the voters have sullied the noble principle of equality with an exception rooted in prejudice.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20080519.html

______________________________________________________________
In regards to your utilising a U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights Violation, I was merely invoking sarcasm, as the U.S. goes not publish human rights violation within its own borders in such a manner. In fact, I invite you to read excerpts from the following article by By Reed Brody (May 1999):

AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), there is a new challenge to the Declaration's universality. This time, the challenge comes from the country whose influence predominated in both the drafting and the internationalising of the UDHR - the United States of America.

Unlike previous challengers, the US does not actually argue that the international bill of human rights is not of universal relevance. Rather, and more pernicously, it just consistently behaves as if human rights law does not apply to the United States.

The US is the only country in the world - other than the collapsed state of Somalia - that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US is also one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Nor has the US ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the American Convention on Human Rights.

When the US does ratify treaties, government lawyers comb through each treaty to identify any rights that might strengthen existing guarantees under US law, and then nullify them through reservations or declarations. Thus, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits passing a death sentence on anyone aged less than 18 at the time of the crime. Yet a US reservation preserves its right to execute juvenile offenders. Similarly, because the US permits prolonged solitary confinement and other conditions of detention internationally considered as forms of torture or cruel treatment, it entered a reservation to the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the ICCPR.

Finally, to guard against the possibility that the remaining rights might be construed more broadly than US law, Washington then ratifies the treaties in a way that denies US residents the right to enforce their provisions in US courts (because they are 'non-self-executing') or before the international treaty bodies charged with upholding them (because the US refuses to allow individual petitions). The result is that ratification becomes an almost cosmetic gesture.

We see a similar attack on universality in the US government's response to recent efforts to strengthen international human rights law.

On Land-mines: Washington refused to support the treaty banning anti-personnel land-mines unless the drafters allowed the Pentagon to continue using these indiscriminate weapons. Fortunately, the drafters refused. The mine ban treaty, signed by virtually all Western countries, has already become one of the treaties which have entered into force most rapidly.

On the Use of Child Soldiers: An estimated 300,000 child soldiers world wide contribute significantly to the inhumanity of war. The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets 18 as the age of maturity on most other matters, and there is a broad international consensus that this bright line should be used to define the appropriate age of soldiers. But because the Pentagon recruits 17-year-olds out of secondary school, the US government has blocked consensus on a proposed protocol (to a convention it has not ratified) barring the recruitment of anyone younger than 18.

The United States was one of only seven governments to vote against the Rome treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) - along with China, Iraq, Libya, Israel, Qatar, and Yemen - against 120 supporters. The Rome delegates went a long way toward addressing US fears of frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.

Moreover, the definition of the crime of greatest concern to the United States - the one governing attacks that cause disproportionate harm to civilians - was rewritten to make it much harder to call an attack a crime. Indeed, to the detriment of the court, its ability to acquire jurisdiction over a crime was significantly restricted in a futile effort to placate Washington. Yet the United States still left the Rome conference vowing to re-open negotiations and 'fix' the treaty.

What Washington evidently wanted, and what the Rome delegates refused to cede, was the opportunity to exempt US nationals altogether from the court's reach. That demand, never stated explicitly but implicit in many of the US proposals, is inconsistent with the funadamental principle that justice must apply equally to all.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the reaction - by US officials and others - to scrutiny of the US's own human rights record by the United Nations or NGOs.

In 1997, after several requests, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Bacre Waly N'Diaye, visited the US. While the Rapporteur had enjoyed high-level cooperation during his recent investigations in countries such as Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, Rwanda and Burundi, in the United States he was shunted to lower-level officials.

In March, the Rapporteur issued a sober report accusing the United States of applying the death penalty in an unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. The US complained to the UN Commission on Human Rights that the report was 'severely flawed'. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee blasted the document as 'an outrageous insult to the American people' and called on the US to withhold all UN dues until an apology was forthcoming.

Reactions to NGO reports have been similar. In July 1998, Human Rights Watch produced an extensive study of police brutality in 14 cities across the United States. The solid 440-page report addressed difficulties in holding abusive police officers accountable.

When Amnesty International launched its report on abuses in the United States in October... representative Tom Lantos, Co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, protested that 'to single out the United States as a perpetrator of human rights violation, I think it's preposterous and unacceptable'.

These reactions betray a sentiment that human rights apply to 'them', 'over there', but they have no relevance to 'us', 'here'. Americans would do well to remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt after the Declaration was adopted. She asked, 'Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works.

'Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.' -

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1893-cn.htm

YES, I AGREE, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL...

SMDT...you get ten points for stating the obvious.... now back to topic perhaps?


Adidasboi, why isnt it obvious to everyone else on this thread, I mean I am sure that the majority of people on this thread are obviously aware of that but it is mindboggling that a select few still do not understand or get it.

It is amazing especially with the fact that there are so many websites which show the Human Reproductive System?:dgi::dgi::dgi::confused::confused:

Oh thanks fa da ten points, I taught I deserved eleven but I guess I'll settle fa ten:hammer::hammer:

laacmc, I would suggest that you go back and read the article that vicky posted closely. This is called basic comprehension of the written word. In that article, it describes how the Y gene is expressed intrauterinely to create a female gender identity while the SRY gene is the testes determinant hormone. This is not about perceptual things in the brain -- this is about physical gonadal change -- and that is the context of gender identity of this article. No where in this article does it talk about gender dysphoria.
I realise that there is some complexity to this article, but can't you see that?
Perceptual gender dysphoria is just as real as epilepsy, narcolepsy and such. But like those other conditions, there is hope with hypocreatine, and dopamine altering regimes within the brain through adminstered neurotransmitter therapies. Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
Ok Dr Lurker please find where these treatments are avalable or recomended for gender dysphoria.. Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing. World over the treatment for gender identity disorder 302.82 or that level in any medical term is only treatable by changing the body as best as medical science can to match the mind.
Here is something that I forgot to mention
I have been gender dysphoric since I was 5 I lived as a male for the first 32 years of my life. One would have thought the neuron's would have changed in 32 years. I did not start cross gender hormone replacement therapy till I was 48. So one could say the neuron's had 48 years to adapt to being male but they did not. Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

Because of 2 MAJOR factors Vicky:
TO PREVENT PREGNANCY if the sex is obviously for pleasure only between a MAN and WOMAN (since sperm from A MAN and an egg from a WOMAN is need for REPRODUCTION which can still occur only between a MAN and a WOMAN whether pregnancy is wanted or not so again if pregnancy is not wanted CONTRACEPTIVES can greatly decrease it from occuring where as with HOMOSEXUALS what is the need for contraceptives?confused::confused::confused::confused: I hear scope can ease the taste or toe jam. If sex is for pleasuer also it matters not if it is between man and woman. It can be by onesself or someone else and wheather they reproduce or not is irrelevant it is about the pleasuer. Thus denial of same sex marriage based on the fact that same sex couple can't reproduce is pure poop. As not all marriages are about reproduction nor is all heterosexual sex. Please try again
Secondly HIV/AIDS Out of the 33.2+ million who presently live with disease and the 2.1+ million people it has killed, the carriers who acuired the disease from either wanted or unwanted sexual activity, I am sure they would have wish contraceptives were used to tremendously decrease the risk of catching the disease.
Vicky I een ga lie right but, I tink I need ta start charging fa my presently free Biology Lessons cause all dis free info I givin een puttin no gas in my car:sparky:

You think you teaching me ha you are to funny.

I hear scope can ease the taste or toe jam. If sex is for pleasuer also it matters not if it is between man and woman. It can be by onesself or someone else and wheather they reproduce or not is irrelevant it is about the pleasuer. Thus denial of same sex marriage based on the fact that same sex couple can't reproduce is pure poop.


But Vicky I already agreed with you on that. Marriage is about Love for one another BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN (which in my opinion is the Naturally right way, off course you disagree so we just have to agree to disagree forever on that unless your opinion changes).


As not all marriages are about reproduction nor is all heterosexual sex. Please try again


There is not need for my to try again Vicky because I already pleaded GUILTY 1/2 way to hijacking this thread by posting based on (HUMAN BIOLOGY 101) (thanx Truth hurts for the correction) and nothing to do with same sex marriage FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME.


You think you teaching me ha you are to funny.


Well I try Vicky, my duty is to spread the knowledge located in the Hippocampus of my Cerebullum. I am simply confused by the fact that you are unaware that a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot reproduce by themselves, they need each other regardless of Religion or Sexual Orientation. Recently, Adidasboi admitted that this is an obvious fact, Truth Hurts admitted, my good friend Post Mortem has yet to respond and its all good but again I am posting with reference to Biology and not Gay Marriage or Religion or any other reason FYI!!!.
Peace and Love
JD

Sensetive and tender....you making him sound like a piece of steak BOL
SOFF AND TENDER? ***deadin on da floor*** So ya sayin dat spammy on da "DL" aye?

***singing ta masef***

"Mr Back door bandit. . .wha cha say dere mr tail pipe bouyyyyyyyyyy. . .ta dum di dum da"!!!!!:p:D:rolleyes:

Adidasboi, why isnt it obvious to everyone else on this thread, I mean I am sure that the majority of people on this thread are obviously aware of that but it is mindboggling that a select few still do not understand or get it.
It is amazing especially with the fact that there are so many websites which show the Human Reproductive System?:dgi::dgi::dgi::confused::confused:
Oh thanks fa da ten points, I taught I deserved eleven but I guess I'll settle fa ten:hammer::hammer:
Ummmm....pardon me sir....but with all due respect I don't think you're a very BRIGHT person...who obviously can't articulate your own points let alone understand someone else's....The dynamics of human biology have NO bearing on this thread....despite your futile attempts to make it such...

But beyond your denial of this fact...You almost boastfully claim that you are the gatekeeper to knowledge pertaining to procreation as if a 5th grader doesn't know that procreation occurs between Men and Women...I, NOR Vicky, NOR anyone else is denying that fact.....IS THIS SINKING INTO YOUR HEAD??...The thoughts being presented to you however (since you are failing to grasp them...) are:


All sex does not lead (or is intended) to procreation
All forms of procreation does not begin with sexual intercourse
AND MAINLY!!!!!!!......The biological aspect of how a child is created has no bearing or relevance to this thread in this context...

Recently, Adidasboi admitted that this is an obvious fact,
JD
SMDT...dis boy slow nah...:sparky:

say recently....as if I just somehow suddenly came to that conclusion after reading through your post... Negro please... what you are arguing (seemingly with yourself) doesn't need validation... it as if you are trying to convince the world that the sky is in fact blue...

SpamStopper is far from tender ;)
sorry if that was not what you were insinuating then SpamStopper appologizes, but just took it that way given that we were talking (well ms. russell was) about non consenting sex with dogs and such. :D

i don't have anyting to do with ms russell, i was only teasing you about "begging" but in no way calling you a sexual abuser

Well I try Vicky, my duty is to spread the knowledge located in the Hippocampus of my Cerebullum. I am simply confused by the fact that you are unaware that a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot reproduce by themselves, they need each other regardless of Religion or Sexual Orientation. Recently, Adidasboi admitted that this is an obvious fact, Truth Hurts admitted, my good friend Post Mortem has yet to respond and its all good but again I am posting with reference to Biology and not Gay Marriage or Religion or any other reason FYI!!!.
Peace and Love
JD
I never said they could reproduce I said the lack of reproduction is no grounds to deny same sex marriage.

Excellent Response, Okay Here we go again!!!:)

Sarcasm off for most of this one okay,or atleast .02% of it, at least I am being honest.:)

Ummmm....pardon me sir....but with all due respect I don't think you're a very BRIGHT person...who obviously can't articulate your own points let alone understand someone else's....The dynamics of human biology have NO bearing on this thread....despite your futile attempts to make it such...

First Excellent point as you may have already read me stating that the past 19 times along with admitting to car... oops I mean Thread Hijacking, I guess I am now officially the Highjacker of da week... oh boy:realmad:

But just incase you are refering to my complexion because I am not 100% sure, I am bright or I guess not a dark skinned person and just for the record if thats what you are refering to I dont get what my complexion has to do with my points?:confused:
But beyond your denial of this fact...You almost boastfully claim that you are the gatekeeper to knowledge pertaining to procreation as if a 5th grader doesn't know that procreation occurs between Men and Women...

Perfect response, if anyone else could have simply said that from the beginning and stop going all the way in left field trying to prove otherwise when it comes to Biology, you and I would never have to both state the exact same thing over and over as we are again doing now. :confused::confused::confused:
Even my lil nephew presently in Grade 3 knows that a man is the daddy, the woman is the mommy and a baby comes from them both, infact she is always asking them for a little sister to play with. Very nice child.

Anyway, back to the point.

I have gained so much knowledge since joining B.I. and I dont think it would be fair to me and totally disrespectful to all of you, my brothers and sisters to ever minutely state that I have a monopoly on Knowledge because that is totally unfair and disrespectful to say to you or anyone else as I learn something new everyday, even from you and others from this thread, infact I was also paying attention to the dialogue between songbird and Truth Hurts in which I learnt some very valuable points as well so I would have to politely reject the following statement:

You almost boastfully claim that you are the gatekeeper to knowledge pertaining to procreation.

I dont know everything (I wish I did but I only know the Basics Fundamentals of Human Biology) at least when it comes to procreation because its been a while since high school and proof of that is when Vicky (thanx again Vicky) completely reminded me about people who are Sterile (and I apologize to anyone who is Sterile for not remembering to factor them in to my first initial post on this very important thread especially because as I said before, my cousin is trying very hard to have a child,) so any claim that I have a monopoly on Knowledge is unfair to others and to yourself as well and I would never disrespect you or any others by making or insinuating such a point, I am not that type of guy man, dont do ma like dat.

We all have Knowledge with very important contributions to make in regards to making the Bahamas a better and safer place, especially because of the fact that I just discovered that the young man who got killed by Solomons was my Co-Wokers Neighbour but when it comes to crime, thats 100% another thread out of respect to Corabell and others.

Okay, now, assuming that in the below sentence you are speaking for Vicky (I stand to be corrected), I already stated that Vicky admitted it (kind of indirectly but its still an admission at least in my opinion), Truth Hurts admitted it in a way that was clear cut and right to the point and you yourself now for a second time is presently admitting it again that reproduction CAN ONLY OCCUR BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND NOT A MAN AND A MAN OR A WOMAN AND A WOMAN, and you along with myself are both guilty of not reading the earlier pages, (in which I already admitted I should have done but this the second longest thread apart from the word association game thread and I probably would have still been reading at this present time) you obviously did not read all of my posts and all of the responses made to my posts by the previous two mentioned, but thats okay, its all good. I still value and respect your opinion without myself in anyway engaging in name calling or mudslinging my fellow Bahamian as the case with you not doing the same.


I, NOR Vicky, NOR anyone else is denying that fact.....IS THIS SINKING INTO YOUR HEAD??...The thoughts being presented to you however (since you are failing to grasp them...) are:

All sex does not lead (or is intended) to procreation

Definetly, which I did state already that among few minor exceptions (my cousin who had 8 or 9 miscarriages) the majority of sex is done for pleasure so I totally concur with you on that one.
All forms of procreation does not begin with sexual intercourse

Also an excellent point because please correct me if I am wrong but I think my cousin stated that Invitro is about $10k in the U.S. and Artificial Ins is about $20k, dont blass me if I am wrong, the figures could be the other way around but I think its something like that, and I think its not covered by Medical Insurance so again I concur one that one as well.

AND MAINLY!!!!!!!......The biological aspect of how a child is created has no bearing or relevance to this thread in this context

Yep, thats correct and what I find strange is that you yourself addmitted to doing that as well (HIJACKING just to remind everyone else FYI) so you and I are in the same boat, (at opposite ends off course with a few Oceanic White Tips and a Lemon just salavating fa us) I could swim dough (My Boy Spam could atest ta dat) by the way Spam, No Swimming lessons in the tub no more, I tink dat could cause legal problems if ya know what I mean lolollolol), I strayin, my apologies, as I was saying, I een ga leave ya hanging like dat Adidasboi cause like I say, all a we is still one dispite our differances my Brother/Sister so those lifeguard classes from Splash have really come in handy.

...SMDT...dis boy slow nah...

I care not to discuss my I.Q. or College/High School scores in Public because I guess in a way, I am sure no one is interested in knowing that but honestly, I have learned so much since joining B.I. if I had joined from maybe 2003 or earlier, I could have possibly been the youngest Prime Minister in the Bahamas because of the knowledge I have obtained thus far from this site with more to come from you and others, dont want to call names because when you forget one, das problems.

say recently....as if I just somehow suddenly came to that conclusion after reading through your post... Negro please... what you are arguing (seemingly with yourself) doesn't need validation... it as if you are trying to convince the world that the sky is in fact blue...


My point exactly, you hit the nail on the head. Why did it take so long for those trying to prove 5th grade..... well at least third grade biology (dont forget my lil neice) wrong to finally admit that when it comes to Human Biology 101 and Reproduction because as you again and I am stating again and in a way, it is becoming monotonous, just as the sky is green.... i mean blue, the fact that Reproduction can only occur between a Man and a Woman has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage is my initial statement when it comes to pleading Guilty to Hijacking so I guess there is no need to give free Biology Lessons anymore because my mission in regards to spreading the message about Human Biology is over. Thanks again for responding to my post along with others who I have learnt a great deal of priceless information from.


My Fellow Brother/Sister Adidasboi, it was indeed a pleasure dialoguing with you as I have learnt that you among others are on the same page with me when it comes to Human Reproduction and I appreciate the time that you, Vicky, Truth Hurts, I would say Post Mortem but I still waiting on a response but I assume Post may not have seen my last response to him/her but regardless I sincerly appreciate the time you all took out to respond to me as its makes me feel that I made a great contribution to you all as you all made to myself in terms of both spreading and recieving knowledge.

Thanks Again
Peace and Love My Bahamian Brothers and Sisters
JD

^^SMDT!!...I'll give you ten dollars for every mention in this thread where someone denied that reproduction occurs and is assisted by a man and woman...NOONE ever denied that....therefore NOONE has to admit to it...or agree with you...IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE, DEFEND or CONFIRM the obvious...Its strikes me clearly that you have nothing to add to this debate...