It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If 'Trans' is the new gay. whats next?

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

You completely missed the point. The proposition described a person givíng permission to somebody before dying, in the same manner as donating your body to science. And we're not talking for sexual study, we're talking for sexual intercourse..


OK. That is a strange one.

I assume it would have to be approved before they died. And wouldn't a dead body be a health hazard?

If not denied on Moral grounds (who's morals?) - - - I'd think public safety might be an issue.

I can see a private person entombing a body in a glass case, with permission and all the code approvals. But, to get permission to physically "visit" that body on a regular basis - - - I'd think that would violate health laws.




posted on May, 4 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: veracityIt makes perfect sense.

We all make judgements - it's what defines who we are. If you need to be told what's right and wrong and the only reason to conduct yourself in a civilised manner is beacause Jesus told you to do so, then you aren't moral, your merely obedient.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: veracityIt makes perfect sense.

We all make judgements - it's what defines who we are. If you need to be told what's right and wrong and the only reason to conduct yourself in a civilised manner is beacause Jesus told you to do so, then you aren't moral, your merely obedient.




Well, I'm atheist.

And I'm having trouble following your train of thinking.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ugh.. don't ask me.. ghastly idea..

I'm surprised they would even forward such an idea.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Never once did I claim that. Get your head out of your ass, you're just spouting randomly stringed together sentences at this point.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Im going to identify as a Quadrasexual trilesbionite - a proclivity for men, women, small Forrest creatures and large inanimate objects, but only in groups of 3 and only whom identify as a female, the large objects like boats and cars are commonly identified as women but the Forrest creatures are going to be challenge unless lipstick on a pig counts.

The revolution is coming, prepare.
edit on 4-5-2016 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
For me the be-all end-all is: does it harm anyone else?

By harm, I mean real, direct, physical harm, sexual or other harassment, intimacy with a being not legally capable of consent, and/or incitement to imminent violence. Not "harm" in the sense of slippery slope fallacies, imagined moral degradation, people feeling grossed out, or people simply disapproving or feeling that their right to disapproval is somehow being abridged by the rights of those they disapprove of being upheld.

So, does the hypothetical "next step" harm anyone else by those standards? If not, then I honestly couldn't care less if someone is legitimately (insert identity or other dynamic here) or merely delusional (OP's hypothetical premise, mine.)

Peace.



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

African American rights, women's rights, religious rights, LGBT rights, animal rights and Earth's rights will probably be next. The future movement I'm most excited for, IS.....cyborg rights. Bahahaha. We're not too far from it.



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Bestiality might be the next on the list. Who gives us the right to forbid people from having sex with animals? /endsar



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: staticfl
a reply to: odzeandennz

Bestiality might be the next on the list. Who gives us the right to forbid people from having sex with animals? /endsar



An animal can not consent.



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: staticfl

You have a sick mind to think like you do. Beastiality is not a transgression of transgenderism. Shows how idiotic you are. If you don't now much on the subject, best to keep your mouth shut so as to not come off as a complete dumb ass.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join