Laughing City

Do you agree with the ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Yes
66%
 66%  [ 14 ]
No
19%
 19%  [ 4 ]
I don't know
14%
 14%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 21

Author Message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Saellys wrote:
mr pine wrote:
You're just now calling me out on that? I posted it months ago.


I took pains to avoid this thread when it was originally posted. Yes, I am just now calling me out on that, hence my statement that I'm amazed no one called you out on it before. I mean, jeez--that little snippet of stupid was left unanswered for almost three weeks. I know I'm not the only snark shark on this forum, but I guess everyone else has been on vacation.

wilsmith wrote:
JBaker FTW!

and Gundamit your post before the last was what I was implying as far as a modus operandi for gay rights activists, even your ultimate conclusion was the endgame I had in mind as far as a strategy for them. Allowing de facto segregation and the termination of busing are things current activists have permitted. Consider that settling. And has Augusta been integrated yet? You can only get so far, so fast. A tradition is tradition because it doesn't change.

mr pine wrote:
and, if you look closely, minority groups (no matter if it is gays, females, Hispanics, etc) they do not want equal rights, they want preferential treatment.

and that is wrong. and no one can argue that.
Nah, I think that's an over-generalization. On the other hand, do you think majority group members want preferential treatment, would you say they are all humble, acquiescent souls who don't believe they are entitled to anything, or superior to anyone?


Man, that was the shortest post on this thread by me, and it was completely ignored, to the extent that an argument about a lack of a retort formed based on ignorance of my immediate response, for shame... go check page 2, it's on there. No fibbin'

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9593 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


I am not really great with words. Or voicing my opinion properly sometimes.

So all I can say is this;

of course it is based on my own expirences.
Do I think I lost out on a job because of eeoc? no.
I live in a rural midwest town.
according to wikipedia 85% of my population is white.

I lost out on jobs because i don't have the college experience from not getting a loan, etc (i kid).

but a lot of what we are talking about here in regards to being gay is mostly based on personal experience too (i know a gay guy and none of them would choose to be that way) or the like.

even before I was a Christian I took (and still do) all scientific data with a grain of salt. remember scientists are the ones who said breast milk was bad. and formula was the way to go. then they said breast milk is best.

they also said eggs were bad for you. then they said it was ok. then they said the whites were ok but not the yellows (racist?)

and as far as pychologists, why are we so quick to claim that some guy from oxford, or yale has it right?

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


wilsmith wrote:
Man, that was the shortest post on this thread by me, and it was completely ignored, to the extent that an argument about a lack of a retort formed based on ignorance of my immediate response, for shame... go check page 2, it's on there. No fibbin'


Crap! I completely missed it! Sorry man. Wink

mr pine wrote:
I am not really great with words. Or voicing my opinion properly sometimes.

So all I can say is this;

of course it is based on my own expirences.
Do I think I lost out on a job because of eeoc? no.
I live in a rural midwest town.
according to wikipedia 85% of my population is white.

I lost out on jobs because i don't have the college experience from not getting a loan, etc (i kid).


So, getting back to my original point, what personal experience has led you to believe that minority groups actually seek preferential treatment?

mr pine wrote:
but a lot of what we are talking about here in regards to being gay is mostly based on personal experience too (i know a gay guy and none of them would choose to be that way) or the like.


That parenthetical aside has me stumped. You know one gay person, but can extrapolate information about all of them based on that individual? Or are you referring to arguments others are making in this thread being based on personal experience, and that was just an example? Sorry, I've had a frazzling week.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic here, but the impression that I've gotten from this thread is that most people are discussing gay marriage based on sources they've read or conversations they've had with gay people. A lot of people talking about this are straight, and some of them are already married, so it's not like they have actual personal experience with gay marriage.

mr pine wrote:
even before I was a Christian I took (and still do) all scientific data with a grain of salt. remember scientists are the ones who said breast milk was bad. and formula was the way to go. then they said breast milk is best.

they also said eggs were bad for you. then they said it was ok. then they said the whites were ok but not the yellows (racist?)


I have no idea where this came from, but I'll bite. I'm all for having a healthy distrust of what people in some supposed position of authority tell you, within reason. At the same time, unlike, say, most religion, science is always changing. New discoveries are made every day. Old research is replaced with experiments that involve modern technology and techniques that are, we presume, better. Doctors don't cure people with leeches anymore. You're okay with that, right?

The common household items Dateline NBC warns could kill you and your children one week are the new secret ingredient to fighting Alzheimer's the next week. This does not mean all science is automatically wrong and bad--it means things change.

mr pine wrote:
and as far as pychologists, why are we so quick to claim that some guy from oxford, or yale has it right?


Again, I don't know where this came from, but if you're trying to work it into people's beliefs of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, it's a moot point. You don't trust some guy from Oxford or Yale? Cool. Go look up statements from actual gay people. Talk to some in person if you can manage it. Sources, man.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


i dont have the time (or energy to respond to everything).

i will just say this. I am not sure if the line "talk to a gay person if you can manage it" was a dig or not. but that's ok, I have shovels too.

I have a friend of mine who is gay. he was a co worker of mine. and i didnt even know he was gay till many months after we became great friends.
of course that didnt change anything between him and i.

he knew i was christian and we talked openly and honestly about how he felt and how I felt. what he believed and what he and i believed.

now here is the kicker. this friend of mine is actually now serving a 19 year prison sentence for child molestation.

again, not something i knew about at the time. and i still dont know now. i have no clue what the specifics of the case are. i just know he did something wrong, he is being punished for it (as he should) and that is enough for me.

in fact i just got his prison address today from his boyfriend.

one final word, my friend asked me to write a letter of recommendation to the court on his behalf in the hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

i say all that to say, i am not disgusted by gay people. because i dont see them as gay people, i see them as people. just like you or i.

and i find it awesome that even though him and i couldn't disagree more morally or religiously we had such a good friendship that he felt it beneficial to him to have me something nice about him in court.

my whole point of bumping this thread was to see what people thought about the statement ric warren said that a predisposition doesn't warrant acceptance of behavior.

and cubs is right, his argument is not a red herring. i dont know why people thing he (or others) are comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
A
he is simply asking if one wants equal rights for all marriage, then were does it end? where do you draw the line? you have to have a line somewhere right?

i have yet to see anyone answer that question.


edit

oh and Captain Jack Harkness is my hero second only to the Doctor himself.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:
i dont have the time (or energy to respond to everything).

i will just say this. I am not sure if the line "talk to a gay person if you can manage it" was a dig or not. but that's ok, I have shovels too.


Not a dig. Like I said, I couldn't tell whether your comment about knowing one gay guy was a reference to the arguments other people have been making in this thread.

mr pine wrote:
I have a friend of mine who is gay. he was a co worker of mine. and i didnt even know he was gay till many months after we became great friends.
of course that didnt change anything between him and i.

he knew i was christian and we talked openly and honestly about how he felt and how I felt. what he believed and what he and i believed.

now here is the kicker. this friend of mine is actually now serving a 19 year prison sentence for child molestation.

again, not something i knew about at the time. and i still dont know now. i have no clue what the specifics of the case are. i just know he did something wrong, he is being punished for it (as he should) and that is enough for me.

in fact i just got his prison address today from his boyfriend.

one final word, my friend asked me to write a letter of recommendation to the court on his behalf in the hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

i say all that to say, i am not disgusted by gay people. because i dont see them as gay people, i see them as people. just like you or i.

and i find it awesome that even though him and i couldn't disagree more morally or religiously we had such a good friendship that he felt it beneficial to him to have me something nice about him in court.


Gotcha.

mr pine wrote:
my whole point of bumping this thread was to see what people thought about the statement ric warren said that a predisposition doesn't warrant acceptance of behavior.


Whether or not we individually accept the behavior is immaterial. The government has no place legislating subjective individual morality, which means a government-supported institution such as marriage should be available to all. (Or, as I mentioned before, abolished entirely.)

mr pine wrote:
he is simply asking if one wants equal rights for all marriage, then were does it end? where do you draw the line? you have to have a line somewhere right?

i have yet to see anyone answer that question.


It's a good question. Personally I think consenting human adults who are not close blood relations (second cousins at least, please--sorry, Arkansas!) should be allowed to get married. I'm guessing that's a given for just about everyone else participating in this discussion as well. Nobody is going to seriously say, "Well, you're letting two men get married, so why can't I marry my goat?"

mr pine wrote:
edit

oh and Captain Jack Harkness is my hero second only to the Doctor himself.


Hello.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
gundamit
Golly, Poster


Stop picking on the left handed guy. He didn't choose to be that way. Or did he? Laughing Scientists have determined being left handed is not the sign of the devil. But I still wouldn't hire him.

Seriously though, I ignored it because I thought he was trolling. Razz

A letter of recommendation from the "not really great with words" guy? Seriously?

_________________
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 | 
Last edited by gundamit on Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:24 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


isn't it true in the olden days they tried to teach left handed people how to write right handed?

isn't like the latin (?) word for left handed sinister or something?


as far as the letter. I was given a form letter with which I could add specifics to.

So it was easy enough to write.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sprocket
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:

i have yet to see anyone answer that question.


Well, alright, but I come from a position of not being American and so the constitution (+ammendments) doesn't form the ground-work of my critical thinking on this subject, which is going to be a Important negation. So, someone else is going to have to do all that stuff.

So:
Cubs wrote:
If the state has no right to stop homosexuals from marrying, then how do they have the right to stop siblings or cousins or polygamy?


Well really, if it weren't for the birth defects then I wouldn't have an issue with it. Though, even with birth defects the Habsburg empire did pretty well for themselves and their monstrous chins over several centuries! I think incest is something that most people are repelled by, on a gut level, which probably used to be true of homosexuality (well, depending on the historical period) but hopefully isn't now. Why should this be the case? Well, neither homosexuality nor incest lead to successful reproduction - in the case of homosexuality not at all, in the case of incest the children are more likely to suffer various ailments and deformities. Now, I know that we don't inherit attitutes and prejudices. However, if people perceive something as being unnatural it tends to go a pretty long way toward putting them of it - from sexuality to GM foods all the way along to fake flowers at funerals!

Thing is, I think the notion of something being 'natural' is pretty tautological. Which is to say that humans are in and part of nature, thus anything we do is as natural as anything else. When people say 'natural' what they mean seems to be either 1.) Animals do it. 2.) It helps with the continuation of the species. 3.) Natural in the eyes of God.

1.) Animals aren't a good inspiration! Bears kill cubs to send their women into lactation! Rats eat their babies when desperate! Etc. Etc. Clearly, by typing this message on a computer I'm bidding a fond farewell to the animal kingdom and frankly good riddance, it is (to channel Werner Herzog for a minute) a place of indifference and chaos.

2.) Over-population is the main "evil" in the world today - it leads to starvation and civil war and the only conceivable way to prevent it (enforced birth control/ sterilization) is deeply unethical. Helping continue the species isn't going to be a problem for us. We've got that one sorted. Having some humans live together in loving relationships and not continue the species, would be very helpful right about now.

3.) I couldn't possibly say.

So basically, marriage between siblings and cousins I would legalise, if birth defects weren't an issue.

Polyamorous relationships I accept morally, but my brain vaguely imagines there to be complex factors involved regarding estate and taxation, which I don't understand.

So, I'll just leave it at my provocative pro-incest argument and be outta here!

_________________
"A little less love, a little more common decency." - Kurt Vonnegut
Joined: 21 Aug 2003 | Posts: 5260 | Location: Ipswich, Suffolk, England
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kulvir
Laughing Citizen


If the state has no right to stop inter-racial couples from marrying, then how do they have the right to stop siblings or cousins or polygamy?

My point is the state does not have an absolute right to narrowly define marriage. As for incest and polygamy, Canada's had gay marriage for over 5 years and no movement to legalize those two things is in sight. Our anti-polygamy laws have been tested all the way to the supreme court and are constitutional. People engaged in incest are not a legally defined minority and neither are polygamists.

_________________
Kulvir.
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 | Posts: 1843 | Location: Vancouver, BC
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


^ I follow you. When you say the state can't stop, I think here it's a matter of the state not sanctioning. You can get married by a church official who got their credentials online, with nothing supporting them (I forgot that website for that church that lets you become a minister by feeling out an online app so you can marry people). Our laws aren't punitive in that sense, as opposed to the Anti-Miscegenation laws (no inter-racial marriage) where it was Criminal. Here, the state won't marry you, or validate your marriage in a legal sense, if it's not on the books. So, if you want to get married and find a non-gvt. entity to marry you, your gesture of love come be fulfilled. You can go to another state and get married ( a bunch of homosexual couples drove to Iowa a few years ago when it was legalized there so they could) but when you come back to a state that doesn't recognize it, you're still who you are. It's purely sentimental in those circumstances, but not criminal. No one is stopped from marrying, so it's not the same as Anti-Miscegenation Laws.

The issue bleeds into cultural recognition, which taints the Legal recognition aspect, which to a lot of people sounds logical and rational, based on their cultural definitions of what is permissible. The whole issue of semantics and nomenclature as far as calling it "Marriage" and where the "Marriage Tradition" comes from seems to be the pot most stirred. Some people say Marriage is social construct with no spiritual or religious baggage that need be associated with it. Religious conservatives see it as a sacrament to be honored and promoted, ideally (people fail, hence: to err is human). All the hand-wringing about hypocrisy as far as fidelity & divorce is petty since we all fail at everything, all the time, and the only people who don't are the ones who don't take a stand on anything.

/pyschobabble

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9593 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jdstories
Vintage Newbie


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
DRMS_7888 wrote:
I've never understood attacking Walker's ruling based on his sexual orientation.


In 1999, this judge rejected arguments from the parents of a boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son's teacher had made in the classroom. In 2005, he sided with City of Oakland against two employees who placed fliers promoting "natural famly, marriage and family values."


It looks like you were supporting DRMS point here. Having worked for to separate government institutions, I have first hand experience of why he may have ruled in favor of Oakland in '05. I realize it seems wholesome, but the City can't be seen to favor one personal point of view over another lest the City be subject to litigation.

ABC News wrote:
The city had "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals. . . .(and has) a duty under state law to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.


The '99 ruling seems to be mostly in order, but, without knowing what the parents' arguments were it would be tough to judge for myself. However, I'm not sure in what religious text it says, "Thou shalt not subject yourself to pro-gay sentiments, lest ye feeble-minded be swayed." You might think about providing more information next time.

DRMS_7888 wrote:
Sexual orientation isn't necessarily something you are 100% biologically born with, but it's something that develops without your consent. There's no matter of "believing" any more than you can "believe" the superficiality of skin color. You either know the facts or you don't.


? Are you saying skin color is or is not superficial?

Also, not sure if I was picking up on sarcasm or not, but I would keep the jury out on whether or not sexual orientation is inborn. New research is always being done, and the latest (and oldest) doesn't look good for the conservative POV on this issue.

wilsmith wrote:
Given the opportunity, race is Totally superficial as far as a person's character, disposition, taste, and ability, outside of tolerance to sun exposure.

Homosexuality has become a lifestyle in the eyes of some, which I have come to associate with the pursuit of all things vain, if I let my TV tell me so. I know that's not the reality, but I will still contend that Sexuality and emotional attachment/ Love are not the same thing.

So, seriously, what's the real issue here? Like I've contended before, if this is really about mutual benefits spouses receive, keep it real and admit it. If this is about a symbolic victory over oppressive religion, admit it. If it's both, hip hip hooray! I say, for the mutual benefits, operating under the logic of common law marriage, (7 years) go for it. But that's a civil thing, call it a civil thing. If it's a symbolic thing, the Government has NO Place pushing such an effort alone. It's unconstitutional for the issue to even be broached.


Above are some interesting points made by "Wilsmith". I weeded through a lot, because the post meanders a great deal, but I FEEL there are some hinky points being made. I just can't pinpoint what those are in the first two sections. For the last section, I would reply that no victory over any oppressive religion can be achieved because it is not a religious question. People are mistaking it to be a religious question. If a particular religion believes marriage is between only hetero couples, those people are free to continue believing that. The state should be free of religion to define marriage however it needs to. It is along the same lines as that Bible quote, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesarís, and unto God the things that are Godís".

I think the real problem the government of California had was cowardice. They were afraid of the political consequences of doing the right thing and legalizing gay marriage. Instead they put it on the ballot as a referendum. I'm pretty sure they knew whatever the outcome litigation would follow and the courts would sort it out. At least this way the state government in California would be blameless either way. After all, it wasn't they who put the law into the books. It was the will of the people, and ultimately it will be the ruling of the courts.

Sprocket wrote:
I think incest is something that most people are repelled by, on a gut level, which probably used to be true of homosexuality (well, depending on the historical period) but hopefully isn't now. Why should this be the case?


Actually, I think people's repulsion regarding homosexuality is at the crux of the debate, well-hidden though it may be. There have been studies confirming how certain people react toward homosexual acts. I don't have the research pulled up, but the gist of it is that heterosexual males in particular have a negative reaction to the idea or the viewing of homosexual acts. Some have very strong negative reactions. Being a heterosexual male myself, I can add one more data point to that indicating the research's accuracy. You see, I have to use a part of my brain, other than the reptilian, to understand that homosexuality it not an affront.

In fact, I've begun to wonder if this was a big selling point to many religions in the early days. If someone gets up on a pulpit and tells you in a loud, southern drawl something you already feel in your gut is true (whether it be true or not) I think many sheep among us would be willing to follow whatever else they say, especially if those sheep lack the willpower or brainpower or to see through the BS. They say the best place to hide a lie is between two truths.


wilsmith wrote:
The issue bleeds into cultural recognition, which taints the Legal recognition aspect, which to a lot of people sounds logical and rational, based on their cultural definitions of what is permissible. The whole issue of semantics and nomenclature as far as calling it "Marriage" and where the "Marriage Tradition" comes from seems to be the pot most stirred. Some people say Marriage is social construct with no spiritual or religious baggage that need be associated with it. Religious conservatives see it as a sacrament to be honored and promoted, ideally


This is where the main problems lie. Cultural recognition should be immaterial as regards this issue. 50 years ago the predominant culture held that blacks were inferior and shouldn't marry whites. Does anyone now think this is still the case? If the current prdominant culture says that two of the same sex shouldn't marry, I'm confident in 50 more years we'll see we were being equally as stupid as a nation. Cultural currents do not dictate what should be legally recognized. Unfortunately, they often influence state governments into making stupid decisions like prop 8, but fortunately the US Consitution is well-written enough to prevent such things from staying on the books.

Is anyone else in awe that the Constitution was so well written that we haven't been able to screw it up permanently in 223 years?

Whether marriage is a social construct or not, it is now under the jurisdiction of the States which have to obey the US Constitution. Meaning, if they are going to charge money for something, it can't be something religious. I.E.: when you get your marriage license from your local government office, you are not paying for permission to be recognized by God in a religious ceremony. That would be illegal. But also illegal would be for religion to try and influence your local government's policy on such a thing. Your church can't influence the local government's policy on something it charges for, like a marriage license, anymore than it could influence taxation throughout your county or state.

Another point you made, which I think is perceptive, but only illustrates lunacy, is how the religious see marriage as a sacrament [between a man and a woman]. This is true, but since same-sex marriages won't take place in churches who believe that, it is basically out of their hands. By the same token, churches do not see a marriage performed by a JOP as a sacrament. The Catholic church doesn't endorse any marriage taking place outside their churches, so why are they not fighting to keep the word sacred for only the Catholics? Actually, I think they tried something similar when Henry left their church and took all of England with him. Bottom line is for religious conservatives to do their legal jobs at work and practice their faiths everywhere else. If a religious conservative lady is doing the paperwork for marriage licenses in a particular county doesn't mean she has to agree with a black man and a white woman getting married. She just has to do her job.

JD

P.S.: Did you like what I did there at the end?

_________________
"Well, hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 | Posts: 3655 | Location: Waterloo, Tejas
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


^I am with you, sans "we'll think it was irrational/ stupid in 50 years." People who have moved out of the cities to the uber-burbs via de facto segregation (a large number here) don't think segregation was such a bad thing to frown upon, they just know it's sticky rhetoric to support publicly, and they practice it extensively privately. But that's a class issue just as much race.

Beyond that, I agree with the State institution being non-religious, but it's a symbolic fight too, even if we say it isn't. People still get swore in to public office on Bibles, and no one has force the rewording of the Pledge of Allegiance. If a POTUSA didn't attend a church, or declared himself something other than Christian, Democracy would work to enforce what some people fail to accept is the majority stance in this country. People allow the media perception of the USA to lead them to believe otherwise is the greatest mystery to me ever.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9593 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


jdstories wrote:
DRMS_7888 wrote:
Sexual orientation isn't necessarily something you are 100% biologically born with, but it's something that develops without your consent. There's no matter of "believing" any more than you can "believe" the superficiality of skin color. You either know the facts or you don't.


? Are you saying skin color is or is not superficial?

Also, not sure if I was picking up on sarcasm or not, but I would keep the jury out on whether or not sexual orientation is inborn. New research is always being done, and the latest (and oldest) doesn't look good for the conservative POV on this issue.
Homosexuality has become a lifestyle in the eyes of some, which I have come to associate with the pursuit of all things vain, if I let my TV tell me so. I know that's not the reality, but I will still contend that Sexuality and emotional attachment/ Love are not the same thing.


Skin color is indeed superficial. My point was that arguing that sexual orientation is a choice is akin to arguing that there are biological differences between races, there is simply no one of knowledge who will take you seriously.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


interesting article about what you just said drums.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_4_36/ai_n15890897/

it is about that drug that is for african americans only.

the danger they say is that people will think there are biological differences between races.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
lessthaninfinite
Sea Post King


mr pine wrote:
interesting article about what you just said drums.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_4_36/ai_n15890897/

it is about that drug that is for african americans only.

the danger they say is that people will think there are biological differences between races.

Sickle cell disease?

Duffy antigen?

99.9999999999% the same, but there are differences

_________________
dave or a reasonable facsimile thereof
Joined: 15 Apr 2006 | Posts: 389 | Location: pittsburgh, land of penguins and other things i don't like
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group