Debate and Discussion

Why I can't stand CNN.
mapaghimagsik at 6:07PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
Bigot is a strong word and is used to categorize someone who is intolerant of a differing view. Well, being opposed to homosexuality does not make one a bigot. It simply makes them opposed to homosexuality.



Fair enough. So are people who discriminate against religious people bigots? Or would you say they are opposed to religion?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 6:49PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Vindibudd
Bigot is a strong word and is used to categorize someone who is intolerant of a differing view. Well, being opposed to homosexuality does not make one a bigot. It simply makes them opposed to homosexuality.



Fair enough. So are people who discriminate against religious people bigots? Or would you say they are opposed to religion?

This needs to be refined even further. If someone is opposed to the idea of homosexuality as being genetic and not a choice, they are not being bigots, they are simply taking a position.

Discrimination does not equal bigotry and discrimination on basis of something that someone has control over is not inherently wrong either.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:07PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
This needs to be refined even further. If someone is opposed to the idea of homosexuality as being genetic and not a choice, they are not being bigots, they are simply taking a position.

Discrimination does not equal bigotry and discrimination on basis of something that someone has control over is not inherently wrong either.

I'm agreed that the belief that someone who is opposed to the idea of homosexuality not being genetic is not bigotry.

So where's the line drawn?

Are the fundamentalist Muslims right to stone homosexuals to death? If not, what level are they allowed to dictate the lives of people who are homosexual?

Lets say homosexuality was an individual choice, and a free one that that. Would radical Islam's ‘solution’ be more acceptable? If not, how much control should the state, or even other individuals have?

So on the flipside, lets say there was a gay gene, and it was provable. There isn't, but lets for the moment say there is, because, as you've established, proving a negative is pretty darn tricky. Would that change your perspective on homosexuality?

For fairness, I'll answer the flipside: If there was beyond a shadow of a doubt proof that homosexuality was an individual choice, It would have no bearing on my position on the freedoms that homosexuals should enjoy.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 7:37PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I don't see where it matters if it were genetic or not. They're American citizens with the right to live their lives as they choose. Just because the majority don't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't have full citizenship.

But the thrust of the argument was that we won't have non-straight, non-white, non-christian, or women that will get the vote. Vindibudd says that there just hasn't been a good one, and others say that its sexism, racism, homophobia or somehow related to religion.

But the presidency is a crazy place to try to prove this argument. In the 200 years since this country was founded, only 43 Americans have been chosen for the position. No matter who is in that office, that's a way too small sampling size to prove anything.

Congress or the Senate? You get closer, but still the pool is too small.

I do believe that racism, sexism, homophobia and religious zealotry are still a problem in this country. I also believe that every generation gets more tolerant than the last.

I'm not sure when the race or gender line will be crossed with the presidency. I will say that that person will have to be outstanding to overcome the obstacles that are there. The next one not as much. The sexual orientation divide will probably take quite a bit longer, possibly longer than it will take for an atheist to take office.

_________

As for the media blasting about these things and other personal elements, that's the easiest reporting there is and it saves money. If you want to blast CNN for doing it, you must hold Fox, CBC and ABC to the same standard. It isn't hard to see where all of them do it at least as much as CNN does, and if they seek to distract you from something else they all do it a lot more.

There is no investigative reporting anymore, where reporters go scouring records and interviewing hundreds of people to unearth a coverup or at least something substantially important. Instead, reporters sit by the phone and wait for candidates to drop things about themselves or other candidates into their laps.

This is because of the corporatization of the media. Where media used to be a money loser for the networks (but a prestigious branch that gave them credibility and earned them the right to use the public's airwaves), it now has to compete on the same level as the entertainment industry.

So it has become salacious and vapid because that's what sells advertising without upsetting advertisers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:53PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Considering I know a gay person I trust her more then you and your church that she was born that way.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
mapaghimagsik at 8:20PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Ronson
There is no investigative reporting anymore, where reporters go scouring records and interviewing hundreds of people to unearth a coverup or at least something substantially important. Instead, reporters sit by the phone and wait for candidates to drop things about themselves or other candidates into their laps.


So what do you think about the reporting that was done with the Duke Cunningham scandal?

Also, what do you think about the reporting done by Bill Moyers?

For fun, I'll throw Talking Points Memo and The Agonist into the mix. I also thought FireDog Lake's live blogging of the Senate Committee's Investigations into the Attorney firings was top notch. I'm sure you have your favorites, since you mentioned that you get a lot of info through RSS feeds. So share!

I'm throwing out these examples because I think there is investigative reporting being done, but far more rarely is it being done by the traditional media. Nothing has every shown this to be truer when Skube said that “blogs don't do investigative journalism like real reporters do” and when asked if he'd ever read any of the blogs he listed as bad, he was forced to admit that he hadn't.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 8:23PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Considering I know a gay person I trust her more then you and your church that she was born that way.

Well that's nice. I know a person who used to be gay who now has 4 kids and a wife. I trust him more than you and your friend.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 8:28PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Are the fundamentalist Muslims right to stone homosexuals to death? If not, what level are they allowed to dictate the lives of people who are homosexual?


No, and no.

mapaghimagsik
Lets say homosexuality was an individual choice, and a free one that that. Would radical Islam's ‘solution’ be more acceptable? If not, how much control should the state, or even other individuals have?

1. No.
2. This isn't about control that the state has over the individual so I am not going to get into it.

mapaghimagsik
So on the flipside, lets say there was a gay gene, and it was provable. There isn't, but lets for the moment say there is, because, as you've established, proving a negative is pretty darn tricky. Would that change your perspective on homosexuality?

Likely.

mapaghimagsik
For fairness, I'll answer the flipside: If there was beyond a shadow of a doubt proof that homosexuality was an individual choice, It would have no bearing on my position on the freedoms that homosexuals should enjoy.

Okay.

mapaghimagsik
I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Megadittos, Rush.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 8:34PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
I don't see where it matters if it were genetic or not. They're American citizens with the right to live their lives as they choose. Just because the majority don't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't have full citizenship.

No one is saying that homosexuals can't be full citizens. I don't even know how that would be possible to achieve.

Ronson
But the thrust of the argument was that we won't have non-straight, non-white, non-christian, or women that will get the vote. Vindibudd says that there just hasn't been a good one, and others say that its sexism, racism, homophobia or somehow related to religion.

But the presidency is a crazy place to try to prove this argument. In the 200 years since this country was founded, only 43 Americans have been chosen for the position. No matter who is in that office, that's a way too small sampling size to prove anything.

Congress or the Senate? You get closer, but still the pool is too small.

I do believe that racism, sexism, homophobia and religious zealotry are still a problem in this country. I also believe that every generation gets more tolerant than the last.

I'm not sure when the race or gender line will be crossed with the presidency. I will say that that person will have to be outstanding to overcome the obstacles that are there. The next one not as much. The sexual orientation divide will probably take quite a bit longer, possibly longer than it will take for an atheist to take office.

Okay.

Ronson
As for the media blasting about these things and other personal elements, that's the easiest reporting there is and it saves money. If you want to blast CNN for doing it, you must hold Fox, CBC and ABC to the same standard. It isn't hard to see where all of them do it at least as much as CNN does, and if they seek to distract you from something else they all do it a lot more.

True.


Ronson
There is no investigative reporting anymore, where reporters go scouring records and interviewing hundreds of people to unearth a coverup or at least something substantially important. Instead, reporters sit by the phone and wait for candidates to drop things about themselves or other candidates into their laps.

This is because of the corporatization of the media. Where media used to be a money loser for the networks (but a prestigious branch that gave them credibility and earned them the right to use the public's airwaves), it now has to compete on the same level as the entertainment industry.

So it has become salacious and vapid because that's what sells advertising without upsetting advertisers.

Don't know enough about the process to comment about it like that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:26PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
Are the fundamentalist Muslims right to stone homosexuals to death? If not, what level are they allowed to dictate the lives of people who are homosexual?


No, and no.

I understand the first answer, but not the second. Are you saying that the state – or any other group, doesn't have the right to dictate into the lives of homosexuals? But if I understand right, you do not feel people who “practice the homosexual lifestyle” deserve the same protections of any other minority?

2. This isn't about control that the state has over the individual so I am not going to get into it.

Wwe started this whole thing with you saying that your feelings against homosexuals isn't bigotry. At what level would your feelings against homosexuals (or the practice of homosexuality) spur you to action?

Would you hire somoeone who was homosexual?
Would you hire someone who was straight over someone who was homosexual, all other skills being equal?

Also, I know you haven't seen proof of a “gay-gene”. Have you seen concrete proof that being homosexual is purely a choice? Note that I haven't blasted you with all sorts of pseudo science links that say definitively once and for all that there is such thing as a gay gene – I would hope you would do the same rigor in your search for the definitive “gay is choice” proof.

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from on this gay thing.

On a side note, I think anecdotal evidence is just that, and probably not very helpful. This probably serves as TMI, but I think most of us want who we want, and didn't feel there was a concrete decision point. At least I don't remember thinking to myself, “I think I'll be straight/gay”



last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 5:02AM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
mapaghimagsik
I'm throwing out these examples because I think there is investigative reporting being done, but far more rarely is it being done by the traditional media. Nothing has every shown this to be truer when Skube said that “blogs don't do investigative journalism like real reporters do” and when asked if he'd ever read any of the blogs he listed as bad, he was forced to admit that he hadn't.

Actually, you prove my point. I was just saying that mainstream media - corporate media - is more geared for profit than for finding information. Firedog Lake and such are all run by people who care about America and exposing the criminals. I hope they are as voracious if the Democrats run the place, but I expect they will be.

As for Duke Cunningham, the investigation was ignored by mainstream media until the indictment came down. At that point it was treated as a everyday corruption story. Even after the conviction was leveed, they haven't swerved much from that point. The simple fact that Cunningham took bribes in exchange for military contracts in a time of war should have outraged people, but it wasn't portrayed that way by corporate media.

Why not? Well, there's the conspiracy angle, where all of our media is owned by 5 corporations, many of them tied to weapons manufacturing. But even without that there's the fact that corporate news is making a profit, and to continue to make a profit needs to keep people watching. An in-depth analysis of the Cunningham scandal and it's ties to Delay and Abramoff is considered too boring and most Americans would turn it off.

Then there's the timidity of corporate media. If they craft an article that accuses someone of something serious, they have to be able to back it up with a full investigation on their part. It's much cheaper to not do that. And since they need to make a profit, they do it the cheaper way.

This is not something new I'm throwing out there. Many ex-reporters have explained this problem since the 1980s.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 5:20AM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Ronson
Actually, you prove my point. I was just saying that mainstream media - corporate media - is more geared for profit than for finding information. Firedog Lake and such are all run by people who care about America and exposing the criminals. I hope they are as voracious if the Democrats run the place, but I expect they will be.


They have been pretty aggressive on calling the Blue Dogs to heel. Of course, they have the advantage of that the people who go to that site care very much about the future of America, and are willing to educate themselves – at least passingly – on wonkery. Its not easy for the uninitiated, but they're kind about it.

As for Duke Cunningham, the investigation was ignored by mainstream media until the indictment came down. At that point it was treated as a everyday corruption story.

I agree that most papers did treat it as any other story, though there were some shining examples.
Why not? Well, there's the conspiracy angle, where all of our media is owned by 5 corporations, many of them tied to weapons manufacturing. But even without that there's the fact that corporate news is making a profit, and to continue to make a profit needs to keep people watching. An in-depth analysis of the Cunningham scandal and it's ties to Delay and Abramoff is considered too boring and most Americans would turn it off.

Why is it conspiracy theory when all you have to do is look at market forces? Anything that boosts the bottom line is fair game, and anything that hurts the bottom line will be limited.

I agree its been going on for a long time. The removal of the Fairness Doctrine, with all its warts and flaws, really helped with the downward slide.

You still haven't listed your favorite sites, a transgression for which, kittens will suffer.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
mapaghimagsik at 5:22AM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
No one is saying that homosexuals can't be full citizens. I don't even know how that would be possible to achieve.


Someone came up with a solution once. It ended quite horribly, but the process is entirely repeatable. The first step is declaring that prejudice against homosexuals on religious grounds isn't bigotry.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 10:32AM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
I understand the first answer, but not the second. Are you saying that the state – or any other group, doesn't have the right to dictate into the lives of homosexuals? But if I understand right, you do not feel people who “practice the homosexual lifestyle” deserve the same protections of any other minority?

I do not believe that people that choose to engage in a particular lifestyle are on the same level of people who have no choice in their identity.
For example, racial minorities have no choice in the matter. Homosexuals do. So, no I don't think that one's sexual preference is something that should be granted “minority” protections, whatever that is supposed to mean.

mapaghimagsik
Wwe started this whole thing with you saying that your feelings against homosexuals isn't bigotry. At what level would your feelings against homosexuals (or the practice of homosexuality) spur you to action?

What kind of action would I allegedly be spurred to?

mapaghimagsik
Would you hire somoeone who was homosexual?

That depends on what they are applying to be hired for.

mapaghimagsik
Would you hire someone who was straight over someone who was homosexual, all other skills being equal?

Again, it depends on the job.

mapaghimagsik
Also, I know you haven't seen proof of a “gay-gene”. Have you seen concrete proof that being homosexual is purely a choice? Note that I haven't blasted you with all sorts of pseudo science links that say definitively once and for all that there is such thing as a gay gene – I would hope you would do the same rigor in your search for the definitive “gay is choice” proof.

It is a zero sum game. Either it is genetic or it is not.

mapaghimagsik
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from on this gay thing.

If you want to be a gay person, I don't see any justification that I have as an American to stop you from it, nor do I see any reason why you can't have a civil union. However when you are trying to hijack institutions (marriage) that are important to me on a religious basis for your social agenda, then I have every right to stop you. I know you are going to hate this but: If being gay is not a choice but is genetic, well how do we know that any other sexual preference is not genetic? What about beastiality? Oh but you would say, IT'S NOT THE SAME! But I would say, well why not? Why can't we have sex between consenting carbon based life forms?

But I digress. I am not equating the things, I am just pointing out the argument that is most often made can be interchangeable with any other form of sexuality that the general populace is opposed to.

mapaghimagsik
On a side note, I think anecdotal evidence is just that, and probably not very helpful. This probably serves as TMI, but I think most of us want who we want, and didn't feel there was a concrete decision point. At least I don't remember thinking to myself, “I think I'll be straight/gay”

Okay.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 10:34AM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Someone came up with a solution once. It ended quite horribly, but the process is entirely repeatable. The first step is declaring that prejudice against homosexuals on religious grounds isn't bigotry.

Gonna have to be clearer when equating people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 12:25PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
So basically by insisting homosexuality is a choice, you're insisting that every single person in the whole entire world finds men and women equally attractive and get to choose which one they want. It's like apples and oranges, certain people have certain preferences, only oranges that like apples don't turn into morons when they see oranges having sex with each other. I'm straight and am not attracted to men, therefore I know it's not a choice. You must be bi or something. Besides, your amazing powers to brainwash your friend prove nothing.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 12:30PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Vindibudd
However when you are trying to hijack institutions (marriage) that are important to me on a religious basis for your social agenda, then I have every right to stop you.
I for one hate the idea all together. The main form of union should be civil union in this country, but instead are supposedly unbiased government turned a completely religious ceremony into a government regulated thing, without stripping the religion from it. i have nothing against marriage, I'm just shocked how many non-Christains don't realize that it is, in fact, a religious ceremony. Also, yes. Bestiality, pedophilia, all that stuff, all genetic.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 12:35PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
So basically by insisting homosexuality is a choice, you're insisting that every single person in the whole entire world finds men and women equally attractive and get to choose which one they want.

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

Atom Apple
It's like apples and oranges, certain people have certain preferences, only oranges that like apples don't turn into morons when they see oranges having sex with each other.

This is quite possibly the most inaccurate analogy ever created.

Atom Apple
I'm straight and am not attracted to men, therefore I know it's not a choice.

Okay.

Atom Apple
You must be bi or something.

And what have I said to indicate that?

Atom Apple
Besides, your amazing powers to brainwash your friend prove nothing.

My friend actually has been straight ever since I have known him. But it appears that people that fit your argument could never have possibly been brainwashed, only the people that fit my argument.

Nice try.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 12:38PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
I for one hate the idea all together. The main form of union should be civil union in this country, but instead are supposedly unbiased government turned a completely religious ceremony into a government regulated thing, without stripping the religion from it.

You can get married by a justice of the peace and it is completely legal and not religious.

Atom Apple
i have nothing against marriage, I'm just shocked how many non-Christains don't realize that it is, in fact, a religious ceremony.

This is why most people are opposed to it.

Atom Apple
Also, yes. Bestiality, pedophilia, all that stuff, all genetic.

You are welcome to show me the genetic research results authenticating that statement any time you like.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 12:58PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
I just did, however…
Vindibudd
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
…since you can't understand the proof you'll be clueless forever. I've said it already I'm not going to try to explain it.

(By the way, the oranges bonking was a joke.)

EDIT: On second thought, I think I will explain it. Two guys go to a Long John Silvers. The first guy wants chicken because he doesn't like fish. However, the other guy loves fish and hates chicken. Does it make since for the other guy to the angry with the chicken-eater because in his opinion fish is better and should be the only choice? So, no. It's not a choice. It's just like food preference. Show me a food preference gene, right now, over the internet. See how moronic that sounds?

If it were a choice, that means they'd be equal. Chicken and fish being the exact same substance. Then you'd get a choice between the two, even though you always get a choice, but how would you like it if you were forced to worship Satan because their religion tells you it's right. You just naturally pick what you prefer. What if the pope suddenly said God wants you to be gay? Would you do it? Actually, bad example, you actually belong to that religion. What if Dalai Lama said it?

So yeah, separating marriage from the mainstream would help us all. Until then, let 'em marry.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 3:05PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
since you can't understand the proof you'll be clueless forever. I've said it already I'm not going to try to explain it.

(By the way, the oranges bonking was a joke.)

EDIT: On second thought, I think I will explain it. Two guys go to a Long John Silvers. The first guy wants chicken because he doesn't like fish. However, the other guy loves fish and hates chicken. Does it make since for the other guy to the angry with the chicken-eater because in his opinion fish is better and should be the only choice? So, no. It's not a choice. It's just like food preference. Show me a food preference gene, right now, over the internet. See how moronic that sounds?

If it were a choice, that means they'd be equal. Chicken and fish being the exact same substance. Then you'd get a choice between the two, even though you always get a choice, but how would you like it if you were forced to worship Satan because their religion tells you it's right. You just naturally pick what you prefer. What if the pope suddenly said God wants you to be gay? Would you do it? Actually, bad example, you actually belong to that religion. What if Dalai Lama said it?

So yeah, separating marriage from the mainstream would help us all. Until then, let 'em marry.

Propogation of the species is not the same as what kinds of food one likes. I reject the entire analogy out of hand.

The argument that people make is that homosexuals have no choice in what they are attracted to, that they are born that way. The counter-argument is that it is conditioning and not genetic. In other words, people are not naturally predisposed to getting their jollies with the same gender.

Until someone can prove otherwise, I am sticking with the conditioning argument, and my evidence is that people are being born every day therefore, the genetic argument is in favor of heterosexuals. People that are homosexual choose to be that way, and the natural order of things is the opposite.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:06PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Vindibudd
If you want to be a gay person, I don't see any justification that I have as an American to stop you from it, nor do I see any reason why you can't have a civil union.
Hey, what was that one thing? You know, with the black people and they had separate schools that sucked but the white people kept insisting they were the same but they actually weren't? Yeah, have fun repeating history. And “If you want to be a gay person” is like saying “If you want to be a black person.” Sure, you obviously disagree. That's why from now on I disagree with gravity. I think the Earth is flat, and constantly accelerating upwards, thus pushing us done. Prove me wrong. Oh wait, what? You say you can't? Well then that must mean I'm right, huh?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:10PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Vindibudd
Propogation of the species is not the same as what kinds of food one likes. I reject the entire analogy out of hand.
Why? They both involve things you put in your mouth.

Vindibudd
and the natural order of things is the opposite.
Such an accurate statement.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 3:24PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Why? They both involve things you put in your mouth.

I'm not taking this thread to the toilet.

Atom Apple
Such an accurate statement.

Well gee, I guess we will have to disagree because I don't consider humans to be animals and I don't consider as normal for humans what is normal for animals.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:28PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Yeah, see, there you go, your religion making you disagree. I think this is a safe point to just drop this whole argument. I'll just wait for gay people to get an MLK.

So yeah. That's something about CNN there. Then again, to say any news station doesn't suck is pretty much wrong.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 3:32PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Hey, what was that one thing? You know, with the black people and they had separate schools that sucked but the white people kept insisting they were the same but they actually weren't?

Wrong. Racial segregation does not equal people disagreeing on the validity of the argument that one is gay because of genetics.
You can keep on trying to bring up historical examples of racial prejudice but you will never come up with one that makes a valid analogy.
In fact, you have not made an accurate analogy this whole thread and you have tried at least 3 times already. You fail at analogies.
For this analogy to work, the following must be true:

1. Homosexuality is genetic.
2. I am advocating the policy of segregating homosexuals from heterosexuals.

Neither of which are true.

Atom Apple
Yeah, have fun repeating history. And “If you want to be a gay person” is like saying “If you want to be a black person.” Sure, you obviously disagree.

Well it is obvious that someone is born black simply by looking at them. Or did you miss that? Proving that someone is born homosexual is just slightly more complicated.

Atom Apple
That's why from now on I disagree with gravity. I think the Earth is flat, and constantly accelerating upwards, thus pushing us done. Prove me wrong. Oh wait, what? You say you can't? Well then that must mean I'm right, huh?

You can believe all those things which are provably false. It would not damage your intellectual reputation that you have so painstakingly constructed so far.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 3:34PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Yeah, see, there you go, your religion making you disagree.

Wow, another incoherent statement. The hit parade continues.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 3:38PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
It is a zero sum game. Either it is genetic or it is not.


That's very binary, and leave you in a bit of a pickle, because science cannot determine one way or the other, because few traits, even color are not purely genetic. I can (and have) influenced my skin color with environmental concerns.

I've also asked God to let me know when s/he's upset about homosexuals. I haven't heard anything from God, either. But if I get a telegram, you'll be the first person I'll let know.

I think any scientist worth their salt would say there isn't an isolated gay-gene. But none of them would tell you that its purely environmental as well. Very little is one or the other. Even our conscious choices are based somewhere on deep, deep conditioning and genetics.

So how would you feel about me hiring only atheists? Would that be as right you not hiring gays? Should I not hire an ex-priest at my day care? Would that be right?

Also, your church is not being forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to, so that is *truly* the red herring.

Edit:

I can see you an Atom have started a discussion in a style much more to your liking. I'll leave this conversation to the two of you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:38PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Number 1 is true. Flat Earth was just an analogy. You see, you obviously don't understand analogies. Number 2 had nothing to do with anything. The fact that you hide behind saying I'm wrong with no counter-argument is proof you have nothing left to pull out of your arse. I mean you have nothing left in your arsenal.

Well then, how do you tell a British and an American apart? Mannerisms, correct? You can't seriously tell me you can't tell a gay person by their mannerisms.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 3:48PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
That's very binary, and leave you in a bit of a pickle, because science cannot determine one way or the other, because few traits, even color are not purely genetic. I can (and have) influenced my skin color with environmental concerns.

Environmental modifications are not genetic.

mapaghimagsik
I've also asked God to let me know when s/he's upset about homosexuals. I haven't heard anything from God, either. But if I get a telegram, you'll be the first person I'll let know.

You are an atheist. Nice try.

mapaghimagsik
I think any scientist worth their salt would say there isn't an isolated gay-gene. But none of them would tell you that its purely environmental as well. Very little is one or the other. Even our conscious choices are based somewhere on deep, deep conditioning and genetics.

Again, zero sum.

mapaghimagsik
So how would you feel about me hiring only atheists? Would that be as right you not hiring gays? Should I not hire an ex-priest at my day care? Would that be right?

1. Well I think it would be stupid to hire an atheist to be a pastor for a Southern Baptist church, don't you think?
2. And you are welcome to show me where I said I would not ever hire a homosexual person.
3. As for the last thing, why would that matter one way or another?

mapaghimagsik
Also, your church is not being forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to, so that is *truly* the red herring.

Who said anything about my church?

mapaghimagsik
Edit:

I can see you an Atom have started a discussion in a style much more to your liking. I'll leave this conversation to the two of you.

What, Atom making wild statements trying to indicate that I support archaic policies? No, I don't prefer that conversation method. I'm not going to run away from it either.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved