Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Verdict in Web-Cam Case

I meant to say something about this on Friday, when I first heard the story on NPR, coming home from work. But it was DW's 40th Birthday, so... yeah, going out to dinner took precedence. Then I had to work Saturday, and for most of the day today... Well, I got my grass-seed planted. Which is weird, considering it's mid-March, and I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. We'll see how that goes. And the rest of the day... what can I say? It was 'bonus x.p. weekend', I had to play at least a little. ;)

So... If you're interested, I'm sure some of you have heard by now about the conviction of Dharun Ravi for, among other things, invasion of privacy and commission of a hate crime.  This is the student who, in late 2010, used a web cam to spy on, and broadcast the romantic activities of, his gay roommate. In September of that year, his roommate killed himself, by jumping of the George Washington Bridge.  It should come as little surprise to many of my readers that I was happy to hear about the verdict.

The reason I wanted to write something about this is that, in my opinion, it shows the true value of having hate crime laws in the first place.  There is no question that privacy was invaded. And regardless of the victim, or the motivation  for doing this, most of us would be angry enough about that.  Put aside for the moment that the victim was gay. Imagine it was yourself, or your son or daughter, being filmed without their knowledge. Having sex, maybe, or masturbating, or maybe just having a good long cry at the end of a stressful day. I'm sure we can all sympathize with the anger that this would evoke, our private moments, stolen from us and broadcast for someone else's amusement.

But there was MORE to this. A young man DIED.  And while it would be absurdly presumptuous of me to say that the spying caused the suicide - and indeed, I don't believe it truly did - likewise I cannot accept that it didn't play somea role in it.  I mean, sure the young man was very likely already suicidal. He was likely struggling to come to grips with his sexuality, he was in college with, apparently, few friends. That's a tough situation in and of itself. He may very well have been clinically depressed. (OK, yeah, duh, he KILLED HIMSELF, so OBVIOUSLY...) But that's just it: It's hardly the act of a law abiding citizen to mock and harass and victimize a person on the brink of suicide. Perhaps we're not required to help people by law.  But this was more than a mere invasion of privacy.  There is a death to account for here, and this man played some role in it that cannot be denied.

So what to do?

Well... the hate crime allows the judge to add up to five more years to the sentence, by adding on another conviction.  Without this, we're left with either nothing - just the invasion of privacy, which to me seems woefully inadequate - or upping the charge to something like manslaughter or felony murder (both of which carry a potential life sentence) which, it might surprise some of you to hear me say, I think would be absurdly overkill.  Ravi did NOT intend to KILL this young man. Of that I have no doubt. This was little more than a stupid college prank, or so he thought.  And the role he played in Clementi's death? In the big picture was likely a small and indirect one.  But the fact remains that his prank led, in whatever way, to the death of a fellow human being, and one who had done him no harm.  He can get up to ten years for this, just for the two primary convictions, and he faces deportation, having been born in India.

And I have almost no opinion about the potential sentence at this point. I don't believe he'll get the full ten years, and part of me wants to say that is still just. Admittedly, part of me wants to see the book thrown at him, but this wasn't a cross-burning or violent type of hate crime. And as for deportation... Meh, we'll see how it goes.  Nothing can be done now to bring this young man back.  It's just such a shame that someone chooses to act this way, rather than to reach out and try to help someone.  If more people did, things like this, and other tragedies that hit closer to home, for me anyway, might never have happened. (It would be so easy for me to hate Seung-Hui Cho, but I can only shake my head, and think that Cho was not so different from Clementi - just another young man who needed help, and did not get it.)

So reach out to your fellow man. Let them know that they are not alone. Such small acts of kindness and consideration and empathy can make such a huge difference in the world. Of course, you'll never SEE that difference, as you'll never know what these small acts may have prevented.  But it is so painful to see what happens in their absence.

200 comments:

  1. "Having sex, maybe, or masturbating, or maybe just having a good long cry at the end of a stressful day. I'm sure we can all sympathize with the anger that this would evoke, our private moments, stolen from us and broadcast for someone else's amusement."

    I know I'd be angry enough to jump off a bridge. Yeah, someone making fun of me would just devastate my whole being and I'd have to go kill myself. Good thing being 'gay' IS part of the story, or that murderer would have gotten away with it scott-free.
    Another person who is embarrassed with his lifestyle so he kills himself to avoid living that embarrassment. Why do people make that choice? At least there is someone else to blame for the choices made by others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What choice are you referring to?

      Delete
    2. You're a real dick, you know that?

      Delete
  2. Obviously, the kid was very embarrassed by his lifestyle choice. What other choice did you think I meant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could have meant the choice of suicide, obviously. Should I have assumed your meaning, instead of doing the responsible thing by asking for clarification?

      How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?

      Delete
    2. Seeing as how there is no shortage of dickheads like you who'll spend their entire lives smearing them, telling them that they're deviants, suggesting that there is something morally (or mentally) WRONG with them, etc... It should come as no surprise that a young man, brought up n that society, would feel the need to hide that aspect of himelf. It should come as no surprise that would be "embarrassed," as you put it, when the are so many assholes like you in the world who will try to make them miserable about it. It should come as no surprise that this man had not yet figured out how utterly full of shit you biggoted, ingnorat sons of bitches really are, and that he can simply tell all of you to go FUCK YOURSELVES, and that there is also no shortage of people like me (and the like-minded, majority, in fact) wh will accept him, and help him to realize that people like you are nothing more that biggoted shitheads, not worth the consideration it takes to give someone the time of day. None of that should come as any surprise, but the problem is not with the gay young adult, struggling to come to grips with their sexuality, it is with pieces of absolute shit like you. Go fuck yourself, William. What you have posted here is already beyond the pale, and I'm only two comments in.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, Eddia, almost like the constant smearing and suggesting there is something mentally WRONG with conservatives. Gee, YOU can do all that smearing and suggesting, but you whine when others do it. Go figure.

      However, I do like how you describe the gay life as one of misery and pain yet hold the contention that they are in relationships that cause no harm to anyone.


      " Go fuck yourself, William. What you have posted here is already beyond the pale, and I'm only two comments in."

      Like you're any better, Eddie. Do I need to post some of the vile, hateful, bigoted comments you made before I even showed up in your site? No? Then perhaps you should stop your whining about how I cause gay people to kill themselves. You haven't a clue, and owning a blog site doesn't suddenly make you any brighter.

      Delete
    4. Go ahead, Will. Knock yourself out. Let's see if you can tell the difference between bigorty and righteous indignation about a harmful ideology or philosophy.

      Delete
    5. Awww, gee, Eddie, your hatefulness is completely harmless. All hatefulness coming from liberals is completely harmless. Maybe you're just joking and having a little liberal fun with conservatives. Gee, Eddie, that just seems so hypocritical. But, you ARE a liberal, so I should expect you to say that hatefulness from conservatives is BAD, while hatefulness from liberals is GOOD.

      Delete
  3. I don't know, perhaps there is some kind of weird DNA that causes the person to only like one sex and not the other. I sure hope they find that DNA (some day), because so many people base their entire argument about that lifestyle on such a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That wouldn't be a "choice", then.

      If you think that's the case, then I find it interesting that you have no sympathy here. After all, why should you be humiliated for how you were born?

      Delete
    2. That's right, "it wouldn't be a choice then". Are you going to bring that DNA proof? Or evidence of it? You base your entire argument of what "rights" homosexuals should have on whether you are "born" that way or not. There is NO proof you are born that way. Or you would have brought it.

      I have much sympathy in this case, just not BECAUSE he was gay. You're playing the angle that I should feel sorry for the kid because he was embarrassed about a personal choice he made? Sorry, I won't do that. Everyone has their own personal responsibility/accountability to handle, I can't spend my time feeling sorry for bad choices made by others. It should be used as a teaching moment and help keep others from making the same bad choice.

      Delete
    3. "That's right, "it wouldn't be a choice then". Are you going to bring that DNA proof? Or evidence of it?"

      When did I say I was going to do that? When I asked you why someone would kill themselves instead of choosing heterosexuality, you offered innate homosexuality as a possibility. If you didn't believe it was one, why bring it up instead of answering the question?

      "You base your entire argument of what "rights" homosexuals should have on whether you are "born" that way or not. There is NO proof you are born that way. Or you would have brought it."

      How do you conclude what I base my "entire" argument on? I responded to what you wrote, that's all. I also don't think "proof" is necessary to come to a conclusion on what rights homosexuals should have, although science has supported the theory that it's genetic.

      Most of the evidence is common sense. For example, why would someone kill themselves because they were gay, instead of just switching over? People who think it's a choice, like you, can't seem to answer such questions. It's as good as an admission that your views make no sense.

      Delete
    4. YOU DON'T NEED TO FIND A GENE TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT A CHOICE YOU STUPID IGNORANT FUCK!

      All you have to is ASK someone!

      You don't choose your fucking preferences! The "lifestyle choice" is MOTIVATED by preferences that preexists it, and I don't need a FUCKING GENE to prove that!

      ALL I HAVE TO DO IS ASK SOMEONE!

      Why don't you PROOVE to me that you CHOSE to be strait? (And try to do so without ACTUALLY proving that your a gay man in denial.)

      Delete
    5. "YOU DON'T NEED TO FIND A GENE TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT A CHOICE YOU STUPID IGNORANT FUCK!"

      "Why don't you PROOVE to me that you CHOSE to be strait? (And try to do so without ACTUALLY proving that your a gay man in denial.)"

      Nice posting, there, glad I'm considered the "hater", here. I sure HATE to think what you just wrote would be considered in your world.
      If I go kill someone or myself, I'll make sure I write a note saying I was teased by all you left-wingers, so that we send the person, who CAUSED me to kill, to prison.

      About the CHOICE of sex... You want me to prove that I chose the heterosexual lifestyle over any other. But, since I say that I've never tried the other choices, then it is not considered a choice. Am I repeating the liberal mentallity correctly?

      Do I need to cut my finger off in order to find out whether it will grow back again or not? Should I shoot my foot with a gun just to find out if the bullet really works?

      Now, this may be a strange way of looking at it, but with the evidence I've seen during my life I simply don't want to experience those things. Those are choices I make without having to participate in order to know what is happening. Now if you ask me to participate in what it's like to be "white" then I can help. Know why? Because I was BORN that way.

      Delete
    6. "But, since I say that I've never tried the other choices, then it is not considered a choice. Am I repeating the liberal mentallity correctly?"

      No. It's if you have no desire to try something, then it's not a choice. Like cutting off your finger wouldn't cross your mind as an option, so not doing it isn't a "choice".

      So your argument, if it can be called that, is that people willingly do something they find distinctly unpleasant, have sex with a gender they're not really attracted to, engaging in what has to be the greatest conspiracy of all time (how do so many people keep this a secret?), never wavering in the face of consequences, all in the hopes that someday they might be able to have the same rights as the people who don't willingly do something they find distinctly unpleasant.

      Am I getting that right? Because if we're talking about people who are attracted to the same gender and who aren't doing something they find unpleasant, then that's a difference that bears serious explanation.

      Delete
    7. How about someone choosing to get tattoo's all over their body. Some business's refuse to allow body art in excess with employees (that would be considered discrimination, wouldn't it?). Now, why do people get those kind of tattoo's when they know they'll be discriminated against?

      Ok, I've given several reasons why someone can "choose" or not "choose" unpleasent things without being required to participate in the action. The only thing is, I don't know is how pleasant or un-pleasant the choices are (they all seem like un-pleasant choices). All of you left-wingers seem to be portraying the gay lifestyle as something awful and terrible with consequences that are simply devistating. I think the first 2 examples I brought are quite similar to the typical left-wing description of life as a homosexual. Yet, you refuse to accept those analogies.

      I didn't see that one coming.

      Delete
    8. " Like cutting off your finger wouldn't cross your mind as an option, so not doing it isn't a "choice". "

      It would be a choice if you wanted to find out if it would grow back or not. You didn't notice that part of the context, did you? Perhaps you should read it again and try finishing the sentence before you pass judgement on my comments.

      Delete
    9. "It would be a choice if you wanted to find out if it would grow back or not. You didn't notice that part of the context, did you?"

      Why are we talking about people who could possibly think that humans can regenerate body parts? Are homosexuals delusional in your view, or what?

      Delete
    10. "How about someone choosing to get tattoo's all over their body. Some business's refuse to allow body art in excess with employees (that would be considered discrimination, wouldn't it?). Now, why do people get those kind of tattoo's when they know they'll be discriminated against?"

      Is this person supposed to consider tattoos unpleasant? Why?

      Delete
    11. "Is this person supposed to consider tattoos unpleasant?"

      Well, no they wouldn't consider it unpleasant. You denied my previous analogies based on that point. So, I brought one that did not have that aspect related to it.
      Now, can you answer the question?

      Delete
    12. "Well, no they wouldn't consider it unpleasant."

      Then how is this comparable to your views on homosexuality? Didn't you already say you consider it unpleasant?

      If your comparison isn't relevant, then I fail to see why it should be addressed as if it were.

      Delete
    13. No, I don't believe I've EVER called it "unpleasant". I believe (and you can check this) I've called it a lifestyle that liberals describe as devistating. But, I don't remember ever calling it "unpleasant".

      Now, can you answer the question?

      Delete
    14. "No, I don't believe I've EVER called it "unpleasant"."

      I didn't put quotes around the word. Here's what you said;

      "Now, this may be a strange way of looking at it, but with the evidence I've seen during my life I simply don't want to experience those things."

      If you're averse to those experiences, whatever term you wish to use, then it's not comparable to your example.

      Delete
    15. Perhaps you should STOP mis-quoting me, then. Aren't you the one who denied ever misquoting me? Yet ... here you are ... mis-quoting away. How do you explain that?

      When YOU bring a word into the conversation, don't say I did that. That is dishonest. Another claim I make that liberals do all the time, too. Let's see, in just one post you proved you are dishonest and mis-quote on purpose. That's going to fly really well while your integrity is being determined.


      "If you're averse to those experiences, whatever term you wish to use, then it's not comparable to your example."

      So, if I called it stupid, it wouldn't fit my analogy? If I called it irresponsible, it wouldn't fit my analogy? How about if I call it "un-necassary to cause yourself undo pain and suffering"? Ahh, that would fit the analogy with the descriptions that liberals give of the homosexual life. I'll go with that one.
      If you choose homosexuality, it would cause un-necassary pain and suffering (according to liberals descriptions of that lifestyle).
      If you choose to cut your finger off to see if it will grow back again, that will cause un-necassary pain and suffering.
      Now, which CHOICE is being made outside the parameters you are currently whining about?

      Delete
    16. "Perhaps you should STOP mis-quoting me, then."

      I didn't misquote you. It was an accurate representation of your argument. I never claimed it was verbatim.

      "When YOU bring a word into the conversation, don't say I did that. That is dishonest."

      Is this coming from the same person that said I asked you for proof that women are naturally born as women, and who has repeatedly accused me of making a "claim of fact" which is never cited after multiple requests? When you stop fabricating words for me, then you can talk to me about this.

      "If you choose homosexuality, it would cause un-necassary pain and suffering (according to liberals descriptions of that lifestyle).
      If you choose to cut your finger off to see if it will grow back again, that will cause un-necassary pain and suffering."

      The pain and suffering that some people go through doesn't have to be there. It's caused by people like you. Other people lead perfectly happy lives. It's not like doing something that is universally painful and detrimental to functioning.

      Cutting off your finger to see if it will grow back again is delusional. If you're not arguing that all homosexuals are delusional, then it makes no sense. So is that your argument, or what?

      Delete
    17. "repeatedly accused me of making a "claim of fact" which is never cited after multiple requests?"

      I cited that quote twice and you ignored it both times. How many times do I need to bring it for you to respond to it?


      " It's caused by people like you. Other people lead perfectly happy lives. "

      Oh? And, what do WE do that makes their lives so unbearable? Wait, let me guess ... we call homosexuality a SIN. Gosh that would be just unbearable. We call murder a SIN, yet there are plenty of murderers out there who just enjoy what they do. We call hypocrisy a sin yet there are plenty of liberals out there who just enjoy what they do. So that argument falls on its face, since the same people you whine about causing an unpleasant life for gays are the same people who cause an unpleasant life for liberals. Yet liberals don't go off and kill themselves because they were "picked on" by conservatives.

      Translation: liberals NEED someone to blame other than themselves.


      "So is that your argument, or what?"

      No, my argument is that gays don't have a "right" to marriage. If nobody else has a "right" to marriage, neither do gays. Has that changed at all since we started this a couple days ago? Funny thing is that YOU AGREED with that TWICE, yet here you are still arguing a case for whatever you've changed the subject to.

      Delete
    18. "I cited that quote twice and you ignored it both times."

      No, you did not. You're confusing this with something else, I believe. It's regarding homosexuality as innate specifically.

      "Oh? And, what do WE do that makes their lives so unbearable?"

      Besides claims of damnation to hell? Taunting, humiliating, general discrimination, disowning, ostracizing, harassing, assault, murder...nothing major.

      "We call murder a SIN, yet there are plenty of murderers out there who just enjoy what they do."

      And murder is objectively harmful. Homosexuality is not. Without religion, murder would still be illegal.

      "No, my argument is that gays don't have a "right" to marriage. If nobody else has a "right" to marriage, neither do gays."

      They should have a right to marriage just as much as heterosexuals do. This is something like the fourth time I've explained this to you, so unless you provide something to demonstrate how it doesn't make logical sense, I'll take it as another example of dishonesty if you continue to misrepresent my meaning.

      Delete
    19. "They should have a right to marriage just as much as heterosexuals do. This is something like the fourth time I've explained this to you"

      "So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license, because that's a contradiction in terms." Those are YOUR words, Andy

      When you were asked if anyone has a "right" to a marriage license, YOU said: "I suppose not."

      There IS NO problem if there is no license needed to get married. However, I believe a license IS needed to get married. Am I correct?

      But, now you're saying that one group DOES have the "right" to a marriage license while the other does not.

      Clarify please.

      Delete
    20. "Taunting, humiliating, general discrimination, disowning, ostracizing, harassing, assault, murder...nothing major."

      Let's see, taunting (done to conservatives by liberals), humiliating (done to conservatives by liberals), general discrimination (done by liberals to conservatives), disowning (done to conservatives by liberals), ostracizing (done to conservatives by liberals), harrassing (done to conservatives by liberals), assaults and murders (probably done to conservatives by liberals).

      So, all those terrible things, we conservatives do to homosexuals that make their lives horrible, are being done to conservatives by liberals. Is that a tiny bit hypocritical?

      Delete
    21. ""So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license, because that's a contradiction in terms." Those are YOUR words, Andy."

      Right. As far as anyone has a "right to marriage", homosexuals should have the same right. The "marriage license" issue is yours, not mine. Do you have a right to a gun license, even though you have the right to bear arms? I notice you never addressed that point earlier.

      And again, where did you come up with "Andy"? I don't think it's too much to ask for you to either explain or stop calling me by the wrong name.

      Delete
    22. "Let's see, taunting (done to conservatives by liberals)... that a tiny bit hypocritical?"

      Not in the least. Are you trying to tell me that only liberals are gay? Have you informed the Log Cabin Republicans of this?

      Delete
    23. "About the CHOICE of sex... You want me to prove that I chose the heterosexual lifestyle over any other. But, since I say that I've never tried the other choices, then it is not considered a choice. Am I repeating the liberal mentallity correctly?"

      Will, I yet yet to hear you "[repeat] the liberal mentallity correctly" even a single time.

      I never asked you to prove that you chose the heterosexual lifstyle.

      Never. Not one time.

      I asked you to prove to me that you CHOSE TO BE STRAIT. There's a difference. And I'm getting tired of repeating this, so try to use what little comprehension skills you have to understadn this: Sexual Orientation is not about who you HAVE sex with (which is obviously a choice, and no one here, or anywhere else, has ever said otehrwise.) It is about who you WANT TO have sex with.

      Who you WANT TO. Who you DO have sex with is irrelavnt. Gay men have sex with women all the time. That's what "being in the closet" means.

      And you've proven MY point perfectly.

      You said you've never even TRIED those other choices. Could that be becuase they hold no interest for you? Perhaps you even find them a bit repellant? There's nothing wrong with that, BTW - I feel the same way. But I didn't CHOOSE to. And neither did you. You didn't CHOOSE how you felt about the idea of getting it on with another guy. You simply acted on your insticts and chose to follow your attraction to women - an attraction (and instgict) you DID NOT CHOOSE to have.

      Proove me wrong.

      Delete
    24. "Sexual Orientation is not about who you HAVE sex with ... It is about who you WANT TO have sex with."

      I want to have sex with Michelle Pfeiffer or Natalie Gulbis. I guess that PROVES I chose to be straight. But, how does showing who you "want to have sex with" prove there are homosexuals in the animal kingdom? Does that mean you have PROOF that animals "want" to have homosexual sex? If homosexuality in animals is going to be used as a comparison to homosexuality in humans then you MUST show they "WANT" sex. Without that proof then you have NO comparison to show homosexuality happens naturally.


      "You simply acted on your insticts and chose to follow your attraction to women - an attraction (and instgict) you DID NOT CHOOSE to have."

      But, an instinct is a reaction to environmental conditions. How does that prove homosexuality is inherent? Especially without any scientific proof of that after millions of years of evolution?


      "Proove me wrong."

      Done. Again.

      Delete
    25. "I want to have sex with Michelle Pfeiffer or Natalie Gulbis. I guess that PROVES I chose to be straight."

      No, it doesn't, because you're not showing how you weighed the option of having sex with men.

      "If homosexuality in animals is going to be used as a comparison to homosexuality in humans then you MUST show they "WANT" sex."

      Nonsense. There's nothing to show animals conceptualize what they "want". If animals engage in homosexual behavior, then it's natural. None of your convoluted idiocy is going to change that.

      "But, an instinct is a reaction to environmental conditions. How does that prove homosexuality is inherent?"

      You claim it's a choice. If it's an instinct, then it's not a choice, whether it's inherent or environmental. And once it's understood to be outside of someone's control, then decent people have a very difficult time advocating for discrimination based on that.

      Delete
  4. "When did I say I was going to do that?"

    You didn't say that. I didn't say you did. If you noticed, I ASKED if you'd bring evidence since you made the inference that someone is born being gay.


    "When I asked you why someone would kill themselves instead of choosing heterosexuality, you offered innate homosexuality as a possibility."

    It was you who brought the "innate" probability that homo/hetro was the deciding factor in that death. How do you KNOW that? Did he tell you before he died?


    "I also don't think "proof" is necessary to come to a conclusion on what rights homosexuals should have, although science has supported the theory that it's genetic."

    Science supports the "theory" that homosexuals are born that way? Nows the time to bring that proof you claim is true. And, yes, proof IS necessary to come to the conclusion for the rights you expect to give them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You didn't say that. I didn't say you did. If you noticed, I ASKED if you'd bring evidence since you made the inference that someone is born being gay."

      I never suggested there was "proof", so why would you ask me for it? You asked me where was "that" proof, as if someone other than you was talking about it.

      "It was you who brought the "innate" probability that homo/hetro was the deciding factor in that death. How do you KNOW that? Did he tell you before he died?"

      I don't claim to know it. I'm asking you how it makes sense to believe he killed himself over a "choice".

      "Science supports the "theory" that homosexuals are born that way? Nows the time to bring that proof you claim is true."

      I'm not claiming there is "proof". That's your fixation, not mine. I don't have any articles saved, but this one looks pretty decent:
      http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

      "And, yes, proof IS necessary to come to the conclusion for the rights you expect to give them."

      Why is that? If it makes sense that it's innate, and the counter-argument does not, then why should people have to wait some undetermined amount of time to get the rights they obviously deserve?

      Delete
    2. "I don't claim to know it."

      Yes, you made that claim with this statement: "How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?". Do you deny making that statement?


      "If it makes sense that it's innate"

      "If" is a mighty big word in your assumption. Which part of personal choice gives you "obvious" rights? Unless, of course, you are NOT talking about civil rights.

      Delete
    3. "I don't claim to know it."

      Yes, you did with this statement: "How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?"


      " If it makes sense that it's innate"

      That's a mighty big "IF". Care to explain how personal choice would give "obvious" rights?



      Your link didn't provide any insight. So, those obvious rights you think are deserved don't seem to apply in the case of the homosexual.

      http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

      "Fourteen years later, neither Bocklandt nor any other researcher has pinpointed the precise base pairs that might turn a man gay."

      Delete
    4. "How do you conclude what I base my "entire" argument on?"

      Sorry, missed that one. What other argument are you going to use to get homosexuals 'obvious innate rights'? I am willing to say that DNA is not only your entire argument, but your only one. You have another?

      Delete
    5. You know the word "innate" isn't applying to "rights" here. It refers to being born gay. I never said "obvious innate rights", in case that helps your sense of understanding here.

      I very clearly stated that most of the arguments are common sense. I appreciate you asking, because it gives me another opportunity to bring up the example;how do you claim someone killed themselves when all they had to do was switch to heterosexuality? It makes no sense at all.

      The argument that homosexuality is a choice simply has no merit. Therefore, it can't be used to deny anyone rights.

      Delete
    6. Have you ever spoken to ANY homsexuals, Willam? EVER?

      See... many of us HAVE. And you know what? We've all heard variants of the same thing. Do any of us know for a fact what was going on in this one man's head? Of course not. But is can be reasonably be inferred from what we KNOW from having spoken to so many others having gone through the same thing. (And by "we" I'm including the thousands of psychologists, sexologists and sociologists that have studied the phenomenon.) And you know what? You're not even implying that what we think was going through his head is any different from what you do: Embarrassment, shame, etc...

      But he couldn't "choose" yo be heterosexual, any more than you or I did! All he could choose to do is to ACT like one, and live out his life in an unfullfilling relationship.

      My evidence? EVERY HOMOSEXUAL (and every heterosexual) IN THE WORLD.

      Delete
    7. "Have you ever spoken to ANY homsexuals, Willam? EVER? See... many of us HAVE."

      I know a gay/straight woman very well. She was gay when I was getting relationship advise from her concerning the woman who became my wife. That was 14 years ago. Now, this friend is married and has a beautiful baby daughter. She is married to a man.
      According to YOU she is mixed up and really gay and is just living a farce of a life now because she didn't stay gay.
      Is that what you're telling me?

      What if this friend decides to divorce and live with a woman (again). Does that make her gay again? Or has she always been gay? Or has she always been straight? Oh, this is too confusing. You liberals have it so easy. You get to ride both sides of the issue and always seem so smart when you can't prove what you claim.

      Delete
    8. She would be "bisexual". Nobody seems to be confused about this concept except for you.

      Delete
    9. Are we ALL bi-sexual who simply haven't tried the other side yet? Aren't you bi-sexual? Isn't Eddie bi-sexual? Maybe what you're saying is that you have no clue and you need an 'out'. Did you ever find any scientific proof that gays are gay because of DNA (I did that for you concerning women, as requested)? Are you going to NOT answer a request after demanding that I answer your request?

      Delete
    10. "Are we ALL bi-sexual who simply haven't tried the other side yet?"

      Of course not. I'm not sure what prompts your question.

      "Did you ever find any scientific proof that gays are gay because of DNA (I did that for you concerning women, as requested)?"

      I've said multiple times that there is no "proof". I've also said that it's not necessary. That's a major part of the conversation, the nature of which seems to escape your memory every few hours.

      Delete
    11. Are you bi-sexual? How do you know unless you try? Maybe you're a closet homosexual and don't know it (like Eddie called me). But, then that would make you bi-sexual.


      Hmm, no proof. I guess all you have is your opinion that gays are born that way. I'm sure "opinion" should be sufficient to earn civil rights. "Opinion" has always been the bench-mark for things like that over the years, huh?

      Delete
    12. "Are you bi-sexual? How do you know unless you try?"

      Because I'm not attracted to men. Questions are asked about you because you're the one that claims it's a choice, remember? That suggests you find both genders attractive, and you had to make a decision which way to go.

      "I guess all you have is your opinion that gays are born that way."

      It's a better-founded opinion than yours. That's what matters.

      Delete
    13. "Because I'm not attracted to men."

      By your standards, you're a bigot then.


      "It's a better-founded opinion than yours. That's what matters."

      I don't think it's better-founded and I don't think it matters. You want to create law based on opinion and call those who disagree with that strategy moronic, stupid, bigot and other names. Yet you defend those actions by saying that gays have a rough life and we should feel sorry for them and give them "superior rights" based on that alone.

      Excellent strategy you have there to get more public support of your opinion.

      Delete
    14. "By your standards, you're a bigot then."

      I'll give you a chance to provide anything I've said that suggests that people have to be bisexual or they're bigots. What standard do you think you're referring to?

      "You want to create law based on opinion and call those who disagree with that strategy moronic, stupid, bigot and other names."

      No, I'm calling your arguments moronic and bigoted. If nobody can do better than you, then the generalization applies. I don't think I've ever seen anyone question whether animals choose sexual orientation or say they'll still object to homosexuality if DNA proves it's natural, though.

      "Yet you defend those actions by saying that gays have a rough life and we should feel sorry for them and give them "superior rights" based on that alone."

      I never said anyone should get superior rights.

      "Excellent strategy you have there to get more public support of your opinion."

      I think so. By all means, go out on the street corner and tell everyone how animals make decisions. Let's see who comes off better.

      Delete
    15. " I don't think I've ever seen anyone question whether animals choose sexual orientation"

      What was your reason, again? That it happened because they are born that way. Yet you cannot prove it.


      "say they'll still object to homosexuality if DNA proves it's natural, though."

      Homosexuality is a sin. Why would I NOT object to it?


      "I never said anyone should get superior rights."

      That's funny. You bring the proof that you said it on another thread, yet deny it?
      (Brabantio Apr 3, 2012 05:51 PM)

      Delete
    16. "What was your reason, again? That it happened because they are born that way. Yet you cannot prove it."

      I can't prove that moles don't host rave parties underground either. Do you think they might?

      "Homosexuality is a sin. Why would I NOT object to it?"

      Because God creates man as he is. At the very least, He allows people to be born as they are. So if you believe in a God that even allows people to be born gay while telling you to condemn them for it, your God is out of his damned mind. What kind of nut would choose to worship that deity, anyway?

      "That's funny. You bring the proof that you said it on another thread, yet deny it?"

      Oh, this?:

      "I'm not sure what the motivation would be to dye your hair in this scenario, since the situation we're talking about doesn't include anyone having superior rights because of any status."

      Brilliant work. "DOESN'T include anyone having superior rights" would be the opposite of someone having superior rights.

      But you're right, your errors are funny.

      Delete
    17. "Because God creates man as he is."

      What gives you the right to make claims about what God has done? Do you have any degrees in theology? Which Seminary school did you attend that gives you the ability to tell others what God wants?


      "doesn't include anyone having superior rights"

      That would imply there are special rights out there for them to be not included. You said it, not me. You brought the idea that you want special rights for homosexuals into the conversation, not me. And then you backed that statement up when you said 'no one has a right to a marriage license' yet you are demanding homosexuals get that right.

      Delete
    18. "What gives you the right to make claims about what God has done?"

      I'm sorry, I got the impression you were following the Bible, because I didn't believe you came up with the idea of homosexuality as a sin all on your own. Are you telling me that the all-powerful entity that created everything in six days doesn't have creative control over people? If homosexuality was proven to be natural by DNA, you would think that it just slipped through the cracks somehow, that God didn't even know it was going on? By all means, grace me with your religious expertise on the matter.

      "That would imply there are special rights out there for them to be not included."

      No, it does not. You can't possibly explain the logic that leads you to that conclusion.

      "You brought the idea that you want special rights for homosexuals into the conversation, not me."

      Because you don't understand the word "doesn't"?

      "And then you backed that statement up when you said 'no one has a right to a marriage license' yet you are demanding homosexuals get that right."

      That's pretty funny, considering you just criticized me for introducing words into a conversation. You brought up "marriage licenses", not me. I was talking about the right to get married as far as heterosexuals have the right to get married. There's not a single quote on this blog you can produce to show otherwise.

      Delete
    19. Somebody has to grace you with knowledge.
      Did God let murderers slip through any cracks? Does God call murderers sinners? Do murderers CHOOSE to murder or is "natural" for them?

      "I'm sorry, I got the impression you were following the Bible"

      Oh, yeah. I follow the Bible closely. I have the impression that YOU do not. How can someone with NO knowledge of the Bible and the Christian religion tell another what it is all about? Where do you get your authority from that says you are capable of teaching religion?

      Delete
    20. "Did God let murderers slip through any cracks? Does God call murderers sinners? Do murderers CHOOSE to murder or is "natural" for them?"

      Are you telling me that people are born murderers? Do you have DNA evidence to support that?

      "I have the impression that YOU do not. How can someone with NO knowledge of the Bible and the Christian religion tell another what it is all about?"

      I have to say I'm impressed with the leap from "impression" to fact from one sentence to another. I was raised as a Christian. I've read the Bible. I'm also not claiming to be "teaching" anything, I'm just asking questions to give you a chance to explain how your views aren't completely warped. If I am misrepresenting anything in the Bible, please say so, otherwise save your lecture for someone dumb enough to buy into it.

      Delete
    21. "save your lecture for someone dumb enough to buy into it."

      Where did I tell you people are born murderers?
      Don't worry, I understand your need to avoid answering ACTUAL questions and reprint things you think you see.
      When someone doesn't have the knowledge to participate, they make things up.

      Delete
    22. "Where did I tell you people are born murderers?"

      Well, the context here is the scenario that people are born gay, and you continuing to discriminate against them even then. If you're going to bring up murderers to support your point, then you must be saying that people are born murderers. Otherwise it's irrelevant, and you don't make irrelevant arguments, do you? I think I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, yet you become hostile over it.

      Check above:"say they'll still object to homosexuality if DNA proves it's natural, though." That's the phrase you yourself cut and pasted, so you're clearly aware of what we were talking about.

      Delete
    23. Ok, Andy, I see where you're taking this. You were fun, but not very challenging.

      Scorecard:
      Andy- 1 point successfully made
      William- 4 points successfully made

      Delete
    24. Who the hell is Andy?

      Thanks for the "point". Now let's see if we can get you to be that honest on your other arguments.

      Delete
    25. You are.

      Let's be clear, here, honesty is not your best subject. You may not want to get into a discussion when that is a pre-requisite. You have failed miserably in this one and the other one. You've lied, misrepresented, misquoted and harassed the entire time. I'm surprised you haven't caused any of your family members to kill themselves like the poor kid in this article did.

      Delete
    26. I would think that the question I asked clearly implies that my name is not "Andy". I hope you're not presuming to tell me otherwise.

      "You've lied, misrepresented, misquoted and harassed the entire time."

      Every time you've been asked to justify such charges, you've failed. Meanwhile, you've denied you posted words I copied directly from your post (lie), repeatedly said I made a "claim of fact" (lie), more misrepresentations than I can relay in one post, truncated and added punctuation to what I said (misquoted) and have hurled ad hominem attacks throughout (harassed). Your behavior is atrocious.

      "I'm surprised you haven't caused any of your family members to kill themselves like the poor kid in this article did."

      I hope your God forgives you for saying something so definitively unchristian. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    27. You liar. I did none of those things. Bring proof of your charges.

      Oh man, here we go again ... I'm asking for proof from someone who changes the subject every time I ask for it.

      Good luck, Andy. I look forward to your lack of proof of your claims of fact.

      Delete
    28. "I hope your God forgives you for saying something so definitively unchristian."

      What is unChristian about it?

      Delete
    29. "You liar. I did none of those things. Bring proof of your charges."

      Are you high? You yourself said "my bad" when you edited my words. And here you're saying you didn't do it?

      Do you deny saying that I made a "claim of fact"? Do you deny that you told me to bring the DNA proof I said existed? Do you deny your ad hominem attacks? As for misrepresentations, go through the threads and count the times I've asked you where something was implied or words to that effect, and you never answered. Your claim that I was demanding rights to "marriage licenses" for homosexuals was a clear misrepresentation, since you were the one who introduced that phrase. That's undeniable by your own admonishment not to introduce words and attribute them to you.

      "Good luck, Andy."

      Where do you get the idea my name is "Andy"? I'm genuinely curious if you have a reason for that, or if you're just being childish.

      "What is unChristian about it?"

      Oh, please, read your Bible and cite anything Jesus ever said that was so vindictive and petty in its nature. It's really sad that a liberal atheist is a better Christian than you are.

      Delete
    30. "Are you high?"

      Umm, the only instance you have is one that was mistakenly done, you informed me and I corrected it. VERY GOOD JOB of finding all those things you claim I did and you can only find ONE example that was corrected 20 minutes after it was made.


      "Oh, please, read your Bible and cite anything Jesus ever said ..."

      Translation: you don't know what being a Christian means so you fall back on "what did Jesus say?". You are a classic liberal. However, if you're going to tell me to adhere to the Words of Jesus ... um, He advises me that homosexuality is a sin.

      Now, let me get this straight. You tell me to follow the Words of Jesus concerning my language, but you call me a bigot when I follow the Words of Jesus concerning homosexuality. That is a classic example of why conservatives think liberals are hypocrites.


      "It's really sad that a liberal atheist is a better Christian than you are."

      Let's test that theory by asking ONE simple question that will find out whether you are ANY kind of Christian: Do you believe Jesus Christ is God?

      Delete
    31. "Umm, the only instance you have is one that was mistakenly done..."

      Funny mistake to make. Shall I assume that you don't deny the other things I listed, since you ignored them? How about when you said you weren't talking about sexual orientation from the start? Your claim that scientific proof was brought to the public 32 years before it was available? I'll tell you what, if you go back and pick up all the points you abandoned along the way, then maybe I wouldn't be able to claim them as dishonest. That's up to you. You don't get credit until you make the effort, and that's a liberal telling you that you don't get a handout.

      "Translation: you don't know what being a Christian means so you fall back on "what did Jesus say?"."

      So Jesus Christ is irrelevant to Christianity? Interesting.

      "However, if you're going to tell me to adhere to the Words of Jesus ... um, He advises me that homosexuality is a sin."

      Chapter and verse, please.

      "Let's test that theory by asking ONE simple question that will find out whether you are ANY kind of Christian: Do you believe Jesus Christ is God?"

      I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about behavior. Telling yourself you're a good Christian is easy. Behaving like one is a little tougher. Thus ends this particular sermon.

      Delete
  5. "Yes, you did with this statement: "How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?""

    You said:"Another person who is embarrassed with his lifestyle so he kills himself to avoid living that embarrassment. Why do people make that choice?" I was responding to your assertion. Besides, the "I don't claim to know" comment was regarding your question about the deciding factor in his death, which I said nothing at all about.

    "That's a mighty big "IF". Care to explain how personal choice would give "obvious" rights?"

    If it's innate, then it's not a personal choice, as you've admitted.

    "Your link didn't provide any insight. So, those obvious rights you think are deserved don't seem to apply in the case of the homosexual."

    Again, why not? I asked you a question about why people would have to wait if you can't make a case against them having rights. Can you answer it? If not, on what basis would you refuse?

    "Fourteen years later, neither Bocklandt nor any other researcher has pinpointed the precise base pairs that might turn a man gay."

    I suppose it is shocking that after telling you that there was no proof, that the article doesn't provide proof. Science still supports the theory, whether precise pairs are identified or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I was responding to your assertion."

      My assertion was "lifestyle choice". That could be anything from hair color to musical favorites to dress codes. You brought in sexual orientation. No need for you to go any further on this aspect of the discussion, you've woe-fully lost, and, to continue would only be an embarrassment to yourself.


      "If it's innate, then it's not a personal choice, as you've admitted."

      Actually, I have not admitted that. Which would lead to the fact that I would give civil rights for as many as need them to protect themselves from racial/sexual/medical discrimination. Which would lead back to the fact that homosexuality is choice... you are not born that way. You got any real scientific proof that they ARE born that way? Then I'll change my opinion and start supporting their 'right' to civil rights. However, you cannot do that, so homosexuality is a CHOICE not deserving of civil rights based on that alone.

      Delete
    2. "My assertion was "lifestyle choice". That could be anything from hair color to musical favorites to dress codes. You brought in sexual orientation."

      I'm not sure if you noticed, but the entire article involves homosexuality. Furthermore:"Yeah, someone making fun of me would just devastate my whole being and I'd have to go kill myself. Good thing being 'gay' IS part of the story, or that murderer would have gotten away with it scott-free." That is the context of your "lifestyle" quote. The claim that I somehow introduced sexual orientation into the conversation is insane. Also, if you were talking about hair color, did it take you this long to realize it? Why wouldn't you say so as soon as I asked why he would kill himself if he could switch to heterosexuality?

      "Actually, I have not admitted that."

      You most certainly did:"That's right, "it wouldn't be a choice then". Are you going to bring that DNA proof?"

      "Which would lead back to the fact that homosexuality is choice... you are not born that way. You got any real scientific proof that they ARE born that way?"

      Why are there gay animals? Did they choose to be gay? When did you choose to be straight?

      Yet again, there is no "proof". Why should "proof" be required, when you can't defend your bigoted assertions?

      Delete
    3. "That is the context of your "lifestyle" quote."

      No, that is incorrect. That is the context to why I think this is a story to begin with. While you're at it, explain what "murderer" is getting away in this case. You'll notice that is the part of that sentence that gives you the context you think you've got. You even asked for clarification as to whether it was suicide I was talking about. If that was really your concern you wouldn't have asked that.



      "You most certainly did:"

      Are you going to bring "context" into this statement? Or should I do it for you? I'd better, because you can't seem to comprehend what you read. I gave a mythical scenerio that could allow the concern of yours to continue on, I did not give my opinion on homosexuality. If you're going to worry about CONTEXT you should use it consistantly.


      "Why are there gay animals? Did they choose to be gay? When did you choose to be straight?"

      Falling back on the old Mediamatters arguments? You sure give up quickly.

      Delete
    4. "No, that is incorrect. That is the context to why I think this is a story to begin with. While you're at it, explain what "murderer" is getting away in this case. You'll notice that is the part of that sentence that gives you the context you think you've got. You even asked for clarification as to whether it was suicide I was talking about. If that was really your concern you wouldn't have asked that."

      No, I provided the lines preceding "Another person who is embarrassed with his lifestyle so he kills himself to avoid living that embarrassment. Why do people make that choice?" Therefore, that is the context for that quote. There is nothing suggesting "hair color" or anything besides sexual orientation there. Your responses to my posts clearly show you were talking about him being gay, as does your original post. Your deflection is weak.

      "Are you going to bring "context" into this statement?"

      Gladly:

      You:"I don't know, perhaps there is some kind of weird DNA that causes the person to only like one sex and not the other." (that would be "innate", remember)

      Me:"That wouldn't be a "choice", then.

      You:""That's right, "it wouldn't be a choice then". Are you going to bring that DNA proof?"

      Later, me:"If it makes sense that it's innate" (meaning the idea that people are born gay)

      You:"That's a mighty big "IF". Care to explain how personal choice would give "obvious" rights?"

      Me:"If it's innate, then it's not a personal choice, as you've admitted."

      So you cited some nonsense about "personal choice" when I explicitly said "innate". You yourself said "it wouldn't be a choice" when talking about DNA.

      "Falling back on the old Mediamatters arguments? You sure give up quickly."

      I'm not sure what designates them as "Mediamatters" arguments. I would say that you're the one who refuses to answer questions and support your argument, so it would hardly seem that I'm the one who's giving up.

      Delete
    5. "So you cited some nonsense about "personal choice" when I explicitly said "innate". You yourself said "it wouldn't be a choice" when talking about DNA."

      Will you read the post you made just before I said that? Here, let me help you: "How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?". Do ya think that may be an important part of the context you are so concerned about?


      "I'm not sure what designates them as "Mediamatters" arguments."

      Because the arguments don't fit the discussion and are wrongly applied.

      Delete
    6. "Here, let me help you: "How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?"."

      I'm familiar with the thread. What meaning is this supposed to alter, exactly? "Innate" still means to be born gay here, and you said it wouldn't be a choice if it involved DNA. So when I say "if it makes sense that it's innate", talking about personal choice doesn't follow. Nothing about my original question changes that.

      "Because the arguments don't fit the discussion and are wrongly applied."

      So questions that challenge the concept of "choosing" homosexuality don't apply to your argument that homosexuality is chosen. How do you figure that?

      Delete
  6. "What meaning is this supposed to alter, exactly?"

    Are you for real?


    "So questions that challenge the concept of "choosing" homosexuality don't apply to your argument that homosexuality is chosen."

    Let's stick with comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges. What part of comparing animal chosen lifestyles to human chosen lifestyles is logical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Are you for real?"

      Yes. Can you answer or not?

      "Let's stick with comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges. What part of comparing animal chosen lifestyles to human chosen lifestyles is logical?"

      How does an animal "choose" a lifestyle? That's the point.

      Delete
    2. How is an animal a human? THAT is the point.


      Yes. I can answer.

      Delete
    3. "How is an animal a human?"

      A human is an animal. Do you really deny that homosexual behavior in nature suggests that it's just as natural for people? It's instinctual, and you know this yourself, because you were never attracted to men. Right?

      "Yes. I can answer."

      Then please do so.

      Delete
    4. Which animal can philosophize? Which animal can create and appreciate art? Which animal can write? Catch the pattern, here?


      You said: How do you figure that someone kills themselves instead of just switching to heterosexuality?

      I said: I don't know, perhaps there is some kind of weird DNA that causes the person to only like one sex and not the other.

      You said: That wouldn't be a "choice", then.

      I said: That's right.

      The context is that IF there was DNA proof of homosexuality (as in the theory I brought), then there would be no choice involved. However, you fail to bring any proof of that DNA evidence (because there is none), so there is ONLY choice involved.

      Delete
    5. "Which animal can philosophize? Which animal can create and appreciate art? Which animal can write? Catch the pattern, here?"

      What do any of those things have to do with sexual orientation? Obviously animals can be homosexual without thinking about it, so philosophizing isn't required.

      "The context is that IF there was DNA proof of homosexuality (as in the theory I brought), then there would be no choice involved."

      No, "proof" is not part of it. Your theory (your term, notice) didn't rely on "proof". The word "perhaps" is right there in your post, plain as day.

      Even besides this, your response of "That's a mighty big "IF". Care to explain how personal choice would give "obvious" rights?" didn't correspond to my "if" at all. I never claimed that personal choice would give "obvious" rights.

      If you'd like to clarify what you wrote, please do so, but your manufactured context isn't making anything better for you here.

      I notice that you didn't answer the question about whether you were attracted to men. Something to hide?

      Delete
    6. "If you'd like to clarify what you wrote, please do so"

      Clarification: You have NO ability to understand the written english language.


      "What do any of those things have to do with sexual orientation?"

      They prove that humans can make the choice to do what they want sexually. Which means you have NO EVIDENCE of homosexuality being part of the DNA in humans. And, your only evidence of homosexuality in nature is in wild animals with NO evidence it is caused by DNA.


      "I notice that you didn't answer the question about whether you were attracted to men. Something to hide?"

      Nothing to hide, I have lots of male friends.

      I notice you have no ability to discuss rationally unless you use your Mediamatters tactics. Lack of intelligence?

      Delete
    7. "Clarification: You have NO ability to understand the written english language."

      Is this supposed to be a reasoned response?

      "They prove that humans can make the choice to do what they want sexually. Which means you have NO EVIDENCE of homosexuality being part of the DNA in humans. And, your only evidence of homosexuality in nature is in wild animals with NO evidence it is caused by DNA."

      So you're telling me that wild animals display homosexuality, but it's not caused by DNA? What else would cause it?

      The idea of making a "choice" relies on having two or more options. If you're not attracted to men, then you never faced the choice of being homosexual. What makes it different for those who "choose" to be gay, in your view?

      "I notice you have no ability to discuss rationally unless you use your Mediamatters tactics. Lack of intelligence?"

      The question was perfectly fair. If you're going to say there's a choice, then it suggests you made a choice. That would mean sexual attraction to both genders. If you can explain how that doesn't make sense, I'm ready.

      Delete
    8. "So you're telling me that wild animals display homosexuality, but it's not caused by DNA? What else would cause it?"

      You tell me, you're the one making the claim. Am I supposed to prove things YOU say are factual?


      "If you're going to say there's a choice, then it suggests you made a choice."

      Of course I made a choice. And, no, it doesn't mean I was attracted to one and not the other. It means I like one sexually and not the other. Because ... like I said (perhaps you didn't see it) I have LOT'S of male friends. In fact I have more male friends than female friends, yet I still prefer women sexually. It's just the choice I made.
      How about you? When did you choose to be homosexual? Or heterosexual?

      Delete
    9. "You tell me, you're the one making the claim. Am I supposed to prove things YOU say are factual?"

      You're the one who said "your only evidence of homosexuality in nature is in wild animals with NO evidence it is caused by DNA." I can't explain your thought process behind that bizarre comment, that's why I asked you to explain what other cause there would be besides DNA.

      "Of course I made a choice. And, no, it doesn't mean I was attracted to one and not the other. It means I like one sexually and not the other."

      Did you mean "it doesn't mean I was attracted to both", by chance?

      "Because ... like I said (perhaps you didn't see it) I have LOT'S of male friends. In fact I have more male friends than female friends, yet I still prefer women sexually. It's just the choice I made."

      I have no idea of why I'm supposed to take your male friends as relevant to anything. We're talking about sexual attraction. If you're not attracted to men, then how do you consider it a "choice" to prefer women? Isn't this a bit like choosing not to stab yourself with a fork? The idea would never cross your mind, so there's no decision-making process involved.

      "How about you? When did you choose to be homosexual? Or heterosexual?"

      I didn't. My attraction to women never faced any competition.

      Delete
    10. " I can't explain your thought process behind that bizarre comment,"

      I don't expect you to explain my thought process. I do, however, expect you to explain claims of fact that YOU make.

      "Why are there gay animals?"

      Is that the statement YOU made: Mar 31, 2012 12:19 PM ? Did you notice you claim, AS FACT, there are gay animals 5 hours before I continued my claim it is choice?


      "I didn't. My attraction to women never faced any competition."

      Ahh, so you have a bigoted view against men sexually? (Mediamatters tactic ;)
      OR
      You are a woman

      Delete
    11. "Did you mean "it doesn't mean I was attracted to both", by chance?"

      I never thought of that. Maybe. Is there a DNA gene to cover that one, too? Oooo, still no DNA to prove homosexuality?
      But, don't fear, if you find one then I will support your desire to have civil rights for being homosexual. I still won't approve of the lifestyle, morally, though.

      Delete
    12. "I don't expect you to explain my thought process. I do, however, expect you to explain claims of fact that YOU make."

      I haven't seen you challenge the claim. Everything you've posted has implied acceptance of homosexuality in nature.

      "Ahh, so you have a bigoted view against men sexually? (Mediamatters tactic ;)
      OR
      You are a woman"

      Well, "mediamatters tactic" would be dishonest by your personal definition, so I can safely take that as another deflection. And of course I'm male.

      Again: If you're not attracted to men, then how do you consider it a "choice" to prefer women? Isn't this a bit like choosing not to stab yourself with a fork? The idea would never cross your mind, so there's no decision-making process involved.

      It's not going to count as a "choice" until it makes sense as an actual choice.

      Delete
    13. "I haven't seen you challenge the claim. Everything you've posted has implied acceptance of homosexuality in nature."

      That's because I cannot deny it happens. However, there is NO explanation as to why other than "choice". Do you have scientific evidence/proof that homosexuality in animals is caused by DNA?


      "It's not going to count as a "choice" until it makes sense as an actual choice."

      Is that an opinion or a fact?

      Delete
    14. "I never thought of that. Maybe."

      Everything after that has no purpose. I was asking a question about your wording, since it sounded like you meant something other than you said. You're welcome for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

      "But, don't fear, if you find one then I will support your desire to have civil rights for being homosexual. I still won't approve of the lifestyle, morally, though."

      That's interesting. So even if there's evidence of DNA that causes homosexual attraction, you would have a moral problem with people acting on it. Did you want to think about that for a moment, perhaps?

      Delete
    15. "That's because I cannot deny it happens. However, there is NO explanation as to why other than "choice". Do you have scientific evidence/proof that homosexuality in animals is caused by DNA?"

      Animals "choose" to be gay? That doesn't require a higher level of thought than what animals possess? I think there are some things that you shouldn't really need science to explain to you.

      "Is that an opinion or a fact?"

      It's logic.

      Delete
    16. "Animals "choose" to be gay?"

      I don't know. But, YOU say they do NOT make that choice. However, YOU could not bring proof of that claim of fact. Is there any other option besides: choice or not choice?

      Delete
    17. Yes, I say animals don't make "choices". The lack of absolute proof on either side does not make the two opposing ideas equally valid. The concept of objective reality seems to elude you.

      Delete
  7. "So even if there's evidence of DNA that causes homosexual attraction, you would have a moral problem with people acting on it. Did you want to think about that for a moment, perhaps?"

    No. Why would I? I am Christian. I am taught to follow the law of the land. But that wouldn't stop my moral disagreement with it.



    "Everything after that has no purpose."

    Of course not. It proves EVERYTHING you say, on this subject, is false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No. Why would I? I am Christian. I am taught to follow the law of the land. But that wouldn't stop my moral disagreement with it."

      If you believe in God, then who would create man the way they are besides God? And what did Jesus Christ say against homosexuality?

      "Of course not. It proves EVERYTHING you say, on this subject, is false."

      No, your endless repetition of the same indefensible standard has no effect on anything I've posted here.

      Delete
    2. "If you believe in God, then ... "

      I win

      Please visit my website when you get a chance.



      Thanks to Eddie for letting me play :)

      Delete
    3. I have no background knowledge for whatever you're talking about here. What point do you imagine you're making now?

      Delete
  8. I suspect you'll want to move onto another subject now that you can't prove homosexuality is caused by DNA in either the animal kindom or in humankind (maybe you'll have better luck in the reptile area). You know, it's really fun having this discussion with liberals. All the claims of fact they make, none are ever provided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary. I didn't claim that innate homosexuality was a "fact". My contention was that the idea of homosexuality being chosen can't be defended. Considering you've been reduced to implying that animals choose to be gay and that God creates people for you to discriminate against, I can't imagine how you could have proven my point any more effectively.

      Delete
    2. The funny thing is that entire conversation would have gotten me kicked out of Mediamatters. Huh?

      Delete
  9. Then bring the DNA evidence you say IS there.

    You have the last word. Bring the proof or don't. Your CHOICE.
    Perhaps you should call some of your friends and get a 'life-line'. Because, YOU have nothing but opinion to garner those "rights they obviously deserve".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said there was DNA evidence. Where does this delusion stem from? I've said there is no "proof" multiple times.

      Again, it's not "absolute scientific proof or we get to discriminate against homosexuals forever." That standard is absurd, and your desperate clinging to it shows that you have no objective argument to make on the matter.

      Delete
  10. Something else I'm curious about, William. Why is it that discrimination against homosexuals is the default here, and anyone who opposes that has to achieve a standard of scientific proof? Why isn't tolerance (see Christ, Jesus) the natural path? You argue that without proof, it must be a choice. Well, you have no proof that it's a choice. Why isn't it equally valid to say that it must be innate because you have no proof? Nothing gives your views extra weight.

    Obviously, both scenarios are faulty. It's a question of evidence. That's how we evaluate, that's how we judge. Think about a criminal trial. Our standard of guilt for murder isn't video evidence plus DNA plus a confession. It's always a matter of how strong the evidence is, whether it constitutes absolute proof or not.

    And that's why incidents like this one help to make the argument that homosexuality is not a choice. It makes no sense that someone would kill themselves over something they could change. It makes no sense for anyone to choose a lifestyle that they're that ashamed of in the first place. People have been facing consequences ranging from mockery to murder for thousands of years over this, yet %5-%10 of people continue to decide to live with that. The concept is insane. If you get shortchanged consistently when you go to Burger King, you're probably going to switch to McDonald's at some point. Hell, clothing style changes as soon as people get tired of it. You'd think that as soon as someone got stoned to death for being gay, that would be the end of that trend right then and there.

    The idea that everyone chooses their orientation is also laughable. What's really funny is that the people who claim this are very careful about not saying that they're attracted to the same gender. Why? By their own definition, that would not be "gay". It's only gay if you chose the other way. In any event, it's not a choice to do something that you don't recognize a viable alternative to. I didn't "choose" to not eat cardboard for breakfast. It wasn't a consideration, the same way that someone who is not attracted to the same gender doesn't consider homosexuality an option. Or maybe people are supposed to be able to choose who they're attracted to. Attraction is a natural thing, and there's no cogent argument as to how anyone supposedly decides this. When is it done, and what is the thought process that goes with it? And going back to my earlier point, why would anyone choose to be attracted to the same sex, given the consequences?

    (Continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It makes no sense for anyone to choose a lifestyle that they're that ashamed of in the first place."

      This part of your writings is what I'll comment on. Do you think a hooker would choose her lifestyle if she knew the dangers and humiliation involved in that line of work? Are you saying that being a hooker is now caused by 'genes' since why would anyone choose a lifestyle they would be ashamed of?
      You might say being a hooker is a 'profession' not a lifestyle, but is that business a 9-5 job? Does she go home afterward to her husband and kids and say "what a tough job today, why did I choose this work? I wish I could change". Do you really think whether something is embarrassing is a viable reason to give civil rights to them?

      I think you need to realize that civil rights are given BECAUSE you can't choose who you are born as. You can't choose what race (DNA provable), sex (DNA provable) diseases (DNA provable) and those are reasons that people were being discriminated against and rules were made to stop that. If you want to change the rules so that a person's lifestyle choices are eligible for civil rights then you must be wiling to open the floodgates for all people to start claiming civil rights for inane reasons as "I like the color fuchsia so I deserve to be given civil rights". And, yes, all other sexual deviances would start claiming the same thing homosexuality wants to claim. If you're ready to accept all variances in sexual choices then maybe your ready for an honest conversation on sexual choices and civil rights.

      Delete
    2. "Do you think a hooker would choose her lifestyle if she knew the dangers and humiliation involved in that line of work?"

      Some do, out of desperation. Some have no sense of humiliation. As you said, though, that's a job, not a lifestyle "choice". Comparing "I'd like to go to college, but I have to eat, so I'm stuck on the street" to "it makes no difference to me which gender I have sex with, but I'll go with the one that gets me beaten up twice a week" isn't a compelling argument.

      "You can't choose what race (DNA provable), sex (DNA provable) diseases (DNA provable) and those are reasons that people were being discriminated against and rules were made to stop that."

      Obviously I realize that. The point is that denying all the evidence that supports the argument that it is innate behavior is irrational. Just because it doesn't manifest itself the same way as race or gender doesn't mean you can discriminate against them eternally. It also doesn't lend you much credibility when you discard all of science's support just because it's not "proof". Why am I supposed to believe you'll accept scientific proof if you can't be honest about what's out there right now? Or when you admit that you'll still think they're sinners when their orientation is proven to be beyond their control?

      "And, yes, all other sexual deviances would start claiming the same thing homosexuality wants to claim. If you're ready to accept all variances in sexual choices then maybe your ready for an honest conversation on sexual choices and civil rights."

      No, because the issue of objective reasons to oppose has been addressed below. I have an objective reason to oppose rights for pedophiles, polygamists, those that practice bestiality, probably everyone else you have in mind already. It's not just a matter of refuting "God says so", so your slippery slope argument fails.

      Delete
    3. "Something else I'm curious about, William. Why is it that discrimination against homosexuals is the default here, and anyone who opposes that has to achieve a standard of scientific proof?"

      We once discriminated against women and blacks. But, scientific proof was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong. Now, when you bring that scientific proof then you can claim civil rights. However, without scientific proof then you are saying that blacks achieved equality simply because everyone felt sorry for them. Is that really what you want to say about the civil rights movement??

      Delete
    4. "But, scientific proof was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong."

      Is that right? What scientific proof was needed for that? Was there anyone in the world that believed that someone "chose" to be born a certain gender or race, until science set them straight? No, I think it's safe to say that fell under "common sense". Thanks for bringing that up.

      "However, without scientific proof then you are saying that blacks achieved equality simply because everyone felt sorry for them. Is that really what you want to say about the civil rights movement??"

      What's the difference, in your mind, between "felt sorry for them" and "recognized that they deserved equal rights"?

      Delete
    5. "Was there anyone in the world that believed that someone "chose" to be born a certain gender or race, until science set them straight? No, I think it's safe to say that fell under "common sense". Thanks for bringing that up."

      Actually, yes. That's how we got civil rights for blacks and women. Are you a complete moron and don't pay ANY attention to what happens in the world? How in the hell do you think blacks and women were even allowed to get the civil rights they sought? Do you think the asked and suddenly they appeared? God you liberals are stupid if you believe that one.
      I, for one, don't underestimate the stupidity of liberals as far as this issue is concerned.

      Delete
    6. So who was arguing that skin color or gender was a "choice", then?

      Delete
    7. "How in the hell do you think blacks and women were even allowed to get the civil rights they sought?"

      Let me ask you this;exactly what scientific proof was used to grant women rights?

      Delete
    8. Alright. You are demanding an answer to your made up statement that you made up and attributed to me.

      "Let me ask you this;exactly what scientific proof was used to grant women rights?"

      Are you SERIOUSLY saying that scientists thought humans could CHOOSE whether they were going to be born a man or woman at any point of the gestation period? Or that it was a flip of the coin up until they popped out of the womb? You have got some serious problems if you think scientist would believe 'old wives tales' that said if you 'did this' or 'did that' you would be able to determine what sex the baby would be. Now, you need to stop this childish behavior (unless you're still a child) and show absolute proof that homoosexuals are born that way. I even brought scietific evidence that scientists KNOW DNA will mutate and those mutations become hereditary, yet through the millions of years of human developement there is NO PROOF that gays are born that way.
      Bring your proof or continue acting (?) like a child.

      Delete
    9. "You are demanding an answer to your made up statement that you made up and attributed to me."

      I "made up" nothing. Your words are here for everyone to see.

      "Are you SERIOUSLY saying that scientists thought humans could CHOOSE whether they were going to be born a man or woman at any point of the gestation period?"

      As I said on the other thread, I obviously don't think that, since I was incredulous at YOUR suggestion that there was a single person on Earth that needed scientific proof to believe that people didn't choose their gender or skin color. You're the one who said that scientific proof was brought forward for those groups to get rights, so you're the one who needs to explain how that's supposed to make sense.

      "Now, you need to stop this childish behavior (unless you're still a child) and show absolute proof that homoosexuals are born that way."

      Why? There was no proof needed for women or African-Americans.

      "I even brought scietific evidence that scientists KNOW DNA will mutate and those mutations become hereditary, yet through the millions of years of human developement there is NO PROOF that gays are born that way."

      I'll ask again how "millions of years" is supposed to mean anything. Do you think scientists have the complete history of generational DNA on record, or what? How do you imagine that any significant amount of DNA before the 1950's could have possibly been studied?

      Your "evidence" is nonsensical.

      Delete
    10. "Why? There was no proof needed for women or African-Americans."

      But there is proof available. You ain't got it so you whine about women. Classic argument by someone of your ability.


      "I'll ask again how "millions of years" is supposed to mean anything. Do you think scientists have the complete history of generational DNA on record, or what?"

      What it is supposed to mean is that there are no gays born that way, and there has NEVER been any gay born that way and there is no gay gene that ever mutated and became hereditary EVER. That means YOU cannot say they are born that way because it just ISN'T TRUE.
      But your argument is: 'that women couldn't have been proven to be women in 1920 so William's premise is wrong, therefor gays get rights they don't deserve.' Is that your belief? Well that's a stupid belief but totally expected from someone who isn't very intelligent.


      "How do you imagine that any significant amount of DNA before the 1950's could have possibly been studied?"

      Only a complete moron would think I'm talking about testing DNA from the entire history of man. Obviously (to someone with a functioning brain) the point is that DNA mutates over time. If ANY ONE at ANY TIME had EVER been "born gay" the gene they supposedly had would have carried on to future generations and more and more would have been born gay. However, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Showing that gays ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY.


      "As I said on the other thread, I obviously don't think"

      Obviously!!!

      Delete
    11. "I "made up" nothing. "

      Yeah? Show me the quote where I said 'women had DNA testing done in 1920'. Bring it or shut up. Because acting like an idiot only makes you look like an idiot. And being both of those generally means you are an idiot.

      Delete
    12. "Yeah? Show me the quote where I said 'women had DNA testing done in 1920'."

      Show me where I said you made that statement. It's part of your claim.

      "But there is proof available."

      Now there is, sure. But not when rights were granted. So why should we wait for proof for homosexuals when we didn't wait for women?

      "What it is supposed to mean is that there are no gays born that way, and there has NEVER been any gay born that way and there is no gay gene that ever mutated and became hereditary EVER."

      What? How does your point support that? I'm familiar with your assertion.

      "But your argument is: 'that women couldn't have been proven to be women in 1920 so William's premise is wrong, therefor gays get rights they don't deserve.'"

      My argument is that it disproves your claim that scientific proof was brought forward in order to give women rights. It undermines your ability to say that such rights are not deserved.

      "Only a complete moron would think I'm talking about testing DNA from the entire history of man. Obviously (to someone with a functioning brain) the point is that DNA mutates over time. If ANY ONE at ANY TIME had EVER been "born gay" the gene they supposedly had would have carried on to future generations and more and more would have been born gay. However, THAT NEVER HAPPENED."

      That doesn't logically follow, since homosexuals aren't as likely to procreate. It could remain a deviation with a steady percentage. Has left-handedness become more prominent over the years?

      "Obviously!!!"

      Cropping a quote like that is something to bear in mind the next time you want to suggest I'm 12 years old.

      Delete
    13. "Show me where I said you made that statement. It's part of your claim."

      When did I claim women got rights in 1920 because of DNA? Admit it, you made that up and now your squirming to figure a way out of it. I explained any misconception you seem to have on any statement you think I made. The fault lies in your inability to understand English. Do you want me to use Latin again?

      Scientifically speaking ... can a scientist say that when a female is born she had the choice to be male before birth? Answer that question.


      "Now there is, sure. But not when rights were granted."

      Are you kidding me? You seriously believe that scientists did NOT know females were born female and that males were born male? Are you REALLY making that claim?


      "That doesn't logically follow, since homosexuals aren't as likely to procreate. It could remain a deviation with a steady percentage. Has left-handedness become more prominent over the years?"

      That is the lamest excuse ever. Bring a real reason. Looks like I got you now and you are floundering to find some kind of reason to allow a CHOICE habit to earn CIVIL RIGHTS.


      "Cropping a quote like that is something to bear in mind the next time you want to suggest I'm 12 years old."

      It might show that you are closer to 12 than higher when you don't even understand the sarcasm being made with that.

      Delete
    14. "It could remain a deviation with a steady percentage. Has left-handedness become more prominent over the years?"

      And it could be verifiable with the technology we have currently. However, it is NOT verifiable is it?
      BTW, I like how you call homosexuality a "deviant" lifestyle choice. That's what I call it too. Are deviation and mutation the same thing?

      I have no idea if left-handedness is more prominent, why don't you bring some stats and show us.

      Delete
    15. "When did I claim women got rights in 1920 because of DNA?"

      When you claimed that scientific proof was brought forward to grant women rights. You've been asked multiple times what else you could have possibly meant, and your cowardly refusal to address that doesn't stop me from making the clear interpretation.

      "I explained any misconception you seem to have on any statement you think I made."

      No, you didn't.

      "Scientifically speaking ... can a scientist say that when a female is born she had the choice to be male before birth? Answer that question."

      No. Which is why I couldn't believe you said scientific proof was necessary for the public, because you haven't made it clear who believed that or how anyone could.

      "You seriously believe that scientists did NOT know females were born female and that males were born male?"

      Everyone knew that there was no choice, and that was my point. It didn't require scientific proof, as you said was brought forward.

      "That is the lamest excuse ever. Bring a real reason."

      If it's lame, explain why.

      "It might show that you are closer to 12 than higher when you don't even understand the sarcasm being made with that."

      I understood the sarcasm, it doesn't change the childishness of the behavior.

      "And it could be verifiable with the technology we have currently. However, it is NOT verifiable is it?"

      What would the technology of today have to do with anything? You're not making this clear.

      "BTW, I like how you call homosexuality a "deviant" lifestyle choice. That's what I call it too. Are deviation and mutation the same thing?"

      I didn't say "deviant", much less a "deviant lifestyle choice". Introducing words into the conversation is dishonest, remember? I'm not sure if there's a difference between deviation and mutation, but it wouldn't have any bearing on your argument as far as I can see.

      "I have no idea if left-handedness is more prominent, why don't you bring some stats and show us."

      Why don't you, since it would support your point? Do your own research.

      Delete
    16. "When you claimed that scientific proof was brought forward to grant women rights."

      Does that mean you think ONLY DNA is able to prove (to scientists) why a female is born a female? Hmm, interesting stance.


      "Everyone knew that there was no choice, "

      Alright then, shut up. Are scientists part of that "everyone"?


      "What would the technology of today have to do with anything? You're not making this clear."

      How much more clear can I make it? You demand civil rights for gays because they are born that way. There is technology in place that can confirm that. No confirmation has EVER been made, so you are wrong to demand civil rights for a choice lifestyle. Unless you want to include ALL the choice lifestyles in your demand for civil rights. You'd still be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be such a hypocrite.


      "Why don't you, since it would support your point? Do your own research."

      Now you're just whining for whining sake. How old ARE you?


      "I'm not sure if there's a difference between deviation and mutation, but it wouldn't have any bearing on your argument as far as I can see."

      A "deviation" (your word) is not the same as a "mutation" (scientists word). When you 'deviate' from a lifestyle and choose another, it is different than if your lifestyle mutates and you have no choice.
      The bearing it has on my argument (as if you didn't know), is that a mutation can be scientifically verified while a deviation is a choice.


      "I didn't say "deviant", much less a "deviant lifestyle choice". Introducing words into the conversation is dishonest, remember?"

      Yes, you brought "deviance" into this discussion. So, yes, you are being dishonest by blaming others for your actions.


      I asked: "can a scientist say that when a female is born she had the choice to be male before birth?"
      You answered: "No."

      That's right. A scientist cannot say she had the choice. You know why? Because there is no choice involved. This isn't rocket science you know. Any moron (well almost) can figure you have no choice as to what you are born as. But liberals thinks CERTAIN choice lifestyles (not all) give you the ability to claim civil rights.

      Delete
    17. "Does that mean you think ONLY DNA is able to prove (to scientists) why a female is born a female? Hmm, interesting stance."

      No, that's been your position, which is why I have no choice but to take that as your meaning.

      "Alright then, shut up. Are scientists part of that "everyone"?"

      Yes, so what? Are you trying to demonstrate how your assertion that proof was needed was idiotic?

      "There is technology in place that can confirm that."

      You said "it is NOT verifiable" also. In any event, nothing was proven for women or African-Americans. Nothing had to be, so nothing has to be proven here either. It's a matter for the public to decide based on their judgment.

      "Unless you want to include ALL the choice lifestyles in your demand for civil rights."

      It's not a "choice lifestyle", but the distinction of what is harmful and what isn't would still come into play when discussing rights. "Hypocrite" does not apply.

      "Now you're just whining for whining sake. How old ARE you?"

      Are you denying it would support your argument? Why is it whining for me to tell you to do your own research, but not when you say it?

      "A "deviation" (your word) is not the same as a "mutation" (scientists word). When you 'deviate' from a lifestyle and choose another, it is different than if your lifestyle mutates and you have no choice."

      You're manufacturing definitions. There is nothing to say that there is no such thing as a "genetic deviation", and the context the word was used in doesn't allow your interpretation anyway.

      "Yes, you brought "deviance" into this discussion. So, yes, you are being dishonest by blaming others for your actions."

      No, I said "deviation". Sorry, but remember your quote about introducing words into the conversation. You introduced a different word.

      "Because there is no choice involved. This isn't rocket science you know. Any moron (well almost) can figure you have no choice as to what you are born as."

      Then why did you say that scientific proof was needed for that? Let's review:

      Me:"Was there anyone in the world that believed that someone "chose" to be born a certain gender or race, until science set them straight? No, I think it's safe to say that fell under "common sense". Thanks for bringing that up."

      You:"Actually, yes. That's how we got civil rights for blacks and women. Are you a complete moron and don't pay ANY attention to what happens in the world? How in the hell do you think blacks and women were even allowed to get the civil rights they sought?"

      And yet, now you are arguing that nobody thought that it was a choice. Which must mean that your previous assertion was a tremendous lie.

      Delete
    18. "No, that's been your position,"

      Where do you draw that conclusion from? Where did I say DNA is the ONLY proof? I just got done talking about historical mutations that are NOT present in the human population. Mutations that WOULD be present if gays were born that way. You can't find any mutations because there aren't any. Scientific proof that homosexuality is choice and you are NOT born that way. Which is what I accurately claimed was present when I said women cannot choose who they are born as. Then you (dishonestly) claimed I said something different.


      "It's not a "choice lifestyle", but the distinction of what is harmful and what isn't would still come into play when discussing rights. "

      It IS a choice lifestyle. Otherwise you'd bring proof that it isn't. Have you brought that proof yet? What proof do you have to show that homosexuality is NOT choice?
      Here's an example of your proof that gays are born that way: ... crickets .... more crickets .... even more crickets ...

      You admit some lifestyles are choice but demand that other lifestyles are not choice. Is this based solely on whether it is harmful? Because it looks like you are saying that a lifestyle is choice if it does harm to others, but if it does no harm to others then it is not choice. That, my friend, is VERY hypocritical.


      "Then why did you say that scientific proof was needed for that?"

      I did not say "scientific proof was NEEDED". I said it was available. Why do you continue to manufacture statements that I do not make? I think you are arguing with yourself just because you're not smart enough to argue with me.

      You want to discuss civil rights being given to homosexuals? How about you stick to that topic. You want to talk about something else, then go ahead and talk about what ever you want. Because I know and have seen how you create statements so that you can attribute them to me. How is that NOT lying or NOT dishonest?

      Delete
    19. "Where did I say DNA is the ONLY proof?"

      Because that's what you demanded for homosexuality throughout this thread. You didn't accept other scientific evidence because it wasn't "proven", remember?

      "Scientific proof that homosexuality is choice and you are NOT born that way."

      How would that be proof if homosexuals are less likely to pass on genes?

      "Otherwise you'd bring proof that it isn't."

      That assumes proof exists one way or the other. It doesn't.

      "You admit some lifestyles are choice but demand that other lifestyles are not choice. Is this based solely on whether it is harmful?"

      Obviously not, because I already said that I didn't think pedophilia was a choice, but was harmful.

      "I did not say "scientific proof was NEEDED". I said it was available."

      No, you said that's how women and African-Americans got their rights. That's how they were "allowed" to get the rights they sought, according to you.

      "You want to discuss civil rights being given to homosexuals? How about you stick to that topic."

      The topic is your claim that scientific proof is what earned rights for women and African-Americans, because you refused to substantiate it, and I pointed that out when you hypocritically accused me of not backing up claims of fact. Now, you've completely contradicted what you said before, which not only means that you don't back up your claim of fact, but you were lying when you made it in the first place.

      Kick and scream all you want, I don't see how you're going to get around that.

      Delete
    20. "How would that be proof if homosexuals are less likely to pass on genes?"

      Less likely is NOT a viable excuse. There are plenty of examples of gays living and procreating with the other sex. And, we're talking a time-frame of MILLIONS of YEARS, not weeks or months. There is NO mutation because you are not born that way.


      "That assumes proof exists one way or the other. It doesn't."

      So, you admit there is no proof that you are born that way? Well, there goes your argument just being shot all to hell by yourself. You probably don't want to join the debate team in your Jr. High class.


      "Obviously not, because I already said that I didn't think pedophilia was a choice, but was harmful."

      Why are you not seeking civil rights for a group of people who have no choice of their condition? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Does this mean you think homosexuality is a medical condition that can be cured or treated (like pedophilia)?

      Delete
    21. "Less likely is NOT a viable excuse."

      Of course it is. If less of them pass on genes, then you can't possibly make anything out of the lack of an increase over time. You haven't even established how it would have to be a mutation that supposedly increases, as opposed to something like handedness or having green eyes. Your argument is garbage.

      "So, you admit there is no proof that you are born that way?"

      I've said there's no scientific proof multiple times. It's hard to believe you're not aware of this by now.

      "Why are you not seeking civil rights for a group of people who have no choice of their condition? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?"

      They don't get rights because what they do is harmful. That's not hypocritical.

      "Does this mean you think homosexuality is a medical condition that can be cured or treated (like pedophilia)?"

      Pedophilia can be cured, or effectively treated? I don't know why you would feel the need to "cure" homosexuality, because it's not harmful. And it's a sexual orientation, not a medical condition.

      Delete
    22. "I've said there's no scientific proof multiple times. It's hard to believe you're not aware of this by now."

      What's the basis for demanding civil rights, then?


      "I don't know why you would feel the need to "cure" homosexuality, because it's not harmful."

      Umm, what is this article ABOUT? It is about how a gay guy harmed himself because he was teased. You think dying is NOT harmful? You even called homosexuality a "deviation". A deviation from what?
      So, obviously, you think homosexuality is not normal. And you can't show that homosexuality is natural. But you demand they have civil rights?
      Is sexual orientation something a doctor or scientist can predict according to cell structure or geneology? Because if sexual orientation is simply choice, then what gives a choice lifestyle the right to demand civil rights?

      Delete
    23. "What's the basis for demanding civil rights, then?"

      Common sense.

      "It is about how a gay guy harmed himself because he was teased. You think dying is NOT harmful?"

      You're making a self-defeating argument. If it was merely homosexuality that killed him, then he could have changed his mind and chosen to be straight, by the argument that it's a choice. If it's more than homosexuality that caused his death, then homosexuality itself is not harmful.

      "You even called homosexuality a "deviation". A deviation from what?"

      From heterosexuality, of course. "Deviation" does not imply anything about harmfulness.

      "So, obviously, you think homosexuality is not normal. And you can't show that homosexuality is natural. But you demand they have civil rights?"

      It's clearly natural. It occurs in nature, remember?

      "Is sexual orientation something a doctor or scientist can predict according to cell structure or geneology? Because if sexual orientation is simply choice, then what gives a choice lifestyle the right to demand civil rights?"

      This is just a reworded version of "there's no proof so it's a choice". I already said that if it's actually a choice, then I would have a hard time pushing for rights.

      But I, unlike you, am reasonable about the matter. If there's any sort of logical argument that it could be a choice, I'm open to that. You've failed in spectacular fashion to provide any such logical argument.

      Delete
    24. "If it's more than homosexuality that caused his death, then homosexuality itself is not harmful."

      What caused his death? Did the video player hit him and he died? No? Umm did he choose to kill himself after being embarrassed by his chosen deviation from normality? Couldn't he have chosen to not be a deviant (as you call it) instead of harming himself? Either way, being gay was harmful.


      "It's clearly natural. It occurs in nature, remember?"

      Only by choice. No scientific evidence shows otherwise. Not even in nature. It occurs in humans also, but, again, by choice ONLY.


      "I already said that if it's actually a choice, then I would have a hard time pushing for rights."

      But you vehemently are doing it right now for homosexuals even though you consider it a "deviation" from normality.

      Delete
    25. "Umm did he choose to kill himself after being embarrassed by his chosen deviation from normality? Couldn't he have chosen to not be a deviant (as you call it) instead of harming himself? Either way, being gay was harmful."

      First off, I didn't use the word "deviant", as if you needed to be reminded. Secondly, if you think he could have chosen to be straight and stop the tormenting, then why wouldn't he? This is an example of how your viewpoint makes no logical sense whatsoever. Most importantly, by your logic, being a midget would be "harmful" if people mocked and embarrassed him to the point of suicide. You're confusing a state of being with the the behavior of others.

      "Only by choice."

      Because animals choose to be gay, right? That's what "in nature" refers to.

      "But you vehemently are doing it right now for homosexuals even though you consider it a "deviation" from normality."

      Yes, why not? If left-handed people couldn't vote, I'd fight for their rights as well.

      Delete
    26. "Because animals choose to be gay, right? That's what "in nature" refers to."

      That's right. So, they choose to be gay in the animal kingdom and they choose to be gay in the human population. How else could it happen?


      "Secondly, if you think he could have chosen to be straight ... "

      Well, he chose to be crooked, so he could make the other choice just as easily. Why do murderers choose to murder? They know it's going to be a tormented life. Gosh maybe we should give civil rights to murderers also. They have such a tormented life. Your logic makes no logic.

      Delete
    27. "First off, I didn't use the word "deviant", "

      Yes you did. CONTEXT. Do you remember lecturing me about CONTEXT? Do I need to remind you that you called homosexuality a "deviation" of normalcy. Here are your exact words: "That doesn't logically follow, since homosexuals aren't as likely to procreate. It could remain a deviation with a steady percentage.".

      So, 'deviation' in your context is just as accurate as 'deviant' in my context. You called them deviants when you said their chosen lifestyle is a deviation from another choice lifestyle.

      Delete
    28. "That's right. So, they choose to be gay in the animal kingdom and they choose to be gay in the human population. How else could it happen?"

      Genetics.

      "Well, he chose to be crooked, so he could make the other choice just as easily."

      "Crooked"? That's a new one. So why didn't he make the other choice? Why would he kill himself instead of simply switching? I've asked you for a theory on this multiple times, and you never feel up to the task for some reason.

      "Why do murderers choose to murder? They know it's going to be a tormented life."

      There are thousands of different scenarios for murder. Are you talking about serial killers? It's idiotic either way, but the obvious difference is murder is harmful. Also, if you're talking about a single murder, one can change. Whether they go to prison or not, they can change their life from then on, and many do. If you're talking about serial killers, then that's psychotic behavior, which is not comparable at all.

      "Gosh maybe we should give civil rights to murderers also. They have such a tormented life. Your logic makes no logic."

      No, because murder is harmful. Your strawmen "make no logic" because you can't address my arguments honestly, I believe.

      "Yes you did. CONTEXT."

      No, I didn't. "Deviant" is not the same as "deviation". Notice the extra letters and the changed order of them. That makes it a different word. Look up "different" and "word" if you have to.

      "So, 'deviation' in your context is just as accurate as 'deviant' in my context."

      Does that mean I used the word "deviant"? That I typed those letters in that order on my keyboard? I don't believe it does. Do you notice, also, that you just referred to two different contexts? That doesn't exactly bolster your point.

      "You called them deviants when you said their chosen lifestyle is a deviation from another choice lifestyle."

      I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about a chosen lifestyle. That would be you inserting your viewpoint where it doesn't belong, yet again.

      Delete
    29. "Genetics."

      Hmmm ... find that gene yet? Well, when you do get back with me. Otherwise you have no right to claim civil rights basing that claim simply on choosing to be gay. Maybe I should seek civil rights because I'm a conservative. We live such horrible lives too. And we are often tormented by basically one political spectrum. Gosh the situation sounds almost the same as your desire to get gays civil rights based on how tormented they get.


      ""Crooked"? That's a new one. "

      You said something about him choosing to be "straight". What other term should I have used?


      "I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about a chosen lifestyle."

      What other kind of lifestyle could you mean?


      DEVIATION: an act or instance of deviating: as
      a : deflection of the needle of a compass caused by local magnetic influences (as in a ship)
      b : the difference between a value in a frequency distribution and a fixed number (as the mean)
      c : departure from an established ideology or party line
      d : noticeable or marked departure from accepted norms of behavior

      DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm


      Looks like description "d" fits the exact meaning of deviant. Well, that's just by using some silly thing called a dictionary. Looks like I got to use 'deviant' and 'context' both against you in the same sentence. Ooof, that must have hurt.

      Delete
    30. "Hmmm ... find that gene yet? Well, when you do get back with me."

      You asked "how else could it happen?". The lack of positive proof doesn't make my answer invalid. Maybe you should have phrased the question better.

      "You said something about him choosing to be "straight". What other term should I have used?"

      "Gay" or "homosexual", maybe? Is the use of "straight" supposed to be controversial here?

      "What other kind of lifestyle could you mean?"

      When did I say "lifestyle"? Typically I refer to it as a sexual orientation.

      "Looks like description "d" fits the exact meaning of deviant."

      Did you show where I used the word "deviant" yet, since you claimed I did? Surprisingly, no. "Deviant" has a negative connotation to it. If you try dictionary.reference.com, you'll find one definition as "departure from a standard or norm". That isn't negative.

      If there really is no difference between the words, then you should have no problem using the one I did. And if there is a difference, then it's dishonest to claim I said something other than what I actually did. Either way, the word was "deviation". Make a note of it.

      Delete
    31. I decided to find your definition, and I had a good laugh. From your cited source:

      "Examples of DEVIATION
      There have been slight deviations in the satellite's orbit.
      Having juice instead of coffee was a deviation from his usual routine.
      The pattern's deviation from the norm is significant."

      "Examples of DEVIANT
      a study of deviant behavior among criminals
      "

      Yes, no difference in perceived meaning whatsoever. Those words are obviously used exactly the same way. Good job destroying your own dishonest argument there.

      Delete
    32. That "deviant" set of examples should also have included:"some studies show that many violent criminals begin exhibiting deviant behavior in early childhood".

      Delete
    33. Wow, 3 separate posts to dispel you calling homosexuals deviant. It won't work, the dictionary is working against you this time. You called them deviants and I am called a bigot for calling them deviants. Does that make you a bigot? Sounds like it. Someone may confuse you for a right-winger if you're not careful (mis-quoting, dis-honest, bigot)

      I'll honestly bet you had no idea you were setting yourself up for that, huh? Unfortunately you said it and there isn't any taking it back now. I'll keep that quote in my favorites and repost it often (in the future) as you call me a bigot for saying homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.


      "The lack of positive proof doesn't make my answer invalid."

      Yes it does. The lack of mutations from millions of years of homosexuality that would show a pattern of homosexuality in families and blood-lines, but there is NONE of that, either. So, even without DNA, science is working against your opinion. Which is all you have since science and religion both think homosexuality is a deviance from the norm. Sorry, no civil rights for a chosen lifestyle.

      This would be the time you normally change the subject in order to divert attention away from the flogging you just took.

      Delete
    34. "I'll keep that quote in my favorites and repost it often (in the future) as you call me a bigot for saying homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle."

      By all means, go ahead, so I can point out your "yes you did" response when I asked if I used the word "deviant". You are a proven liar. You're also a hypocrite for chastising me for introducing words into a conversation, while you have no problem doing it yourself and claiming I used them. I would love to see you try to use that against me.

      "The lack of mutations from millions of years of homosexuality that would show a pattern of homosexuality in families and blood-lines, but there is NONE of that, either."

      Based on what? What patterns would you expect to see, and what scientist in the world has made this argument?

      Delete
    35. Based on patterns. Just like blonde hair'd families will have several blonde hair'd members in it, your homosexuals (if genetic) would have several homosexuals in their family line. But they don't, do they? Each and everyone is an isolated occurrence and strictly by choice.
      And NO scientist is making the argument that there are homosexual blood-lines anywhere in the world. You know why? Because it doesn't happen. Otherwise you'd hear of scientists making claims that homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation ... just like all other genetic traits are.

      Gee, it's too bad you can't make a viable argument to support your stance other than "it's my opinion, therefor it's true". Kind of funny watch you flounder around like this. I liked it in the other article too. You aren't very good at this are you?

      Brabantio called homosexuality a deviance from the norm: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/03/verdict-in-web-cam-case.html?showComment=1335104963622#c7523007114640762205

      And ANY dictionary says that deviant and deviation mean the same thing and are used in the same context.

      Delete
    36. "Just like blonde hair'd families will have several blonde hair'd members in it, your homosexuals (if genetic) would have several homosexuals in their family line. But they don't, do they?"

      I recall something in the article I provided to you about twin studies where if one was gay, the other had something like a 50% chance of also being gay. I think this might be a reference to it:
      http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html
      I also recall you dismissed everything in that article because it wasn't absolute DNA proof.

      "And NO scientist is making the argument that there are homosexual blood-lines anywhere in the world."

      The question to you was what scientist is making YOUR argument.

      "And ANY dictionary says that deviant and deviation mean the same thing and are used in the same context."

      Not if I'm referring to a genetic deviation and then you claim I'm calling homosexuals "deviants". You claimed I used a word I did not use. You are a liar by definition. Look it up.

      Delete
    37. You mean the study that used these people as a base for their study:
      "The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications."

      Also, your study said this: though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

      Hmmm, a study done to show gay genes where the participants are found through gay magazines. I'm sure there would be no favoritism in that study.
      BTW, did you ignore the possible failures of that study or just didn't want to print them because it would show that study was flawed?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Criticisms


      "You claimed I used a word I did not use."

      Ahhh, but you did use it. I provided the link. You threatened to use the same link, too. If I look up the word "liar" in the dictionary, will I find a picture of you? LOL


      "The question to you was what scientist is making YOUR argument."

      There are lots of scientists doing that research. You brought a link to one of them. This is your last hope for civil rights through genetics. If you can't find a link (the missing link:) for homosexuality through heredity, then that proves they are not born that way. You see, your gay friends are desperately trying to find something ... anything to show genetics decide your homosexuality.

      Delete
    38. "The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications."

      So you think it's prejudicial to base a study of homosexuality on actual homosexuals?

      "Also, your study said this: though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important."

      Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

      "BTW, did you ignore the possible failures of that study or just didn't want to print them because it would show that study was flawed?"

      So wiki is acceptable again? I must have missed your coin flip. In any event:"Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.[10] Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta."

      In other words, your criticism relies on the concept of innate homosexuality.

      "Ahhh, but you did use it."

      The word "deviant" isn't in that post. I'm talking about a genetic deviation, and you want to argue that "You called them deviants when you said their chosen lifestyle is a deviation from another choice lifestyle". You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

      "There are lots of scientists doing that research. You brought a link to one of them."

      So the people who did that research are arguing that a lack of a pattern is proof that homosexuality is a choice? Would you kindly substantiate that?

      Delete
    39. "So you think it's prejudicial to base a study of homosexuality on actual homosexuals?"

      Do YOU think it would be prejudicial if there was a study (hereditary sexual preference) of twins (same numbers) that they got the participants through answering ads placed in Playboy or other heterosexually based sex publications? It would seem to me that a study that got their participants from ads in Playboy would tend to follow one sexual preference over another. And that would make that study questionable if not downright unreliable.


      "In other words, your criticism relies on the concept of innate homosexuality."

      No, my criticism relies on the fact homosexuality is NOT innate. And, yes, wiki has been acceptable as a reference at all times. Did you notice I said "possible failures"? If you want to prove or claim innate rights then you need to provide the proof of it. You don't get civil rights based on OPINION only. Did I use wiki as scientific proof of anything??


      "So the people who did that research are arguing that a lack of a pattern is proof that homosexuality is a choice?"

      God, you really have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? No, I claim that, not the scientists. Maybe you're being dishonest on purpose, it has been your standard writing style to do that.


      deviation and deviant share the same meaning. Are you going to deny that? Are you? Really?

      Delete
    40. "It would seem to me that a study that got their participants from ads in Playboy would tend to follow one sexual preference over another."

      They would have to follow one sexual preference over another, because it's a study on homosexuality. Do you want them to do family-related studies on homosexuality based on heterosexual twins?

      "No, my criticism relies on the fact homosexuality is NOT innate."

      Except that the criticisms you yourself linked to are based on the concept that homosexuality is innate. It's saying that it may be caused on other pre-birth factors than twin studies are concluding. If you really want to argue that it's innate but not due to genes, I just might concede that.

      "And, yes, wiki has been acceptable as a reference at all times."

      Is that why you questioned my use of it?

      "No, I claim that, not the scientists."

      That's what I'm trying to get out of you, thank you. You're insisting that homosexuality must be a choice if certain patterns aren't seen, but science isn't claiming that. Do you speak for science?

      "deviation and deviant share the same meaning. Are you going to deny that? Are you? Really?"

      I showed how they don't carry the same connotation, and they don't share the exact same meaning. If you wanted to argue that the words mean the same, you could have done that without claiming that I used a word that I simply did not. So why did you lie?

      Delete
    41. "That's what I'm trying to get out of you, thank you. You're insisting that homosexuality must be a choice if certain patterns aren't seen, but science isn't claiming that. Do you speak for science?"

      Actually and factually, they were psychologists that YOU were referring to. I don't think that is the same as genetic scientists. But, if you consider psychologists to be genetic scientists, then YES I can speak for them. I am the autopsychic which would give me as much scientific say as the rest of them. And my published studies show that 100% of all questioned homosexuals chose that lifestyle 100% of the time.


      "If you really want to argue that it's innate but not due to genes, I just might concede that."

      I'm not arguing innate, you are. But, you can't find any proof of it, so you have to attribute statements to others so it appears someone else is making that claim. Very dishonest of you. But expected from someone who has nothing to back up their claims. That's the way you innately do things, huh?

      Delete
    42. "I am the autopsychic which would give me as much scientific say as the rest of them."

      What are you babbling about? You wanted evidence of familial trends of homosexuality, and you got it. Now you won't accept that evidence for some arbitrary reason. I can't say that's surprising.

      "I'm not arguing innate, you are."

      No, your link argued it was innate. I didn't attribute anything to you, I only pointed out that you should have read your link. And someone who claims that I called homosexuals "deviants" because of their "chosen lifestyle" probably shouldn't be making such accusations anyway.

      Delete
    43. "Now you won't accept that evidence for some arbitrary reason."

      I didn't say I wouldn't accept it. I said it is possibly faulty. You even agreed that if a similar study was done using strictly heterosexuals who answered ads through Playboy that study would be just as biased. Can a study be viable or even acceptable if it is so biased as to exclude any other possibility besides the one they are seeking to show?


      "I called homosexuals "deviants" because of their "chosen lifestyle" probably shouldn't be making such accusations anyway."

      There, you did it again.


      "No, your link argued it was innate."

      Which link was that? The wiki link that you refused to accept? Or the wiki link that I used to show possible flaws in the integrity of your study?

      Delete
    44. "I said it is possibly faulty."

      By comparing it to a mechanic doing an undocumented study?

      "You even agreed that if a similar study was done using strictly heterosexuals who answered ads through Playboy that study would be just as biased."

      I don't believe that I agreed that it would be "biased" to find homosexuals in order to do a study on homosexuals. You're not exactly explaining how that's supposed to work.

      "There, you did it again."

      Do you think that cropping quotes proves something? Or does it just make you giggle? Did you even notice that the way you cropped the quote doesn't even make any sense?

      "The wiki link that you refused to accept?"

      I didn't refuse to accept anything. One of the "possible flaws" involved an alternate theory on innate homosexuality. In other words, even those people are saying it's not a choice.

      Delete
    45. "Do you think that cropping quotes proves something? Or does it just make you giggle?"

      That one made me giggle. Especially when you take it as a real statement. What a goof-ball you are.


      "In other words, even those people are saying it's not a choice."

      Actually, in other words, it means they don't know and don't have any proof. They are going on assumptions and biased data collection methods.


      "I don't believe that I agreed that it would be "biased" to find homosexuals in order to do a study on homosexuals."

      You said:"Do you want them to do family-related studies on homosexuality based on heterosexual twins?"

      Well, that would make the study more accurate. If you are claiming that homosexuality is hereditary, then it wouldn't matter if they are born to a heterosexual couple or homosexual couple. One of the liberal's main arguments is: "when did I choose to be heterosexual?". If that premise is that I may have been born homosexual and are simply denying the other possibility, then there would be just as many gays born into heterosexual families as there are born into homosexual families. And a study including all would show that exact fact ... if it were real.
      If you had only gay people saying they are gay because of ....??? Then that would be no different than if you had a bunch of straight people saying they are straight because of ...??? Which study carries more weight?

      Delete
    46. "That one made me giggle. Especially when you take it as a real statement. What a goof-ball you are."

      If I was assuming it to be a real statement I wouldn't have asked if you did it to amuse yourself. Either way, you show you're not willing to address what I wrote.

      "Actually, in other words, it means they don't know and don't have any proof. They are going on assumptions and biased data collection methods."

      No, the criticisms YOU cited are based on the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. They're simply offering another pre-birth explanation besides genetics. Did you read your own link or not?

      "Well, that would make the study more accurate."

      That makes no sense at all. First off, how many "homosexual couples" do you think are building their own biological families? And the whole point of the study was to evaluate the percentage of homosexuals whose twins were also gay, as opposed to non-biologically related brothers. You have to have at least one homosexual person in each set of brothers or twins in order to do that study. A pair of heterosexual twins or brothers have no bearing on it.

      "If you had only gay people saying they are gay because of ....??? Then that would be no different than if you had a bunch of straight people saying they are straight because of ...???"

      That would be more like a poll, and it doesn't have any relevance to what we're talking about.

      Delete
    47. "And the whole point of the study was to evaluate the percentage of homosexuals whose twins were also gay, "

      Which would be like having a study on balloons; [There are thousands of balloons of a multi-tued of colors, but we're going to only study the blue ones. The results of that study show that more than half of the balloons we studied turned out to be blue.] Ah ha ha ha .... you are funny. You accept a study on gay people using only gay people found through gay publications to determine whether you are born gay. Oh, yeah, that is going to be a completely un-biased study. But, as long as you fall for it then you are happy, right? Good for you, mr sheeple.


      "That would be more like a poll, and it doesn't have any relevance to what we're talking about."

      Which is what your study turns out being. Thanks for that enlightenment.


      "If I was assuming it to be a real statement I wouldn't have asked if you did it to amuse yourself."

      If you had a clue you wouldn't have asked to begin with.


      "No, the criticisms YOU cited are based on the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. They're simply offering another pre-birth explanation besides genetics. "

      There is no pre-birth determiner for homosexuality. So, my "criticisms" are correctly noted.

      Delete
    48. "Ah ha ha ha .... you are funny. You accept a study on gay people using only gay people found through gay publications to determine whether you are born gay."

      Do you deny that one person in each set of brothers or twins would have to be gay, yes or no? If you do, please explain how you think the study could possibly work.

      "Which is what your study turns out being."

      They were asked if they were born gay? Or were they asked about the sexual orientation of their brothers or twins?

      "If you had a clue you wouldn't have asked to begin with."

      I'm not going to attempt to read your mind. You've cropped quotes before and said "my bad", remember? It's a deflection from me pointing out your hypocrisy, so it's dishonest no matter what the reason behind it is.

      "There is no pre-birth determiner for homosexuality. So, my "criticisms" are correctly noted."

      If that's your assertion, then the criticisms you cited are invalid. They are based on the idea that an alternate pre-birth explanation for the results is possible, not that "it's a choice". In the future, read your links.

      Delete
  11. Here's one you might not have heard;people don't choose to be left-handed. Why would you? Have you ever seen someone write left-handed? It's awkward as hell. And it makes no sense that there are people who live in the same environment that have different hand domination unless it's genetic. So if there's a genetic variation which often causes inconvenience to people, that lends itself to the idea that homosexuality is in the same category. There's no benefit to it, it often causes one problems, yet the phenomenon still exists.

    From a religious perspective, you believe in a God that creates gay animals, but that same God opposes homosexuality in humans. Why? If there was any purpose to creating gay animals, then that same purpose could easily apply to people. If there was no purpose, then your God is random.

    Speaking of which, the Bible can't be used in your favor either. For one thing, we don't live in a theocracy. For another, check out Leviticus 25:44-46. We don't accept slavery today, but here we have God telling Moses that people can buy slaves from foreigners and grant those slaves as an inheritance to their children. Unless you want to argue that we have the moral right to own people because of those words, then you have to admit that either God changed his mind, or that those verses are based on the principles of men. Either way, the biblical arguments against homosexuality become invalid, because either of those possibilities could apply to condemnations of homosexuality as well.

    The other major aspect here is "harm". There is no such thing as a victim of a consensual act. It doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Marriage is a legal institution, involving governments. Churches don't have to conduct gay weddings. There's no objective reason at all to oppose full equal rights for homosexuals.

    All of this is what makes it "obvious" that rights are deserved. I have strong arguments to make for them, and you don't, even (or especially) if you say "you have no proof!" for the fiftieth time. If social issues were really decided the way you seem to think they are, then we would still have slavery because people would be waving the Bible in the air saying that God allows it. The fact that we take all arguments into consideration during the gradual process of reevaluating our societal views is what has brought rights to racial minorities and women.

    The same is happening for the gay community as well, whether you like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The other major aspect here is "harm". There is no such thing as a victim of a consensual act."

      And the hooker would be the victim or abuser during those "consensual acts"? You can't even make a simple statement to support your "no body gets harmed" defense of seeking civil rights for choosing to be homosexual, why would I think you could provide a viable argument for those rights? The sad thing is that you use 'legal' limits to determine "consensual", but do not use those limits when determining when to teach about that lifestyle. Why is that? Do you always use double-standards when seeking laws that benefit only certain people because of the choice they make?



      "From a religious perspective, you believe in a God that creates gay animals, but that same God opposes homosexuality in humans. Why?"

      Before you start telling people what God should have done, you should know what you're talking about. How long have you been going to Seminary School? I don't think taking religious teachings from someone who may not even believe in religion is a wise thing for me to do. This conversation you'll have with yourself.

      Delete
    2. "And the hooker would be the victim or abuser during those "consensual acts"?"

      Did she consent to being hurt? Or did the client consent to it? If not, then it wouldn't be consensual. If they did, then you'll have to provide the definition of "victim" that you're using.

      "The sad thing is that you use 'legal' limits to determine "consensual", but do not use those limits when determining when to teach about that lifestyle. Why is that? Do you always use double-standards when seeking laws that benefit only certain people because of the choice they make?"

      What limits are you talking about, exactly? You're not providing any examples of what "when to teach" refers to.

      "Before you start telling people what God should have done, you should know what you're talking about."

      Until you demonstrate how I'm misinterpreting something, I'm going to stick with the conclusion that I know exactly what I'm talking about. Understanding also has no relation to belief in the subject matter, of course.

      Delete
    3. "So if there's a genetic variation which often causes inconvenience to people, that lends itself to the idea that homosexuality is in the same category."

      You are saying that being gay is an "inconvenience"?? And THAT alone gives them justification to demand civil rights?


      "From a religious perspective, you believe in a God that creates gay animals, but that same God opposes homosexuality in humans."

      What proof do you have that God created "gay animals"? Are you saying they have no choice? What proof do you have of that? Is this a theory, or have you actually talked to the animals Dr. Doolittle?
      Besides, since you know nothing of religion, you cannot comment religiously. You'd be better off sticking with opinion. Because that is ALL you got to say that gays are born that way.

      Delete
    4. "You are saying that being gay is an "inconvenience"?? And THAT alone gives them justification to demand civil rights?"

      No, I'm saying that since left-handedness is an inconvenience and has no benefit, that suggests that it's not a choice. Since there's no benefit to homosexuality over heterosexuality, and it causes conflict, it suggests it's also not a choice.

      "What proof do you have that God created "gay animals"? Are you saying they have no choice? What proof do you have of that?"

      By all means, tell me how you imagine animals make conscious choices. I've been waiting for that.

      "Besides, since you know nothing of religion, you cannot comment religiously."

      It's funny that you seem so hesitant to talk about religious matters if you really believe I don't know anything. But if you want to show off your vast knowledge and point out a Bible verse which says that animals choose to be homosexual, then please do so.

      "You'd be better off sticking with opinion. Because that is ALL you got to say that gays are born that way."

      Actually, I have logic as well, while you don't even have that to support your absurd contentions.

      Delete
    5. "By all means, tell me how you imagine animals make conscious choices. I've been waiting for that."

      Sexual urges would seem to be what drives them. You ever watch a dog try to hump someones leg? Does that mean he's gay or straight?


      "I have logic as well"

      Which logic is that? Are you saying that since the Bible doesn't specifically say animals make there own choice sexually then scientifically it is logical that they are born that way? And, that explains the dog humping someones leg in what way? Was it born with the urges to hump peoples legs and that would make it gay or something in your logic?

      Delete
    6. "Sexual urges would seem to be what drives them. You ever watch a dog try to hump someones leg? Does that mean he's gay or straight?"

      So are you telling me that a dog makes a conscious decision to hump legs? A sexual urge is not a choice.

      "Are you saying that since the Bible doesn't specifically say animals make there own choice sexually then scientifically it is logical that they are born that way?"

      No, you disputed that God made gay animals. Doesn't He make everything as it is? Didn't He give us dominion over the animals? Why would He do that if they were able to make conscious decisions?

      "And, that explains the dog humping someones leg in what way? Was it born with the urges to hump peoples legs and that would make it gay or something in your logic?"

      It seems to be a fairly common and natural occurrence. Have you ever noticed that when a dog does that and you make it clear that the behavior is unacceptable, it will typically do it again? That doesn't sound like a "choice" to me.

      Delete
    7. "So are you telling me that a dog makes a conscious decision to hump legs? A sexual urge is not a choice."

      That dog makes a conscious decision to hump whatever is handy. If he was "born that way" what sexuality would the dog be when he humps your leg? You are the one claiming they are born gay, not me. You need to prove they ARE born gay (and we're still talking about the animals) it isn't my responsibility to prove dogs are not born gay (even though I have done so).


      "Why would He do that if they were able to make conscious decisions? "

      Because He is smarter than me. I wouldn't have made them with that decision power, but I'm not God.


      "That doesn't sound like a "choice" to me."

      Lot's of logical explanations don't sound logical to you. Nothing unexpected there.

      Delete
    8. "That dog makes a conscious decision to hump whatever is handy."

      Really? It evaluates the pros and cons and considers consequences? That's a hell of a smart dog you're talking about.

      "If he was "born that way" what sexuality would the dog be when he humps your leg?"

      Who says it's supposed to indicate either? What would the basis for that conclusion be?

      "Because He is smarter than me. I wouldn't have made them with that decision power, but I'm not God."

      Well, you choose to worship that God. Personally, if I thought cows were coming up with philosophical treatises in their heads, I wouldn't be eating any hamburgers. If your God really gave us the holy right to kill animals that have the power to make conscious decisions, that's pretty crazy, and I would make an effort to evaluate the morality of that.

      "Lot's of logical explanations don't sound logical to you. Nothing unexpected there."

      There's nothing logical about your empty assertions. You're saying it's true because it's true, without any effort to show how it makes any sense.

      Delete
    9. "Who says it's supposed to indicate either? What would the basis for that conclusion be?"

      Aren't you the one saying they are born gay? How did you come to THAT conclusion? If you can claim they are born gay, then where's your proof? It seems you are demanding proof from me to prove they are not born gay (satisfactorily provided). Where's yours?


      "If your God really gave us the holy right to kill animals that have the power to make conscious decisions, that's pretty crazy, and I would make an effort to evaluate the morality of that."

      And, that would explain why you are so lost. You can easily find your way back TO morality, just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. The righteous path is a narrow one, the road to perdition is wide. YOU get to CHOOSE which one to take, animals don't.

      Delete
    10. "How did you come to THAT conclusion?"

      Because homosexual activity in nature is documented. Nobody said it involved dogs humping legs.

      "YOU get to CHOOSE which one to take, animals don't."

      Animals can choose to have sex with either gender, but they can't choose their afterlife? Why is that?

      Delete
    11. "Because homosexual activity in nature is documented."

      Are they born homosexual? Or do they just act out in that fashion?


      "Animals can choose to have sex with either gender, but they can't choose their afterlife? Why is that?"

      I don't know. Do you really care?

      Delete
    12. "Are they born homosexual? Or do they just act out in that fashion?"

      I don't see the difference between those options. On what possible basis would an animal "choose" to mate with another animal of the same gender? They don't have the mental capacity for evaluating such options. If you know of any scientific study which shows otherwise, let's see it.

      "I don't know. Do you really care?"

      I do, yes. If it's a sin for humans, why not for animals? If they're smart enough to make conscious decisions, why aren't they accountable for those decisions? And how is it you don't understand your own philosophy?

      Delete
  12. "What limits are you talking about, exactly?"

    Age limits. That is what you determine the ability to consent, right? Well, in some states those limits are low ... very low. Is that ok with you? Wow, in some countries there are NO age limits. How about that? Would that change the way you think about consent if there was no age limit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Well, in some states those limits are low ... very low. Is that ok with you? Wow, in some countries there are NO age limits. How about that? Would that change the way you think about consent if there was no age limit?"

      If there was no age limit for consent, then that's a problem for heterosexual and homosexual relations. How do you imagine that something which isn't specific to homosexuality is supposed to be relevant to whether we accept homosexuality or not?

      Delete
    2. Because that's what you use to determine whether a couple can actually BE a couple (pedophilia). Which is what I said would happen and your lack of or enforcement of age limits would determine what sexual behavior is acceptable for YOU. So, it isn't whether the couple has consent, it is more of a "I think it is acceptable, therefor rules should be written to allow it". Is that the way you're thinking about the correlation of age limits and consent?

      And the enforcement of age limits also forces you to admit that homosexuality is NOT innate. Which again would blow your entire argument out of the water.

      Delete
    3. "Because that's what you use to determine whether a couple can actually BE a couple (pedophilia). Which is what I said would happen and your lack of or enforcement of age limits would determine what sexual behavior is acceptable for YOU."

      If there aren't any limits, then obviously that system doesn't consider pedophilia an issue. As I said, that's a problem. How does some other country have any bearing on "what (you) said would happen" here?

      "So, it isn't whether the couple has consent, it is more of a "I think it is acceptable, therefor rules should be written to allow it". Is that the way you're thinking about the correlation of age limits and consent?"

      No, it absolutely relies on consent. But as I said, that's an issue for heterosexuals too. I'm not thinking of the correlation of age limits and consent, because it makes no argument as to why homosexual relationships should be any less acceptable than heterosexual ones.

      "And the enforcement of age limits also forces you to admit that homosexuality is NOT innate."

      I can't wait to hear this one. How?

      Delete
    4. "I can't wait to hear this one. How?"

      Because you deny that pedophilia is a condition similar to homosexuality. Both are sexual deviant choices that are made by an individual. But, you consider one to be A-OK, but the other to be terribly evil. Is that the typical hypocrisy exhibited by liberals on a constant basis? Yes!

      Delete
    5. I don't think that pedophilia is a choice either. The difference is that pedophilia is harmful and therefore unacceptable.

      You seem to have just made the argument that pedophilia proves that homosexuality is a choice because they're both choices. That's obviously circular.

      Delete
    6. "I don't think that pedophilia is a choice either."

      Are you demanding that pedophiles get the SAME civil rights you demand for gays? Because if you do not, then you are hypocritical for demanding rights for some but not others who are denied those civil rights for the same reason (lifestyle).
      Maybe you are claiming homosexuality is a medical condition since that what pedophilia is considered. Are you claiming homosexuality is a medical condition? Because if so, then it would seem you cannot claim they are born that way.
      Maybe you are calling homosexuality a medical deformity. Are you calling homosexuality a medical deformity? But, wait, if either of those were the case, then you could find absolute scientific proof of that condition or deformity. Have you got either one for homosexuality, like you do for pedophilia? Because if homosexuality is not either a condition or deformity then you should be demanding civil rights for pedophiles before you demand them for gays, because you are saying the pedophile has no choice.

      Delete
    7. "Are you demanding that pedophiles get the SAME civil rights you demand for gays? Because if you do not, then you are hypocritical for demanding rights for some but not others who are denied those civil rights for the same reason (lifestyle)."

      Homosexuality is not harmful. Pedophilia is. Therefore pedophiles don't deserve rights.

      "Are you claiming homosexuality is a medical condition? Because if so, then it would seem you cannot claim they are born that way."

      I'm not claiming it's a medical condition, but people are born with medical conditions anyway.

      "But, wait, if either of those were the case, then you could find absolute scientific proof of that condition or deformity."

      According to who? Who is it that claims that every aspect of genetics that could possibly be determined already has been?

      "Because if homosexuality is not either a condition or deformity then you should be demanding civil rights for pedophiles before you demand them for gays, because you are saying the pedophile has no choice."

      No, because pedophilia is harmful. No matter how many times you try to go that way, you're not going to get anywhere.

      Delete
    8. "Homosexuality is not harmful. Pedophilia is. Therefore pedophiles don't deserve rights."

      How many people die each year, in the USA, from AIDS/HIV? What percentage of those people are homosexual? Now, tell me again how homosexuality is NOT harmful.

      Delete
    9. How many of those people would not engage in risky behaviors if homosexuals could get married? It doesn't make much sense to marginalize and dehumanize people, and then complain that they're promiscuous.

      If we want to talk about percentages, what percentage of pedophiles do harm to their victims? I would estimate 100%. That's what "harmful" means, that it's harmful by its very nature.

      Delete
    10. "How many of those people would not engage in risky behaviors if homosexuals could get married?"

      Probably the same percentage as would heterosexual couples. In other words still LOTS of them would engage in HARMFUL behavior after getting married .... just like heterosexuals do. So, you're admitting that homosexuality is harmful?


      Why don't you answer the questions? Or are you afraid to say how many die each year in the USA from HIV/AIDS? And are you afraid to say how many of those deaths are gay? I know if I was in your shoes and trying to show how safe homosexuality was, then I would ignore those questions also. Especially if I was basing my entire argument for gay civil rights on that premise.

      Delete
    11. "Probably the same percentage as would heterosexual couples."

      You can't compare to heterosexuals because we can get married to who we're attracted to. And if you're admitting that heterosexuals engage in harmful behavior before and after marriage, then why don't you consider heterosexuality "harmful" as well?

      "Why don't you answer the questions? Or are you afraid to say how many die each year in the USA from HIV/AIDS?"

      I already said homosexuals engage in riskier behavior. What else do you need? I already addressed the issue, so specific numbers aren't relevant. If you really believe it furthers your point, do your own research.

      Delete
    12. "You can't compare to heterosexuals because we can get married to who we're attracted to."

      But, you can have sex with anyone you want. Choosing who your sex partner is has nothing to do with marriage or civil rights.


      "And if you're admitting that heterosexuals engage in harmful behavior before and after marriage, then why don't you consider heterosexuality "harmful" as well?"

      Who says I don't? Do heterosexuals have a civil right to marriage? No? Well neither should homosexuals.


      "I already said homosexuals engage in riskier behavior."

      Exactly! Now, why are you demanding civil rights to a lifestyle that you admit is harmful to millions more than pedophilia is? When the only reason you deny pedophiles civil rights is because it's harmful.
      You're not very good at this are you? Or, you are a very good hypocrite. I'm guessing both (they're not mutually exclusive in this situation).

      Delete
    13. "Choosing who your sex partner is has nothing to do with marriage or civil rights."

      Your claim is that you choose who you're attracted to though, is it not? It's hardly meaningful for tell you that you have the right to have a homosexual relationship when you have no interest in one.

      "Who says I don't? Do heterosexuals have a civil right to marriage? No? Well neither should homosexuals."

      If you consider heterosexuality harmful, then you're not creating any reason why people should "choose" to be straight. Meanwhile, you can legally marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same one. If there's no distinction in harmfulness, why should that be the case?

      "Now, why are you demanding civil rights to a lifestyle that you admit is harmful to millions more than pedophilia is?"

      I admitted nothing of the sort. I already said that the risky behavior will be reduced if they're allowed to get married. Homosexuality is not harmful by nature, unlike pedophilia.

      Delete
    14. "Your claim is that you choose who you're attracted to though, is it not?"

      No.


      "If there's no distinction in harmfulness, why should that be the case?"

      Morals, pal. Morals. That's why you refuse to allow pedophiles to get the same civil rights you are seeking for gays. That's why I call you a hypocrite for that decision. Your morals say pedophilia is wrong/harmful therefore no civil rights. My morals say homosexuality and pedophilia are both wrong/harmful therefore no civil rights.


      "I already said that the risky behavior will be reduced if they're allowed to get married."

      You said it, but can you prove it? How do you know that is fact? Or are you just guessing .... again?


      "If you consider heterosexuality harmful, then you're not creating any reason why people should "choose"to be straight."

      I'm not trying to create any reasons. People choose on their own, not by my advise.

      Delete
    15. "No."

      Then what would "born gay" mean, as an alternative to your argument? That would be having no choice in who you're sexually attracted to. So are you saying that people have no choice in their desires, but they're wrong for not "choosing" something that's not appealing to them at all?

      "Morals, pal. Morals. That's why you refuse to allow pedophiles to get the same civil rights you are seeking for gays."

      No, not just morals. Distinguishing "harm" is much more objective.

      "That's why I call you a hypocrite for that decision."

      "Your morals say pedophilia is wrong/harmful therefore no civil rights. My morals say homosexuality and pedophilia are both wrong/harmful therefore no civil rights."

      So I'm a hypocrite because I don't subscribe to your moronic arguments or your Biblical beliefs? It doesn't work that way. If I viewed homosexuality as immoral, you would have a point.

      "You said it, but can you prove it? How do you know that is fact? Or are you just guessing .... again?"

      Do you have any grasp on psychology at all? If you put a stigma on homosexuality, then it discourages long-term relationships. Also, if you tell people that their sexuality in general is wrong, then you're not giving them as much cause to recognize the differences in specifics of sexual behavior, such as using protection. You really don't think it makes a difference whether behavior is accepted or not? That has no influence on future actions, in your view?

      "I'm not trying to create any reasons."

      Then on what basis could you possibly criticize anyone for "choosing" homosexuality, besides the Bible?

      Delete
  13. I'm going to expand on something else, at the risk that you'll use it as an excuse to abandon your "age limits prove people choose to be gay" line of thought (and the suspense is thick in the air on that one).

    "I think you need to realize that civil rights are given BECAUSE you can't choose who you are born as."

    and:"...it is more of a "I think it is acceptable, therefor rules should be written to allow it."

    I've been told before that nobody should have to have the "natural vs. choice" argument because people should still get equal rights even if homosexuality is a choice. I disagree with that viewpoint. The reason is partly that if that's true, then a breathtaking amount of people have lied about their own sexual orientation to their friends and families.

    And it's not just the dishonesty. Some families don't take this sort of news very well, the most empathetic reason being they want grandchildren. I imagine the (laughable) scenario of people choosing their orientation, and I wonder why they wouldn't just marry someone of the opposite sex. Is it spite, maybe? If someone really loves someone of the same gender that much where they're disappointing their own parents for it, then the failure to proudly declare that reeks of cowardice. If it's a choice, just say so. Anything else is not respectable.

    Absent of that dynamic, the question boils down to the issue of harm. It doesn't hurt to give them rights even if it's a choice. That's fine, I wouldn't object to that. It's different from polygamy, for instance. With polygamy you open up a tremendous can of legal worms, so the problems outweigh the benefits. For gay marriage, it's the exact same construct as heterosexual marriage. Two consenting adults. It doesn't open up any slippery slope possibilities, because nothing else follows that construct, and it causes no objective problems on its own.

    So on some level I agree that people should accept the idea of gay marriage even if homosexuality is chosen, but I wouldn't fight for a change of rules on their behalf (contrary to your quote above). I wouldn't object to it, as I said, but I would be ambivalent about the cause.

    Because I know society doesn't owe anyone rights for the choices they make.

    Did that blow your mind, or what?

    Of course, all of this demonstrates exactly why people like you twist themselves into knots trying to forward the ludicrous concept of chosen sexual orientation. You know full well that if it's understood to be natural, it will be accepted over time.

    And that's why making a strong and assertive argument against the idea of "choosing to be gay" is so important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're funny. You can't support your case that gays are born that way so you change it to 'maybe we should be kind to them'. Ah ha ha ha. Get a life. If you're going to be a liberal and claim all kinds of civil rights, at least have the balls to support your claims. Don't be like Conchobhar and make things up as you go. Try to actually bring proof of the claims of fact that you make.

      Good job, liberal. You certainly reinforce all the ideas I have that liberals are to begin with.

      Delete
    2. Wait, you're a liberal. you don't have the balls to support your god damn claims. Eddie, he needs your help. Please help him prove that homosexuality is caused by DNA. Please, Eddie, help him prove that. I know you can. Because you make so many claims of fact, I know you can do this one too.

      Maybe (Eddie) you need to kick me out of your system (like Mediamatters has done) because I can refute the liberal claim that homosexuality is a gene caused condition.

      Delete
    3. "Try to actually bring proof of the claims of fact that you make."

      Show me where I made a "claim of fact".

      "Please help him prove that homosexuality is caused by DNA."

      First, you have to explain to me why DNA evidence is necessary. Why is it that as people autonomous over our own system of judgment that we can't grant rights simply because it's appropriate?

      I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion. Make an effort to do the same, please.

      Delete
    4. "First, you have to explain to me why DNA evidence is necessary."

      Well, it would seem to me that if you have a group of people who want to garner civil rights because they choose to be a certain way, then what would stop another group of people (say those who dye their hair red) wanting to garner civil rights based on red hair? Wouldn't everyone want to choose to be a red head (naturally or un-naturally) if they could get civil rights by making that choice?
      And, yes, hair color is a gene thing, but when you dye your hair red that wouldn't be a gene thing, would it?

      Delete
    5. "It's different from polygamy, for instance. With polygamy you open up a tremendous can of legal worms, so the problems outweigh the benefits."

      You didn't really just say that, did you? You are saying that because one sexual choice (that is consented upon and hurts no one) should NOT be allowed because it could "open a can of legal worms". Well back your bigoted ars up a second. Are we going to allow sexual choices to get civil rights or NOT? You say yes to one choice and no to another. I say no to both choices for civil rights. Because they are choices. If you want to open that can-o-worms then go right ahead and demand civil rights for one choice while refusing to give civil rights for other choices. That is even more bigoted than any of my statements.



      "Because I know society doesn't owe anyone rights for the choices they make."

      But, you demand civil rights for homosexuals ONLY because they choose to be homosexual?
      Owe: NO Demand: YES


      "You know full well that if it's understood to be natural, it will be accepted over time."

      You mean if you can talk enough people into agreeing with you it won't matter what is natural or not. You demand it and because enough others will eventually agree, then voila ... it should be the law of the land.
      That's one hell of a way to prove that being homosexual is the way you are born.

      Delete
    6. "You are saying that because one sexual choice (that is consented upon and hurts no one) should NOT be allowed because it could "open a can of legal worms". Well back your bigoted ars up a second. Are we going to allow sexual choices to get civil rights or NOT? You say yes to one choice and no to another."

      Why are you perpetually amazed that I don't view homosexuality as a choice? Are you aware that you're berating me for being hypocritical while attributing your views to me?

      "But, you demand civil rights for homosexuals ONLY because they choose to be homosexual?
      Owe: NO Demand: YES"

      I don't believe they choose to be homosexual, though. Again. If I had your viewpoint, then I suppose I would be demanding it only because they chose to be homosexual. Is this helping to clarify at all?

      "You mean if you can talk enough people into agreeing with you it won't matter what is natural or not."

      Since people are becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality, that means that more and more people are viewing it as natural. Do you have a problem with the concept of democracy now?

      Delete
    7. So, "democracy" is the ultimate basis for your demands that homosexuals attain civil rights? Seeings how you can't provide any scientific evidence to support that demand I fully understand your stance as you have just written it.

      Delete
    8. Sure, why not? If the public realizes that there's nothing harmful about it, and that it's natural, then they should grant those rights. The same way people realized that women and black people deserved equal rights.

      What are you going to say about it? That God doesn't like it? Who the hell cares?

      Delete
    9. You haven't been able to prove it's "natural" in humans. Hell, you haven't been able to prove it's natural in animals. They only thing you've been able to prove is that it "happens" in nature.

      So, within your guidelines, they are not deserving civil rights based on your criteria that it needs to be "natural".

      Delete
    10. You're wrong. My guidelines simply don't demand an unreasonable burden of proof that it's natural. If everything points to that, and there's no rational argument to the contrary, then it's natural as far as objective reality is concerned.

      Here's a hint:the idea of animals choosing to be gay isn't rational. Your arguments are moronic, and can't be given any weight by sensible people.

      Delete
    11. "Your arguments are moronic, and can't be given any weight by sensible people."

      Didn't you lecture me, recently, about being rude?

      Just sayin'

      Delete
    12. How would you like me to describe your arguments, considering the outlandish nature of them? They aren't based in reality, and there's no way that they're going to persuade anyone who isn't a homophobe already.

      You act obnoxious, then you want to cry because I call your arguments what they are? If you don't like it, make better arguments.

      Delete
    13. You can describe my arguments any way you want. But, don't start crying (again) when I do the same about yours.

      You can't even answer a simple question without me having to ask it 5 times. Then when you do answer, you lie about your answer. You are so much the "typical liberal".

      Delete
    14. You can say whatever you want about my arguments, I just expect you to make a case for it.

      I haven't lied about anything, and you can't justify the charge.

      Delete
  14. "Well, it would seem to me that if you have a group of people who want to garner civil rights because they choose to be a certain way, then what would stop another group of people (say those who dye their hair red) wanting to garner civil rights based on red hair?"

    I'm not sure what the motivation would be to dye your hair in this scenario, since the situation we're talking about doesn't include anyone having superior rights because of any status. Straight people can get married already, so someone trying to pull one over on the system by "choosing" to be gay seems a bit odd.

    Also, didn't you notice that your hypothetical involved people who were born redheads? You're implying that some people are born gay, and some people would want to pretend that they were. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but it's clearly a counterproductive argument.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fuck, I give up. Well done Brabantio, your capable of tolerating far more of this drivel than I am. But well done. It was an interesting read, but it only goes to show that you'll never convince bigot he's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure I won't. I have to say it's fascinating psychologically to see some of these posts. Animals making choices, a God that might create gay people while telling others to discriminate against them, the idea that science had to prove that women and black people didn't have a choice before they got rights, and the claim that the existence of pedophiles supposedly forces me to admit that being gay is a choice because of some attributed viewpoint that doesn't even imply such a thing anyway.

      If it's an act, it's on the level of Andy Kaufman.

      Delete
  16. And thus ... the reason right-wingers think left-wingers are mentally incapable of decision making. Everything taken out of context and misinformation abounds. As Eddie says: Well done Brabantio.

    Hey Eddie, have you ever looked up the meaning of 'bigot'? What race are homosexuals? What ethnic group are homosexuals? Dang, you can't even call people names in the right context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I've misrepresented you, by all means make your case. I'm going to guess you'll fail at that.

      Bigot:":a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

      Note that "racial or ethnic" is an example, not a set of parameters. Also note that refusing to give up discriminating against homosexuals even if it's beyond their control would quite easily fit into the category of "obstinately devoted to one's one prejudices". You admitted it.

      Delete