Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Royal_sl said:

In the original law that answer was obviously yes (I don't know how you could have read it and came away thinking otherwise). This is not a guarantee that such a claim would be upheld in court, but it places a shadow of doubt over such laws being equally applied. For theammendedlaw, the answer is no. The amended law still has an exclusion for churches, religious non-profits, religious schools, and religious figures such as priests, rabbis, etc. (as well it should).

Click to expand...

Well yeah, way back then I didn't know about the local laws, and I could see that being a problem. But as you said, they would have had to be upheld in court, and the amendment fixes that. So what's left in the law that is so bad now?

hodj_sl said:

Hoss is a fucking retard. That's literally the only response I'm giving him, he's so fucking stupid that's all he's worth.

Not even reading his posts anymore.

He was given acompletebreakdown of this law and its effects, twice. I even cited the entire Atlantic article,in fullexplaining how this law accomplishes allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs, and how that isentirely analogousto the justifications used for segregation and business discrimination against blacks in the South in the pre Civil Rights era.

Hisrepeated assertionsthat I haven't explained this to him isdishonest, deceitful, demonstrably false on its face.

Click to expand...

Yeah, run away you little coward. None of those articles 'broke it down' as you are claiming. They were all fear mongering. You're a retard dude. You can't rewrite history when it's right here for everyone to see. In case anyone is wondering, the best way to see hodj's bullshit is to get a day behind and watch him make wild assed assertions then claim he never said that.

hodj_sl said:

This is the game he wants to play, I'm not going to play it. He is a dishonest debater

Click to expand...

Here's the main problem. You are so stupid that you think I'm debating. Much like the evolution discussion, I was just asking questions. I dare you to find where I've taken a side in this thread (the jokes don't count, like being against gays servicing gays). All I've done is ask questions, which you got offended by because you are a tiny person a personality disorder.

I don't know what's wrong with you bro, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

chaos_sl said:

That is psycho, bro. I cannot choose to be gay. You can choose to suck a cock, but there is a bit more to being gay than sucking cock. I can't choose to not be attracted to Katy Perry's titties, no matter how vapid I find her to be. No matter how awful a person Kim Kardashian is, I can't choose to not want to smash her ass like the second coming. That shit is chemistry. You are claiming to be able to consciously affect the internal chemistry of your brain. That is bonkers.

Click to expand...

I don't know dude. I know this is anecdotal, so feel free to dismiss it. But I lost my attraction to Jane Fonda over the course of about 15 minutes. I used to spank it to her all the time. Scenes from barbarella were some of the earliest entries into my spank bank. Then one day I learned what she did during vietnam, and now she's a boner killer for me. When I look at her (even her young self) I see a monster. I'd suggest maybe kim and katy just haven't done anything that you are really really disgusted with. Some divorced dudes can probably relate similar experiences with exes.

I don't think the chemistry works exactly like you think it does.

chaos_sl said:

Did he? Are you actually making the argument that you could, if you wanted, force yourself to be attracted to men? Would you be a bear or a twink guy?

Click to expand...

Are you actually making the argument that if kurin were to give you a rusty trombone, you wouldn't find it pleasurable?

hodj_sl said:

That's a nice strawman you've got there, when you can come up with a rebuttal that doesn't include misrepresenting your opponents position, let me know.

And I'll tell you the part that they'll all disagree with you on right now



And



If you are not predisposed to homosexual attractions, you cannot just become gay because of "life experiences" or "personal choices".

When you come up with any peer reviewed literature that demonstrates you can just change your sexual orientation based on personal choice, let me know. It doesn't exist at this point, so you're going to be waiting awhile.

Click to expand...

What an incredible post. This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant and offensive posts I've ever read. That said, Ifullysupport your right to such ignorance.

Why gay is a choice (and you are a racist neanderthal)

Let me address the meat of your claims against my stance. You linked a journal that showed there might be some genetic indicators for the possibility of homosexuality. I'm not sure why, as this agrees entirely with my point of view that homosexuality may have a genetic basis. When you take this stance, I didn't understand how completely you believe it. Not only do you think that genes can effect your chances of being gay, but that being gay is actually decided by your genes at birth. This is an incredibly stupid point of view. It is so stupid, that I think the authors of this journal would be offended that anyone might take their research that way. Heck, to prove this, do you want to email them and ask if they believe all gaydom is a genetic disorder?

But that leaves open the greater question, why do I consider being gay a choice? What makes up a person is their genetic makeup, and their life experiences. There's a part inside of you called a 'brain'. When you are placed in any situation in life where you must choose, the summation of your experiences a chugged together with your genetic coding to spit out a decision. While genetics and physical makeup are inflexible, all other parts of this equation are, specifically your experience and situations. As people get older, their experience changes. The things they know change, the things they choose to believe or not believe change. Their social pressures and fears change, their personal desires and wants can change as well. Our brain is constantly changing, evolving (at least for most people), and in this progress tens of millions of decisions are happening constantly that they may or may not be aware of.

Some of these choices we consider deeply, some come to us near instinctually, but there is no doubt that the mind is the gate keeper to all of them. So to say that being gay is not a choice to some degree, you have to assert the fact that your experiences and situation in life play no influence on being gay, that you simply were 'born gay' in the manner of a genetic disorder. If this were the case, then it could in theory be cured. Before the republicans here get their hopes to high, I have an extremely hard time believing that. People too often change their preferences through life. Everyone here will probably have found their tastes sexually have changed to some degree. Maybe they developed a desire to try some hard anal, or wanted to try a new fetish as their experience and knowledge grew. I have seen, and there are countless stories of gay people turning straight or straight people turning gay, or any combination of the sort. I got propositioned by a guy a couple years ago that always had girlfriends, but just loved getting fucked in the ass on the side. I've met at least a half dozen guys who were straight and had families, then at some point decided they were just done with women and went full on fag. I have also met a few people who thought they were gay and then ended up getting into straight relationships that stuck.

People are confused, they don't know what they want, they want to try new things. I am not going to claim they are experiencing a genetic disease by going through these motions, and I fully support anyone's right as a free adult to do whatever they want to themselves. Republican morality laws need to all go. Let people smoke weed, let people fuck whoever they want so long as that person wants it. People should be able to choose for themselves, but you belittle people in an offensive way when you try to say that what they are doing is not their choice.

But maybe you just trolling.

Wait, are people in this thread actually saying that some one in a thousand (or more) random bakery not making a cake for a gay couple is the same thing as dealing with Jim Crow laws?

Wow. What an absolute insult to the minorities that actually had to live through Jim Crow. They went through real problems and real issues on a massive scaleforced uponby their government. To compare some one-in-a-thousand random mom and pop bakery shop or pizza shop making a decision for their business based on their religious beliefs vs. a government as a whole actively telling forcing every single bakery and every single pizza shop in the nation that theymustsegregate "negros" and "whites" is misguided. There's absolutely no comparison between the two. Jim Crow laws were considerably more damaging as a whole. I simply cannot believe the magnitude of the insult you're throwing at the minorities that lived through those days. You're minimizing their plight. There is simply no comparison between the two. Nothing. Zero. Not even remotely close. Jim Crow was state-sponsored forced-segregation. There was no option. A school couldn't decide to accept whites and blacks - they had to be segregated, by law (until Brown v. Board of Education). At best, a bakery could choose to accept "whites and colored", but would still be forced to seat them in two separate areas. The Military was segregated, all federal workers were segregated. It was allforcedby the government. There's a huuuuuuuuuuge difference between that and whats going on today.

Even if you take the view that this religious freedom law is bullshit and shouldn't be allowed, comparing is to Jim Crow is still a slap in the face to the people who lived through that time.

I view the religious freedom thing as such a small fry in a large basket. Personally I don't like it because I'm not religious, but at the same time I'm generally of the view that if a business has every right to not do business with someone that doesn't fit their business (no matter the reason) - and bear in mind that's even more extreme than this law. As I understand it, a bakery for example still cannot refuse service to someone because someone is gay. But it would allow the owners of a bakery tonot supportsomething such as a gay wedding by being allowed to refuse to bake a cake for the wedding specifically. I don't think some random gay going into a bakery is going to be shunned service or kicked out as a result of this law, nor do I think this law allows it. But I admit, I haven't read every word of the law so I can't say for sure.

On a side note, I also hope people take a moment to reflect at the large numbers of businesses today that already do not allow service to certain classes of people. We might as well start going down the list of segregated businesses today so we'll have something to target next, right?

Frankly, allowing any religious belief to affect any policy for a public establishment (aside from churches themselves) is a direct contradiction of separation of church and state. The government should stop banding over to please religious interests. Despite what all the retards south of the Manson/Nixon line think, this is a secular democracy. Shit like this just keeps moving us towards being a theocracy.

Of course, the reality is that there are too many ignorant crazy kicks and the plague of religion is never going to be banished from the planet, despite being a useless leftover obsolete artifact from prior cultural history. Then you toss in the nutjobs like Siddar and Furry who think that preferences in sexual attraction is voluntary (among other insane bullshit) and it becomes clear that we are more or less fucked as a society for fixing this.

*

hodj_sl said:

...

Click to expand...

Wow, not gonna back off from your stance that gayness is a genetic disease? I thought that was a troll.

And the article you linked about neuroscience questions when we make a choice. I said to the exact same degree that I don't know how conscious the choice is- but that does not change the fact that it's a choice. In the article they even straight up say the exact same thing. The brain is still making a choice- that is its fucking purpose.

At least when I argue quantum mechanics with people, they link journals that disagree with me and I sit here and tell them why those journals are wrong. You are actually fucking linking journals that AGREE WITH ME, and seem completely incapable of understanding them. The sheer stupidity of everything you do in this thread is incredibly ignorant.

I don't have time at the moment, but later in the week I am going to contact the researchers behind the first article you linked, and attempt to determine if they themselves agree with your view. Since I am a very fair person, I will include a question from you exactly as you want it. Lets see if they themselves think that gayness is an identifiable genetic disorder. I honestly had no idea that the stupidity on this forum ran so deep. Other people here were talking about how people were simply born with the gays. Do all the other people here agree with this genetic disorder stance? Do you really think that gayness isn't a choice that mind makes, whether its at a conscious or unconscious level?