Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- 17,781
- 25,897
AladainAF, it is aboutchoice.
I'll keep saying it.
You canchooseto put on shoes or adhere to a dress code.....or not.
You cannotchooseyour race or your sexual orientation.
That is why this particular thing in Indiana stands out and choice is where the line is drawn between this and all the other hypotheticals you've brought to this thread. It is allowing the discrimination of people for traits and attributes and D20 rolls that they had no control over. You can choose to put on shoes or you can choose to find another restaurant. You cannotchoose to change your sexual orientation, thus you mustnotbe forced to choose another restaurant, based solely on that reason alone.
I'll keep saying it.
You canchooseto put on shoes or adhere to a dress code.....or not.
You cannotchooseyour race or your sexual orientation.
That is why this particular thing in Indiana stands out and choice is where the line is drawn between this and all the other hypotheticals you've brought to this thread. It is allowing the discrimination of people for traits and attributes and D20 rolls that they had no control over. You can choose to put on shoes or you can choose to find another restaurant. You cannotchoose to change your sexual orientation, thus you mustnotbe forced to choose another restaurant, based solely on that reason alone.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,457
- 29,610
My goal post has stayed right where it started. I claimed from the beginning that being gay is a combination of factors. I said originally, I still hold to exactly the idea that while genes may predispose one to being gay, it is primarily caused by situation and environment, that being gay is a result of the mind's choice based on these three factors. I've said since the beginning that this choice is undoubtedly a combination of concision and unconscious thoughts. Just because you don't think about a choice doesn't mean it isn't one. Anything where the mind arbitrates to make a decision is a choice made by said person. As such, I agree completely with the findings of your article- that genes may play in influence on development of the choice to become homosexual.
Now lets get back to your claim which I think bears repeating yet again.
This is an absolute claim that says it is IMPOSSIBLE to become gay through any reason EXCEPT genes. You are essentially claiming that having the gay gene is REQUIRED to become gay.
So it comes down to the fact, do you think everyone has the gay gene? Perhaps I misunderstand, and a few things I've seen bring me to the conclusion that you think absolutely everyone is born with the gay gene. If that is your approach to this argument, then perhaps we have had a misunderstanding. Please, feel free to answer.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
No, you definitely shifted the goal posts, and like I already said, I'm pretty much done discussing the sciences with you.
Its pretty much a waste of time.
And yes, it is almost certainly impossible to become gay without some underlying genetic predisposition. That is an absolute fact. I've already demonstrated that there is a clear underlying genetic factor to all human sexuality, particularly in males. Which shouldn't even be in question since its so blatantly obvious that the entire reason sex exists is because of biological impulses in the first place.
If you haveanyevidence to contradict that claim, and by evidence I mean legitimate peer reviewed literature which rebuts the literature I've already posted and we've already picked apart in detail, then you need to either post it, or recognize that you are in violation of the basic tenants of argumentation. That being that I've provided sufficient evidence to support my claim, you've provided absolutelyzeroevidence for your assertions, and since you won't accept you're wrong, the debate is over because you've proven yourself an irrational debater incapable of making, or accepting, legitimate, cogent, evidence based reasoning because it contradicts your preconceptions that you aren't willing to challenge.
Its time for you to stop trying to nitpick the data you don't like, and provide somevalid evidencefor your claims.
Until you do, this discussion has reached its only possible conclusion, an impasse founded in your irrationality.
Its pretty much a waste of time.
And yes, it is almost certainly impossible to become gay without some underlying genetic predisposition. That is an absolute fact. I've already demonstrated that there is a clear underlying genetic factor to all human sexuality, particularly in males. Which shouldn't even be in question since its so blatantly obvious that the entire reason sex exists is because of biological impulses in the first place.
If you haveanyevidence to contradict that claim, and by evidence I mean legitimate peer reviewed literature which rebuts the literature I've already posted and we've already picked apart in detail, then you need to either post it, or recognize that you are in violation of the basic tenants of argumentation. That being that I've provided sufficient evidence to support my claim, you've provided absolutelyzeroevidence for your assertions, and since you won't accept you're wrong, the debate is over because you've proven yourself an irrational debater incapable of making, or accepting, legitimate, cogent, evidence based reasoning because it contradicts your preconceptions that you aren't willing to challenge.
Its time for you to stop trying to nitpick the data you don't like, and provide somevalid evidencefor your claims.
Until you do, this discussion has reached its only possible conclusion, an impasse founded in your irrationality.
Izo
Tranny Chaser
- 19,622
- 23,956
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
- 17,781
- 25,897
I humbly submit myself to the authority of member Drtyrm.
My comment about D20 was meant as an abstract generalization and not meant to insult the sensibilities of the hardcore D+D crowd.
Fury
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 499
- 25
So I've had an odd "what if" situation that I've been musing on for a day or so, and thought I'd throw it out here for debate and ridicule.
If these "religious freedom" laws pass, could national (or multi-national) companies then move their headquarters to those states and then declare they won't serve gays? Airlines for instance? Or Chick fil A? Hobby Lobby? It would seem they might be able to deny service in that state, but not other states. And if it's the airline, could they sell round trip tickets at SFO and then deny return flight service in Indiana?
If these "religious freedom" laws pass, could national (or multi-national) companies then move their headquarters to those states and then declare they won't serve gays? Airlines for instance? Or Chick fil A? Hobby Lobby? It would seem they might be able to deny service in that state, but not other states. And if it's the airline, could they sell round trip tickets at SFO and then deny return flight service in Indiana?
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Nah, they'd have to comply with State and Federal Law no matter where they're headquartered.
Which means that to do it in other States then the US Congress would have to pass a Religious Freedom law. And in order to get the State to stop allowing it in the whatif, you'd have to go through federal courts. Assuming further that the State courts are in agreement with the law, if they weren't you might not have to go to the feds. State governments also operate with checks and balances.
Which means that to do it in other States then the US Congress would have to pass a Religious Freedom law. And in order to get the State to stop allowing it in the whatif, you'd have to go through federal courts. Assuming further that the State courts are in agreement with the law, if they weren't you might not have to go to the feds. State governments also operate with checks and balances.
- 17,781
- 25,897
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Well just think if Hodj is right well eventually have a test to determine if a fetus is gay before there born. Then well see if those who want to force people to bake gay wedding cake are actually willing to have gay children if they don't have to.
Then you may end up up with the majority of gay children being born in anti abortion and anti gay very religious families.
That's just some fucked up shit if it plays out that way.
Then you may end up up with the majority of gay children being born in anti abortion and anti gay very religious families.
That's just some fucked up shit if it plays out that way.
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,590
- 7,222
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
That's actually one of the things that is interesting and scary about the ways in which people misunderstand genotype and its relation to phenotype.
Just because something has an underlying genomic basis doesn't mean it is an anomaly or disease or genetic "condition", especially when we're looking at the linkage between genotype and behavioral patterns.
Its why scientists have an obligation to educate people on these topics, so we never again end up where we were in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century, where we had forced sterilization and eugenics programs and attempts to weed out undesirables from society, so forth.
The correlation between cultural conceptions of race and sexuality are also very strong because of this reality. Gay really is the new black, in so many ways.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
I dunno. Pre-conscious choices? The sorts of low level choices that you make without thinking or questioning. Which, if you do think about it, is an awful lot of our choices. Most of our lives are rote.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,457
- 29,610
Its nice to know your disagreement with me is based upon not knowing the meaning of words.
Lets use quantum entanglement as an example, since everyone here loves it so much. It's called a quantum choice experiment, because a particle is given two or more options and must choose one. Is this a conscious choice?
But furry, you don't believe in QE. Correct, put two pieces of food an equal distance from an ant. Will the ant go for one of the two or ignore it. This again is a choice. Did the ant make a concious decision, or did it make an instinctual choice?
I can give numerous more examples, but its an exercise in futiliy if you don't understand it by now. Unconscious choices are still choices.There are numerous studies about how unconscious thought bias and desires sway human decisions. I am extremely for gay rights because I think people should have the free will to choose and decide how they wish. Being gay is something that can be affected by your life and situation. Being black is something cannot be affected by your life and situation. Comparing the two as equal is idiotic.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Don't anthropomorphize particle physics dude.
Ants work on pheromone guidance, they literally are not making a choice. Whichever scent they detect stronger is the place the first ants will go, and all other ants will follow that pheromone trail. This is demonstrated repeatedly in ant research.
Unconcious choices do not exist. This is an oxymoronic statement. Differential results based on subconcious drives are not "choices". If your mind is making an unconcious pick between two options 10 seconds before you are even aware of it, which is a documented reality, then the very premise that you are making a "choice" at all is illusory.
They are differential results based on outside influencing factors.
What's happened here, unfortunately, if you've read someone who has been careless with the language they use, because they don't expect people to be so pedantic as to think that when they used the word "choice" in regards to particle physics, people would think that there is actually some one or the other decision making going on.
In quantum mechanics, the particle is not making either a conscious nor an unconscious "choice" as to how it operates, rather it is being influenced by outside observation, which causes the particle to alter course based on the fact that when you observe the very very small, the light particles that reflect off the object in question actually alter its momentum.
Physics isn't my area of expertise, but this is made clear even in the most basic, first year undergrad college chemistry courses when you reach the section on quantum mechanics.
Furry, bro, please. Stop trying to argue this stuff with people. I'm literallybegging you: No mas, bro. No mas. You simply have such an overwhelming lack of understanding of these topics that virtually every single premise, every single idea you express is founded in a misunderstanding.
Ants work on pheromone guidance, they literally are not making a choice. Whichever scent they detect stronger is the place the first ants will go, and all other ants will follow that pheromone trail. This is demonstrated repeatedly in ant research.
Unconcious choices do not exist. This is an oxymoronic statement. Differential results based on subconcious drives are not "choices". If your mind is making an unconcious pick between two options 10 seconds before you are even aware of it, which is a documented reality, then the very premise that you are making a "choice" at all is illusory.
They are differential results based on outside influencing factors.
What's happened here, unfortunately, if you've read someone who has been careless with the language they use, because they don't expect people to be so pedantic as to think that when they used the word "choice" in regards to particle physics, people would think that there is actually some one or the other decision making going on.
In quantum mechanics, the particle is not making either a conscious nor an unconscious "choice" as to how it operates, rather it is being influenced by outside observation, which causes the particle to alter course based on the fact that when you observe the very very small, the light particles that reflect off the object in question actually alter its momentum.
Physics isn't my area of expertise, but this is made clear even in the most basic, first year undergrad college chemistry courses when you reach the section on quantum mechanics.
Furry, bro, please. Stop trying to argue this stuff with people. I'm literallybegging you: No mas, bro. No mas. You simply have such an overwhelming lack of understanding of these topics that virtually every single premise, every single idea you express is founded in a misunderstanding.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826