People choose to take crack and meth, gamble away their savings and all other sorts of destructive behavior. That isn't an argument against it being a choice. I'm sure it isn't a choice for some. Humans are all different, but they are different in a million shades of grey and it is a choice for others. The entire argument is false because no one is the same and the actions of every human being can't be for a single motivating factor.
It's purely anecdotal, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of the fallacy of argument from authority. But I also know better than to accuse you of not being intelligent enough to understand the evidence that is freely available. My drummer was intellectually honest enough to concede that even if everything neuroscientists said was true, he still wasn't comfortable with it. I can respect that. How he feels is how he feels and I wouldn't feel like it's my job to change his mind. If, however, he decided to challenge the evidence, I would consider the burden to change my mind would be a heavy one, all things considered.
If homosexuality is a choice then no one is born gay, correct? We can conclude that EVERY male has the EXACT same ability to choose to turn gay. This is why I can safely conclude that ANYONE that believes homosexuality is a choice is actually bisexual. Because I know for me at least, giving up vagina for the rest of my life and switching to man is beyond comprehension. Maybe for you Texxx, it's possible, since you are bi.
Why is it that some guys prefer redheads or blondes? Why is it that some men are "chubby chasers?" Why is it that some guys only want a woman with large breasts while others want a woman with junk in the trunk? Sexual attraction isn't a matter of choice. We are attracted to who we are attracted to and there really isn't any explanation as to why and no way to choose to be attracted to somebody we aren't attracted to. Maybe if we can ever really understand the biology behind sexual attraction, we will be able to explain it. I know that I have never had a choice as to the women I have been attracted to. The same must also apply to those who are attracted to members of their same gender.
yes, homosexuals choose to stick their penises in men or lick women because, well, social stigma, rejection, alienation, possible criminal and death penalties in other countries---great!
Several posters in this thread have blended and confused distinct concepts like freedom of speech in a constitutional law context, freedom of expression in the workplace, employer-employee law and contractual rights, the history of abolitionists and Church involvement, the actual attitudes of people in the 50s and 60s versus the revisionist version ones today, and finally politically correct speech in 2013. What I haven't seen discussed *yet, from both conservatives and liberals is: 1) freedom of expression in a corporate world that spends heavily on public relations vis-à-vis politically correct speech influencing shares. 2) is intolerance of intolerance consistent with left-wing beliefs? (as seen from Socrates, Erasmus, 1689 English Convention, Volataire, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, etc.) 3) do laissez-faire champions dismiss free market dynamics when public opinion is against their belief system? Most contemporary conservatives I personally know are champions of Ayn Rand and free markets, environments the Chamber of Commerce deem friendly, and pro-business owner/manager versus employees. However, the right leaning posters here are not reacting the way one would think. Another conservative poster in the Hangout bemoaned the fate of a PR executive whose politically incorrect tweet got her fired. His post was made in spite of free market decisions by both sides there. * I've only skimmed 60-80 posts in this thread so sorry if this was discussed already.
Can someone explain what the big deal is here? I can't imagine anyone is surprised Phil Robertson said what he said. I don't think anyone has taken away his freedom of speech and i'm certain A&E doesn't give a crap about any group except the ones that give them money. IMO they only acted because they thought it would help them retain the most viewers possible. As a side note, I think it's very possible for someone to not "believe" or sympathize with the idea of homosexuality because of religion and be nothing but warm and loving to gay people.
at the same time, people can be religious, conservative, and Republican, and still be a homosexual, because at their core that is just who they are.
Yeah, but speaking of this particular discussion you don't compare having an attraction to the same sex to wanting to have sex with an animal -- you don't have to say something cruel to make your point.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/22/21984495-who-am-i-to-judge-the-popes-most-powerful-phrase-in-2013?lite
As an employer A&E is fully within their rights to reprimand him for actions they deem hurtful to their business and he is fully within his rights to continue to say whatever he wants. How or why he believes what he believes is irrelevant for the purpose of this thread. Quite frankly, discussing sexuality or religion in such broad terms is ineffectual in the confines of this forum. If anything, discussions devolving into whether or not God and/or homosexuality exists is the worst part of this forum.
Do you not understand how insulting you are being? Comparing being gay to being a drunk or drug addict is a really crappy thing to say.
As I predicted, the usual suspects have backpedaled and disappeared on the subject of Phil Robertson's hateful commentary. ho ho ho Aside from the quite obvious fact that Nazis weren't atheists and crimes committed by people are not necessary related to their religious beliefs any more for atheists than for Christians. I don't know what it is about conservatives that you invent your own media to push your hateful agenda. It was quite noticeable that DwightHoward13 didn't provide a link to his quotation. Of course a quick search indicates that he's lifted this quote from Conservapedia. What is Conservapedia you say? Yes, it's basically an invented conservative version of reality for consumption of the typical crazies that predominate the conservative movement these days. Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative and Christian point of view. The website was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content. Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include accusations against and strong criticism of US President Barack Obama, strong criticism of the Democratic Party, criticism of evolution, criticism of a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[7] claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise of a number of Republican politicians, praise of celebrities and artistic works that it views as "conservative" and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and uncritical acceptance of fundamentalist Christian doctrine such as Young Earth creationism and the divinity of Jesus. Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[8] The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[9][10] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[11][12][13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia I for one am shocked this exists, not. But really, who is Thomas Beale, political commentator and Mensa member? He seems to go by the pseudonym Vox Day. Quote from Mr. Beale. If Americans can find the courage to consciously reject the myth of the melting pot and expel the Mexicans from the American Southwest, the Arabs from Detroit and the Somalis from Minneapolis, they can reclaim their traditional white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. This is highly improbable because so many descendants of that culture have rejected it in favor of the vibrancy of diversity while those who haven't are far too frightened of criticism and social rejection to even articulate their thoughts. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/11/wnds-vox-day-on-reclaiming-traditional-white-an/164574 What is it that you must quote crazies and not link to their work to push your arguments? We have a right to know what crazies your quoting.
