NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200814.html

Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson and I were stealing glances at each other when singer Melissa Etheridge asked New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson an easy question: "Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?" His response was quick: "It's a choice!" My visible reaction to Carlson was equally quick: "Oh, no, he didn't!"

Not that the Republicans will be giving answers to questions like these anytime soon, but I'm rather surprised that a Democratic candidate stepped on his dick like this.

Politically, it's their territory, their constituency, and they should have the answers right in their head without resorting to what Nazz calls "talking points".

I wonder what Melissa thought...

If it was biological, they would not have been born. It is a choice.

If it was biological, they would not have been born. It is a choice.

:confused:

/campaign

One down.

Yeah, I was watching that debate for a bit, but it was so fucking boring that I turned it off during Kucinich and missed Richardson. He does shit like that.

Another one bites the dust. It's turning out the democrats don't have a fucking candidate either.

Another one bites the dust. It's turning out the democrats don't have a fucking candidate either.

I think the Democrats (with most of them backpedaling on gay marriage) are saying to themselves, "it's not like a gay man would vote Republican, so we don't have to promise them anything".

If it was biological, they would not have been born. It is a choice.

what the fuck?

Didn't you say in an earlier post that you were 16? Come back when you're at least 18.

I think the Democrats (with most of them backpedaling on gay marriage) are saying to themselves, "it's not like a gay man would vote Republican, so we don't have to promise them anything".

Other than Richardson, which Dem is backpedaling?

I think the Democrats (with most of them backpedaling on gay marriage) are saying to themselves, "it's not like a gay man would vote Republican, so we don't have to promise them anything".

I'd point out to them that as thin as the last two elections were they need to kiss all the ass they can.

So far out of the field I don't see anyone left worth voting for.

:confused:

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.

F&G advocates killing gays. You heard it here.

Other than Richardson, which Dem is backpedaling?

From the same article:

Many gays and lesbians couldn't care less about the political calculus involved in gay marriage. They are being denied basic civil rights, and they want them now. Sen. Hillary Clinton's instructive recollection about the charged environment that led to the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, to head off an even more damaging constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, left more than a few people cold. That's understandable.

But that was the reality gays faced then -- and that is what we face now, even in these more accepting times, when civil unions are the safe harbor of politicians on both sides of the aisle who aren't "there yet on gay marriage." Think about it: The two fellas in the race who unabashedly support same-sex marriage -- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- are at the back of the pack.

That's why I don't fault Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards for their opposition to gay marriage, even if their explanations leave me scratching my head. Clinton's mantra that this is a states' rights issue, while logical, makes this descendant of slaves just a bit uncomfortable. Edwards backed off using his Southern Baptist upbringing to justify his opposition. But I still find it hard to believe his opposition is real since his no-nonsense wife, Elizabeth, and daughter Cate are in favor of gay marriage. And I can't even point to a reason Obama is against it, other than his oft-stated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.


So when your mother becomes infertile we should kill her off? What about a young girl who gets ovarian cancer? take her life?

From the same article:

Not backpedaling if they never took the stance in question. Obama wants equal rights without the name, Edwards wants everyone to think that he's for them without actually doing anything, and Clinton has always been weird on the issue.

Well, it's not like any of them was going to give the 'right' answer, which is "What does it fucking matter? Is it being a 'choice' going to justify taking away a citizen's rights because someone thinks that personal choice is 'icky?' Is that the America we want? I don't, so I don't give a fuck if it's a choice or biological-it doesn't affect the policy."

Straw-man, much?

Hey, if gays don't deserve to live according to science, it's the truth!

F&G advocates killing gays. You heard it here.

Straw-man, much?

F&G advocates killing gays. You heard it here.

I'm perfectly capable of propagating my genetic material. It's just unlikely that I or anyone I'm shagging will end up pregnant.

So when your mother becomes infertile we should kill her off? What about a young girl who gets ovarian cancer? take her life?

You know, I was going to post a reply but then I realized that was a F.A.G. post so I decided not to dignify that Bushevik tripe with a reply.

Well, it's not like any of them was going to give the 'right' answer, which is "What does it fucking matter? Is it being a 'choice' going to justify taking away a citizen's rights because someone thinks that personal choice is 'icky?' Is that the America we want? I don't, so I don't give a fuck if it's a choice or biological-it doesn't affect the policy."

I would agree with you, but some gay groups believe that it's absolutely not a choice.

It doesn't really matter. That said, it doesn't look like any Democratic front-runner is going to side with gay marriage, for some odd reason.

I would agree with you, but some gay groups believe that it's absolutely not a choice.

It doesn't really matter. That said, it doesn't look like any Democratic front-runner is going to side with gay marriage, for some odd reason.

Centrist vote, I guess.

So when your mother becomes infertile we should kill her off? What about a young girl who gets ovarian cancer? take her life?

When did I ever advocate murder? Let me rephrase, rather: I was never a proponent of your disturbing suggestion. Serving no utile biological function cannot be equated to being deserving of death -- the very idea is revolting to its core. Only a sick mind such as yours could have concocted such a devilish thought.

Centrist vote, I guess.

A sizeable majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage. I think they're being wusses.

A sizeable majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage. I think they're being wusses.

I don't think it's a major issue unless they're vehemently against it. Or a republican who will pander to their "base". President don't make laws, Congress does.

Centrist vote, I guess.

Perhaps they are realizing that their pandering to the far (ie, elitist, socialist) left has exacted a terrible price on the party. Not only has it cost them several elections, but it has also dissuaded many centrists and left-leaners from associating themselves with a radically liberal party. Thus, they are seeking to stake out more sensible positions that more people can agree with -- however, they are still decidedly left of center.

I would agree with you, but some gay groups believe that it's absolutely not a choice.
It isn't.

But it's not the gay groups that started this red herring, it's the anti-gay crowd that crowed about cures and ect. that started it and people (including me for a while) got fished into that debate like it mattered. It's long past time to ask, "What if it is a choice?" It's not, but the question itself sets a dangerous precedent.

It doesn't really matter. That said, it doesn't look like any Democratic front-runner is going to side with gay marriage, for some odd reason.

Same reason any politician tries to walk the middle on a divisive issue.

A sizeable majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage. I think they're being wusses.

Actually, the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.

Did someone tell you that gay people are automagically infertile?

Come back when you have more than a 1st grade understanding of biology.


It doesn't really matter. That said, it doesn't look like any Democratic front-runner is going to side with gay marriage, for some odd reason.

They're trying to appeal broadly - even to far-right bigots. Ah well.

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.

When did they become sterile?

Perhaps they are realizing that their pandering to the far (ie, elitist, socialist) left has exacted a terrible price on the party. Not only has it cost them several elections, but it has also dissuaded many centrists and left-leaners from associating themselves with a radically liberal party. Thus, they are seeking to stake out more sensible positions that more people can agree with -- however, they are still decidedly left of center.

Please go back to school, and find out what "Left" and "Right" means in political terms.

Gay rights are not a "left" idea. They just happen to be "acquired" by the Democrats.

A classic liberal, who believed in fairness, equity, and individual rights, would be for gay rights.

A classic liberal is NOT "left".

Gay rights are not a socialist idea, or a Communist idea.

Perhaps they are realizing that their pandering to the far (ie, elitist, socialist) left has exacted a terrible price on the party. Not only has it cost them several elections, but it has also dissuaded many centrists and left-leaners from associating themselves with a radically liberal party. Thus, they are seeking to stake out more sensible positions that more people can agree with -- however, they are still decidedly left of center.

Man this script is old, especially considering how on their knees with cock in mouth the Republican party has been to the radical and religious right. The 'far (ie elitist, socialist) left' hasn't had a candidate to vote for in an American election for quite some time, and especially not from a major party.

When did they become sterile?

Assuming that I accept science's position on this issue, homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

Assuming that I accept science's position on this issue, homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

What about bi's?

Please go back to school, and find out what "Left" and "Right" means in political terms.

Gay rights are not a "left" idea. They just happen to be "acquired" by the Democrats.

A classic liberal, who believed in fairness, equity, and individual rights, would be for gay rights.

A classic liberal is NOT "left".

Gay rights are not a socialist idea, or a Communist idea.

It could even be considered a "right" idea. Minimal state interference, and a small government ideology. Though I'm certain MTAE isn't interested in such minutiae.

What about bi's?

They're half sterile. Either the right or left nut, it's about 50/50.

Assuming that I accept science's position on this issue, homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

You mean your made up position?

There is no such position in science.

You mean your made up position?

I was referring to science's position on whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency.

I was referring to science's position on whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency.

No, you weren't. You said that homosexuals are "unctionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies".

There is no such position in science. In fact, such a position would be completely counter to all available evidence, as homosexuals, despite their lack of attraction to members of the opposite sex, are quite capable (and often quite bent on the idea) of propagating their genetic material.

What about bi's?

According to science, they can "go either way." There is no congenital way of determining whether or not they will play a useful role in spreading their genetic material to the next generation.

I was referring to science's position on whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency.

!=

Assuming that I accept science's position on this issue, homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

I was referring to science's position on whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency.

sexual delinquency? Homosexuals having sex is a misdemeanor offense by a juvenile?

or perhaps they're simply not paying their sexual loan sufficiently. I suppose that might be true if your'e the giver not the receiver...

Or we could just accept that "sexual delinquency" is a ludicrus term with absolutly no meaning.

It could even be considered a "right" idea. Minimal state interference, and a small government ideology. Though I'm certain MTAE isn't interested in such minutiae.

Moral values are a bastion of conservative strength; gay marriage represents the dark, frightening abyss of nihilism. To brand such as thing as a "right" idea (in either sense of the word) is starkly appalling and dismaying.

Moral values are a bastion of conservative strength; gay marriage represents the dark, frightening abyss of nihilism. To brand such as thing as a "right" idea (in either sense of the word) is starkly appalling and dismaying.

RO

Please go back to school, and find out what "Left" and "Right" means in political terms.

!=

Since you seem to be "slow," I will substitute the clarification I recently provided into the pertinent statement.

Assuming that I accept science's position on [whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency], homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

I simply replaced "the issue" with the phrase in brackets.

According to science, they can "go either way." There is no congenital way of determining whether or not they will play a useful role in spreading their genetic material to the next generation.

I wasn't aware that there was a congenital way of determing whether anyone will play a useful role in spreading their genetic material to the next generation.

And considering "congenital" means "at birth", even if one were to presume:

1) homosexuality can be identified at birth
2) the identity of homosexuality can demonstrate that this individual would NOT contribute his/her genetics

the very idea of a congenital trait is one that inherently does not suppose choice.

Since you seem to be "slow," I will substitute the clarification I recently provided into the pertinent statement.

Assuming that I accept science's position on [whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency], homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

I simply replaced "the issue" with the phrase in brackets.

ignoring the "behavioral deficiencies" trolling bit, answer the question, are gay people sterile?

Since you seem to be "slow," I will substitute the clarification I recently provided into the pertinent statement.

Assuming that I accept science's position on [whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency], homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

I simply replaced "the issue" with the phrase in brackets.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12965733&postcount=33

When did they become sterile?
Assuming that I accept science's position on this issue, homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

That's not what you were refuting.

sexual delinquency? Homosexuals having sex is a misdemeanor offense by a juvenile?

or perhaps they're simply not paying their sexual loan sufficiently. I suppose that might be true if your'e the giver not the receiver...

Or we could just accept that "sexual delinquency" is a ludicrus term with absolutly no meaning.

I am copying and pasting from the following web-site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delinquency. Please excuse the errors in formatting.

de·lin·quen·cy /dɪˈlɪŋkwənsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-ling-kwuhn-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. failure in or neglect of duty or obligation; dereliction; default: delinquency in payment of dues.
2. wrongful, illegal, or antisocial behavior. Compare juvenile delinquency.
3. any misdeed, offense, or misdemeanor.
4. something, as a debt, that is past due or otherwise delinquent.

Both the second and third definitions of the word are well-suited to this context.

Since you seem to be "slow," I will substitute the clarification I recently provided into the pertinent statement.

Assuming that I accept science's position on [whether or not homo-sexuals have a choice in their sexual delinquency], homo-sexuals are functionally incapable of propagating their genetic material from birth because of behavioral deficiencies.

I simply replaced "the issue" with the phrase in brackets.


Gays can contribute genetic material to women thru sperm banks. Why am I even talkign to you?

what about all those gay people with their own biological children?

the very idea of a congenital trait is one that inherently does not suppose choice.

That's why I repeatedly stated that if I were to assume the scientific viewpoint were true. However, I myself believe that all individuals have a choice in sexual matters.

I am copying and pasting from the following web-site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delinquency. Please excuse the errors in formatting.

de·lin·quen·cy /dɪˈlɪŋkwənsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-ling-kwuhn-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. failure in or neglect of duty or obligation; dereliction; default: delinquency in payment of dues.
2. wrongful, illegal, or antisocial behavior. Compare juvenile delinquency.
3. any misdeed, offense, or misdemeanor.
4. something, as a debt, that is past due or otherwise delinquent.

Both the second and third definitions of the word are well-suited to this context.

OK then, since we can, through the wonders of Lawrence v. Texas get rid of any definition of homosexual sex including the words "illegal", "offense" and "misdemeanor"

It of course is not anti social since, well, there's typically someone else involved.

So we are left with "wrongful". Now, tell me oh troll of trolls, how is it demonstrably wrongful?

That's not what you were refuting.

The previous poster was conflating "sterility" with "the functional inability to propagate one's genetic material." This is not so. There are many possible causes for the latter, of which the former is but one. As I noted, behavioral deficiencies explain why homo-sexuals are incapable of spreading their genetic material to the next generation, not sterility.

OK then, since we can, through the wonders of Lawrence v. Texas get rid of any definition of homosexual sex including the words "illegal", "offense" and "misdemeanor"

It of course is not anti social since, well, there's typically someone else involved.

So we are left with "wrongful". Now, tell me oh troll of trolls, how is it demonstrably wrongful?

The general question I would ask is what is the compelling state interest in stopping homosexuality?

I fail to see one. If F-A-G could show us one that had nothing to do with his religious beliefs...

what about all those gay people with their own biological children?

They aren't really gay. They've been brainwashed.

If they cannot propagate their genetic material (according to science), they serve no utile biological function.

Ok, I'm confused. I just got a vasectomy. Does this mean I'm now a homosexual? I did just redecorate my flat to make sure everything matches now...

;)

So we are left with "wrongful". Now, tell me oh troll of trolls, how is it demonstrably wrongful?

It blatantly violates G-d's word.

It blatantly violates G-d's word.

The general question I would ask is what is the compelling state interest in stopping homosexuality?

I fail to see one. If F-A-G could show us one that had nothing to do with his religious beliefs...

Oopsies.

It blatantly violates G-d's word.

God is not a compelling state interest.

They aren't really gay. They've been brainwashed.

oohhhhhh who knew

That's why I repeatedly stated that if I were to assume the scientific viewpoint were true. However, I myself believe that all individuals have a choice in sexual matters.

Darling, stop being obtuse. No one is saying that anyone doesn't have a choice in "sexual matters". We all determine who we will and will not have sex with. We all determine when and how.

This does not mean we determine who we are sexually attracted to.

It blatantly violates G-d's word.

Does it? God never told me that gay people shouldn't seek loving relationships.

It blatantly violates G-d's word.

I do believe I asked for a reason that was demonstrably verifiable.

God is not a compelling state interest.

Yes, that's a problematic aspect of our governmental system. However, we utterly disregard G-d's dictates at our own peril. Certain theologians have expounded upon interesting theories regarding such events as 9/11 and natural disasters, to which I am partial.

I do believe I asked for a reason that was demonstrably verifiable.

Is the Bible insufficiently "verifiable" for you?

Is the Bible insufficiently "verifiable" for you?


Pretty much yeah, it is insufficient. A book is no more verifiably god's word than it is the true life biography of a boy wizard named Harry Potter.

So just to make sure I'm perfectly clear, when I ask for a verifiable reason, i ask for a reason that can be verified. I'm sure you understand that much at least. And when you claim that gay sex is wrongful, I want a reason that can be verified as valid, to demonstrate its wrongfulness. If you say it is against god's word, the burden is thus on you to demonstrate two things:

1) that god did really say that
2) that going against god's word is a wrongful act

The fact that someone put it in a book is no more verification of those two principles than we have verification that a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away some shit happened.

If it was biological, they would not have been born. It is a choice.
Sure, if they caused a grandfather paradox, but they couldn't do that and were never born therefore paradoxing the paradox out of existence. Brilliant.


Your stupid made me stupider for having read it.

Another one bites the dust. It's turning out the democrats don't have a fucking candidate either.
Sure if you live in a fantasy world where the candidates not even polling in the double digits ever had a chance.

Yes, that's a problematic aspect of our governmental system. However, we utterly disregard G-d's dictates at our own peril. Certain theologians have expounded upon interesting theories regarding such events as 9/11 and natural disasters, to which I am partial.

Jesus doesn't want to be in our government.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21).