Scientific research has shown sexuality can be chosen as well as affected by social environment. Two things that cannot effect race.
Just one of many situational ambiguities about race as a social construct...
Lets pretend I used the word ethnicity instead then. Ethnicity cannot be effected over time by your environment. If it could there wouldn't be those 10 black dudes in Canada.
I was about to argue something about the Haitian diaspora and how a whole lot of them actually came to Canada but then decided that was too much effort and I have to go to school anyway.
SimBen on
0
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
We're not talking about tanning here god damn it stop not understanding the argument.
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
That's totally fine I always just want to see a study when someone is like "it's scientifically proven that..."
Either way it doesn't matter, people just need to stop telling other people who they can and can't bang.
e I think you are confusing "gay" and "fly as hell" regarding those shoes
YoSoyTheWalrus on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Okay the argument being skin color is not a good comparison for sexuality because skin color is 100% genetic whereas sexuality is developed not only by your genetics but by your environment (and apparently your choice at some point...?).
I'm not really sure how it matters either way because the environmental conditions and whatever other factors probably have mostly had their way with you before you even know what sex really is. And do we even know specifically what other things factor into developing sexuality? Can we engineer the environment where a child, no matter what their genetic predisposition, will turn out 100% straight everytime?
Basically I just don't see the point of what they're trying to say.
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I mean the expression of that sexual preference is behavioral. While the expression of skin color is, well... you know.
right
of course expression of sexuality isn't the point
race and sex have an essential commonality, which is that it isn't chosen
logical comparisons between the two are valid so long as the premise relies only on the commonality
sex or sexual preference?
both
they also share that same commonality with, say, natural hair color
doesn't mean having a particular hair color is the same as being a person of a particular race, but it does mean that logical comparisons between hair color and race are valid so long as they rely only on the commonality
so you can continue prevaricating about how race and sex are different and therefore the conclusion that you shouldn't discriminate against someone because of their race shouldn't be extended to fags, but you're making a specious argument and you know it
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
I totally am bigoted against people who tan. I will never hire one.
LTM on
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
I totally am bigoted against people who tan. I will never hire one.
Butters' argument is more about how sexuality is at least as much about your environment and upbringing as it is about your genes. Skin color is 100% a genetic thing.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
You are truly amazing.
I-I'm sorry. Educate me.
(For real, I don't like being dumb/ignorant.)
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Okay the argument being skin color is not a good comparison for sexuality because skin color is 100% genetic whereas sexuality is developed not only by your genetics but by your environment (and apparently your choice at some point...?).
I'm not really sure how it matters either way because the environmental conditions and whatever other factors probably have mostly had their way with you before you even know what sex really is. And do we even know specifically what other things factor into developing sexuality? Can we engineer the environment where a child, no matter what their genetic predisposition, will turn out 100% straight everytime?
Basically I just don't see the point of what they're trying to say.
It's an inaccurate comparison and I think it should be avoided for two reasons:
1) Being that it's inaccurate someone who is trying to justify their anti-gay rights views will take the opportunity to point that out.
2) It's entirely besides the point. Whatever the factors may be people should be able to live their lives they way they wish. The goal here is to accept gays for who they are not make excuses for them.
Trying to find an article I read a long time ago but googling "homosexuality and choice" has less than desirable results. It seems it's always put in a negative context whether it's from a gay or anti-gay source.
I was about to argue something about the Haitian diaspora and how a whole lot of them actually came to Canada but then decided that was too much effort and I have to go to school anyway.
I know there used to be a lot more black dudes in Canada but the Grizzlies moved to Memphis and Chris Bosh went to Miami.
wait why is it important at all whether or not it's a choice
Shouldn't the argument focus on its actual harm to society and why it's bad?
People choose to do things all the time without being discriminated against, and having a natural predisposition towards violence doesn't help you in a murder trial
I mean the expression of that sexual preference is behavioral. While the expression of skin color is, well... you know.
right
of course expression of sexuality isn't the point
race and sex have an essential commonality, which is that it isn't chosen
logical comparisons between the two are valid so long as the premise relies only on the commonality
Scientific research has shown sexuality can be chosen as well as affected by social environment. Two things that cannot effect race.
uhh what
choose right now
go on
choose to suck my dick
I wish this argument could be used in other discussions. Say, predetermination versus free will.
"And here we have a dick, out and in the open for the whole room to see. Now, you've got the choice of whether or not you will suck it, but keep in mind that God produced all of creation whilst knowing quite well that this situation would result from His labors. Thus, would it not be rude to turn down the fruit of His efforts?"
Sadly, much like in this discussion, I don't think it would sway anyone's opinion on the subject, so all it would accomplish is making future sundays really awkward.
so you can continue prevaricating about how race and sex are different and therefore the conclusion that you shouldn't discriminate against someone because of their race shouldn't be extended to fags, but you're making a specious argument and you know it
No, you're making the specious argument. The fact that people are born (or become) predisposed to a certain action does *not* mean that action is automatically okay. Like, if someone points out a genetic trait that makes someone more prone to violence, you can't turn around and argue that racial discrimination means that violence is okay.
NOTE TO HATERS: not equating anything to anything, relax
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I don't see how choice even matters in the long run.
People are predisposed to all kinds of behavior that society considers wrong.
oh, that's where you're going with this
ok
let's go another route
in this country, you cannot make law simply out of animus toward a certain group of people
the government must show, if distinctions are drawn between people for the purposes of enforcement, those distinctions must be at least rationally related to a legitimate government interest
when the distinctions are drawn between people on the basis of an immutable characteristic like race or gender, the level of scrutiny must be much higher
I can marry a woman, but not a man, and that is based not at all on my sexuality, but on my sex. Straight men share the same legal rights as gay men, but are differentiated in rights from straight women and gay women, who likewise share identical legal rights. Because of my gender, a distinction is drawn in the law regarding my actions. Thus, the government must show, if it wishes to maintain such a distinction, that there is a compelling government interest towards which they are working and that this distinction is necessary to establish that end. I have trouble finding a compelling interest in maintaining a viewpoint of "fags are gross," nor am I able to figure out why a discrimination based on biological gender is necessary. Shouldn't we prevent gay people from marrying anyone? It's just going to be a sham, after all.
I don't see how choice even matters in the long run.
People are predisposed to all kinds of behavior that society considers wrong.
in this country, you cannot make law simply out of animus toward a certain group of people
This country has a long history of making laws simply out of animus toward certain groups of people. We also have a history of having a short attention span and letting those laws expire when there's a new group of "abominations" to rail against.
the government must show, if distinctions are drawn between people for the purposes of enforcement, those distinctions must be at least rationally related to a legitimate government interest
the government must show, if distinctions are drawn between people for the purposes of enforcement, those distinctions must be at least rationally related to a legitimate government interest
Only when limiting constitutional rights.
nope
in all laws that use classifications, the classification must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest
Ubik on
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Posts
god damnit
I was about to argue something about the Haitian diaspora and how a whole lot of them actually came to Canada but then decided that was too much effort and I have to go to school anyway.
I'm not contending anything. I just want to see the research.
I'm not really sure how big a role "choice" can really play. How do you even choose something like that?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
People are predisposed to all kinds of behavior that society considers wrong.
Your environment can affect your skin color.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
We're not talking about tanning here god damn it stop not understanding the argument.
these are my shoes, yet I do not find men attractive.
That's totally fine I always just want to see a study when someone is like "it's scientifically proven that..."
Either way it doesn't matter, people just need to stop telling other people who they can and can't bang.
e I think you are confusing "gay" and "fly as hell" regarding those shoes
Do you understand what melanin actually is?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Does karma have any effect?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I'm not really sure how it matters either way because the environmental conditions and whatever other factors probably have mostly had their way with you before you even know what sex really is. And do we even know specifically what other things factor into developing sexuality? Can we engineer the environment where a child, no matter what their genetic predisposition, will turn out 100% straight everytime?
Basically I just don't see the point of what they're trying to say.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Yeah, but I think the argument is in the social context, as in how you're life is affected based on how dark/light your skin appears. Which can change depending on the environment you're in right?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
both
they also share that same commonality with, say, natural hair color
doesn't mean having a particular hair color is the same as being a person of a particular race, but it does mean that logical comparisons between hair color and race are valid so long as they rely only on the commonality
so you can continue prevaricating about how race and sex are different and therefore the conclusion that you shouldn't discriminate against someone because of their race shouldn't be extended to fags, but you're making a specious argument and you know it
I totally am bigoted against people who tan. I will never hire one.
don't worry, the feeling is mutual
You are truly amazing.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
What spring does with the cherry trees.
LTM hate George Hamilton people.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I-I'm sorry. Educate me.
(For real, I don't like being dumb/ignorant.)
What spring does with the cherry trees.
It's an inaccurate comparison and I think it should be avoided for two reasons:
1) Being that it's inaccurate someone who is trying to justify their anti-gay rights views will take the opportunity to point that out.
2) It's entirely besides the point. Whatever the factors may be people should be able to live their lives they way they wish. The goal here is to accept gays for who they are not make excuses for them.
Trying to find an article I read a long time ago but googling "homosexuality and choice" has less than desirable results. It seems it's always put in a negative context whether it's from a gay or anti-gay source.
I know there used to be a lot more black dudes in Canada but the Grizzlies moved to Memphis and Chris Bosh went to Miami.
Shouldn't the argument focus on its actual harm to society and why it's bad?
People choose to do things all the time without being discriminated against, and having a natural predisposition towards violence doesn't help you in a murder trial
http://books.google.com/books?id=4HdpN1xnl5EC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=why+shouldn%27t+tommy+and+jim+have+sex&source=bl&ots=vC_ZNShuz7&sig=esx6EwtcFO75EGu87V5wNA5Fupw&hl=en&ei=eaVeS_upLpKmNqeJnYoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=why%20shouldn%27t%20tommy%20and%20jim%20have%20sex&f=false
i know this link has been posted in the thread before but i guess everybody just ignored it
I wish this argument could be used in other discussions. Say, predetermination versus free will.
"And here we have a dick, out and in the open for the whole room to see. Now, you've got the choice of whether or not you will suck it, but keep in mind that God produced all of creation whilst knowing quite well that this situation would result from His labors. Thus, would it not be rude to turn down the fruit of His efforts?"
Sadly, much like in this discussion, I don't think it would sway anyone's opinion on the subject, so all it would accomplish is making future sundays really awkward.
No, you're making the specious argument. The fact that people are born (or become) predisposed to a certain action does *not* mean that action is automatically okay. Like, if someone points out a genetic trait that makes someone more prone to violence, you can't turn around and argue that racial discrimination means that violence is okay.
NOTE TO HATERS: not equating anything to anything, relax
oh, that's where you're going with this
ok
let's go another route
in this country, you cannot make law simply out of animus toward a certain group of people
the government must show, if distinctions are drawn between people for the purposes of enforcement, those distinctions must be at least rationally related to a legitimate government interest
when the distinctions are drawn between people on the basis of an immutable characteristic like race or gender, the level of scrutiny must be much higher
I can marry a woman, but not a man, and that is based not at all on my sexuality, but on my sex. Straight men share the same legal rights as gay men, but are differentiated in rights from straight women and gay women, who likewise share identical legal rights. Because of my gender, a distinction is drawn in the law regarding my actions. Thus, the government must show, if it wishes to maintain such a distinction, that there is a compelling government interest towards which they are working and that this distinction is necessary to establish that end. I have trouble finding a compelling interest in maintaining a viewpoint of "fags are gross," nor am I able to figure out why a discrimination based on biological gender is necessary. Shouldn't we prevent gay people from marrying anyone? It's just going to be a sham, after all.
Just look at Iran, no gays there.
also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO9GqSJ5k4Y&feature=player_embedded
edit
this is a sarcastic post
What spring does with the cherry trees.
This country has a long history of making laws simply out of animus toward certain groups of people. We also have a history of having a short attention span and letting those laws expire when there's a new group of "abominations" to rail against.
Only when limiting constitutional rights.
well I wasn't worried you wanted to fuck my shoes in the first place
I mean, I know some people are into feet and that's OK but these were expensive and I can't really see any benefit to myself
also who cares if being gay is a choice
some people choose to wear leopard print dresses after the age of 50, no law against that and it's way more gross than buttsex
You know the old saying... "you come at the king, you best not miss" 8-)
Verbatim quote:
"Jesus would you come in me."
not taken out of context at all.
depends on the 50 year old
Feel free to form a line outside of my apartment.
nope
in all laws that use classifications, the classification must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest
nyope