Tendo City

Oh come now, saying "everything is arbitrary"is just standard teen angst comments about the world...man! You didn't even give a reason behind WHY things before taking their first breath aren't alive, but after they are. You just said your argument again. Stating your point of view again is not actually debating. This time, you must explain WHY you think something isn't alive until it's taken it's first breath. Explain that. Also, make sure to explain to me why it is alive after it's taken it's first breath.

Here's what you COULD have said. You COULD have said "It's all a matter of dependancy." You could have said what others have said before. Here's the argument some people at this phase have used:

"Well, it's because it's totally dependant on the main host to live. It's like a parasite really. Would you like someone telling you you couldn't kill a bot fly in your arm? It's the same thing really. When it's born it no longer depends on being linked to the human host to live."

Now then, I'll act as if you did use that argument and counter it. First off, the main problem in this argument is that they claim the infant stage of development is dependance free of the "host", as opposed to the fetal stage. One should be fully aware that just because it's left the womb doesn't mean it's no longer dependant on the host for, um, pretty much EVERYTHING. In every important way the infant stage is still very much comparable to a parasite, in the same ways it was compaired to a parasite in the womb. Thus, it again falls to the arbitrary "well, it's directly connected" or "it isn't breathing yet" to determine when life begins.

Here's my main request. Provide for me a reason why you think it's wrong to kill a born baby, as opposed to an unborn fetus. What's so wrong with killing it after it's born?

Why do you keep insisting on that? Trying to answer that to your satisfaction would be in itsself a victory for you -- I'd have to be admitting that the fetus before its born is pretty much the same as the baby is after its born. Which as I said isn't true... Oh, and once its born it IS different. While it definitely still is dependant, it isn't dependant on the mother in specific...

And its just a strange argument! 'Why isn't it OK to kill babies"? Come ON! You know why -- they are humans who have been born and are alive, so you can't kill them. Fetuses don't fit that classification.

Especially not the vast majority of abortions which are done early (or inthe middle) in pregnancy... Though, no matter what you may say about it being arbitrary, the fact is (legally at the very least, but more than that too) that fetuses are not human beings. The radical right, including our president, really wants them classified as such to try to destroy abortion in this country, but they aren't. And I REALLY hope that the Supreme Court doesn't fall into radical hands and destroy this... its hard enough as it is to keep this right around with people like you here...

Also... what about the rest of my post? I did write 3 more paragraphs which you don't respond to... Also. One more thing. Your argument really is based on the idea that abortions are done late in pregnancy, when they are closer to being like humans. Most, as I said, aren't done then and are done MUCH sooner-- FAR before the fetus begins to resemble a human (as opposed to any number of other animals)... late-term abortions are, again as I said, pretty rare... probably usually done for health reasons...

The last paragraph wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at whoever claimed abortion rates are dropping. While I'm all for that, I don't see how that helps my argument at all, either way. Yes, I too think murdering people is no way to stop abortion. Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do, and all that bumper sticker stuff.

Regarding late term abortions, I wasn't really specifying late term or early term. I was targetting them all in general. They all are "before birth" which is about as specific as I got.

As for getting upset at removing choice, I have to say, AGAIN, that some things are meant to never be a free choice on. Theft is one of them. Unless you think that stealing (I'd use murder, but that's too close to what we are actually debating here) is something that should be left to the individual to decide if it's right or wrong, then you admit that some choices must be taken away from the masses. This debate isn't that removing choice in general is a bad thing, it's to decide if THIS is one of those things that should be a right to choose or not.

Now, onto the post you just made.

You are correct, by saying that you would have given me a victory, in fact THE victory, for if you can't defeat ONE point that specifically states your point is wrong, I win. Likewise for you.

You are also correct in saying that it's not specifically dependant on the mother for life after birth. However, this just brings to mind the only reason you would have said that, acknowledgement of adoption as a way out to prevent an ill-fit mother situation. If adoption is such an easy way out in the case of dependance on the mother (the one thing you cling to to differentiate the two stages of life so far), then it should also be equally easy a way out instead of abortion for me.

You also state that my argument is somehow hinged on late term abortions. I'd like to see where you misread my posts to gather that that's the case. Not once did I specify any specific term of pregnancy. I was always quite general. I stated "before birth", which is anything from conception to contraction. Maybe you mixed me up with other's comments about specific terms, but my argument didn't even mention any terms to be dependant on.

Finally, we have taken a step back. We are back to my main point. Why do you think it's not alive until birth? You have only stated "it just is". This isn't a box of apple jacks here, you can't just say something like that and expect it to be enough. Give me a reason why you think they are seperate. I'll even give you a head start. Your response starts with "well what about before conception?". Trust me, I'm open there. I haven't defended THAT argument yet. I have in fact dug an apparent grave for myself if you go that way so far.

An abortion debate?! Why was I not notified?!

Anyway, saying "a fetus isn't technically alive, so it is okay to MURDER it" sounds more like an excuse rather than a reason.

While I'm still on the soap box: If teenagers didn't constantly want to have sex with just about anyone who is willing there probably wouldn't be anyone who wanted to get an abortion.

*gets down off soap box*

Well that's all for now...

I don't know if there is a different kind of soap box then what I'm familiar with, but the image I always get when someone talks about standing on a soap box is some irish person standing on the box their bar of soap came in. This act lasts a hundredth of a second before the box collapses beneath the person.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]Yes. We can't stop what has been done already, but we could try to slow down the damage and give nature time to recuperate by cutting pollution... its really the only way to try to save the ecosystem of the earth before we do too much damage and it can't recover. Not that this administration cares about that in the slightest.

Again, it's a sign of immense hubris to think we are capable of ruining the entire world (which is what you state). I know I've said it at least twice now... we as a society probably caused far more pollution in the Coal age, where factories burned coal, houses burned coal, everyone burned coal, and coal smoke and dust would coat entire city blocks. Nothing like that happens anymore, because we use less polluting sources of fuel? When hydrogen fuel cells become affordable for use in cars, petroleum use will die out slowly. And I'm excited about the prospect of Hydrocell technology, partially because technologies of all sort interest me, and partially because it would not only make ecofreaks happy, but because it would make car maintenence much cheaper and effective. I think, in order to cut down pollution, should strive harder to find a better way of doing things, but taking steps backward just isn't it. Less regulations and more research. What Hydrocell technology would do for the environment is far more profound than these frivolous restrictions set on car manufacturers and refineries.

Quote:and on to Weltall's post.

Idealism isn't always right, but in the long run its far more correct than trying to stay the same and using old, failing ideas for longer than they should be...

Except when the idealism itself is nothing but regurgitated failed ideas. Zealous idealism is not healthy, especially when the idealists keep trying to fix problems that cannot, or should not be fixed.

Quote:Umm... if you honestly think that its a choice, I won't bother saying anything more because you clearly won't listen given how you believe something as bizarre and completely wrong as that.

Okay, I'll explain why I'm right. Homosexuality cannot be genetic or hereditary, unless its a genetic mutation (and I'm sure you'd love that explanation), because hereditary traits are passed down from parents to children. Most homosexuals do not have children of their own doing, thus, that idea is ruled out. I've never seen a single convincing argument that homosexuality is something you're 'born with'. It's both a product of a person's upbringing and environment, and of their own choice. Anyone right now, you, me, DJ, anyone, we could choose to be gay right now. We could go out and find a man to have sex with. Then, we are homosexuals. It's a choice. It's a choice that's as obvious as choosing to be heterosexual. It's called sexual PREFERENCE for a reason. On the other hand, I cannot one day decide to be black. THAT is something you're born with. I can't wake up one day and decide to be latino or asian. I can't just decide one day, I want to be a woman (even though you can imitate the appearance of a woman, a transsexual male is still a male). People who think Homosexuality is something you're stuck with are flat out wrong, and are trying to absolve themselves of responsibilty for a choice. You cannot be born gay any more than you can be a born murderer or a born accountant or a born movie star. You are born with a simple set of brain patterns and instincts. Everything else in life is something you gain through experience and learning. Homosexuality is the result of choices. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Now, on that note, I am tolerant of gays. I don't give a damn who someone wants to screw, that's their business and theirs alone. But damn me if you think for a minute that I would want them to have special legal rights because they want to have sex with men. Absolute crap.

Quote:I don't know why... my only guess would be that they, in general, are higher on the socioeconomic ladder than groups that benefit, but I don't know.

Actually, the reason why is, at least with colleges, that Asian kids tend to perform really well scholastically, even poor Asian kids. Therefore, they aren't getting punished because they're white, they're getting punished because they work harder. Asians aren't necessarily smarter than blacks or hispanics, but the parents of Asian people I know are very, very hardcore about education. I think that's an outstanding quality that all parents should have. Coincidentally, because they work harder in school, they end up making more money in the workforce.

Not to say all blacks and latinos are lazy, but affirmative action essentially rewards them for being so, if they choose. Why would a black kid strive harder to achieve a higher SAT score when his skin color is all he needs for college admission? Thus, scores for black children, in all rungs of the education ladder, are lower than pretty much every other race. And yet affirmative action is supposed to be FAIR to them? It sets them up for failure!

Quote:You mention that in a flat tax the rich pay more than lower classes... well of course. They make more. However, you ignore the fact that, at the tax levels of a flat tax, in the real world the rich get a HUGE tax cut... and other groups get a LOT less. Just like Bush's tax cut he wants, but even more dramatic. That would be very bad... the government gets a lot more money from the rich than the poor and other bottom-level classes so it would both help the rich a lot and not help other people nearly as much... and hurt the government a lot. The rich are naturally for the flat tax... it helps them more than anyone else by quite a significant margin.
The rich get taxed the most! Not only do they pay disproportionate income taxes, but every time you buy something, you're paying taxes. Rich people buy more, therefore, they're paying more taxes. I think the rich DO deserve a tax cut, if only to level out the unfairness of having a higher tax for being rich.

[quote]Why is cutting taxes when we desperately need all the taxes we can get (like now in this recession) a good idea? Well, specific things to help the economy, maybe... but a huge taxcut for the rich? Don't be ridiculous... that helps nothing!

Also, wanting to tax rich people more because they make more isn't hating rich people.. its just trying to fairly tax everyone based both on what they CAN pay and what they SHOULD pay. And rich people should pay more because they have more.

What a bunch of crap. That's not fair at all. It's fair to the poor, and I know to you it seems that those who aren't poor aren't people, but if it were fair to everyone, everyone would be paying the exact same amount of tax per dollar, regardless of how many dollars you have. Rich people would still pay more bottom line, but it would be in equal proportion to everyone else. To think anything else is fair is ridiculous. Fair to some maybe, not others.

Quote:The first part first. Yes, the poor here are in better shape than many people in third world nations... but compared to poor in FIRST world nations, we sure look pretty bad... like how tens of millions of poor people have no healthcare while in other nations they get it for free (with higher taxes to pay for it, but they are worth it to get more services). For the superrich is the quality of healthcare in those nations as good as ours? Maybe not... but for the other 95% of the population, and especially those with no healthcare, its better.

Okay, let me give you a little lesson in healthcare. See, if you are poor enough, you get free healthcare. My dad has told me all sorts of stories, having worked in an innercity hospital for almost 20 years. Do you know who pays for healthcare for the poor?

Answer: Anyone who actually pays for healthcare.

I recently had a major surgery. The my first bill, which was only for the hospital stay (meaning it did not include the surgeon's bill) was over $40,000! They charged $7,000 for SUPPLIES. My painkillers, percocet pills and Tylenol, were $12 PER PILL. Fresh linens alone were three friggin grand. All this for a three day stint. Of course, I would not go for a forty-thousand dollar surgery that I had to pay for out of pocket unless my life was at stake, I pay medical insurance and they covered it completely. It's the insurance companies who pay for the entire operation, and these outrageous costs. And how do they recoup their money?

Answer: They charge me higher premiums.

Now, do you know why they charged three thousand for linen and twelve bucks for a single Tylenol? The answer is, they need to recoup the losses spent on non-insured patients. They bring a homeless man who drinks himself into a coma into the ER, and we pay for it. They bring in a lowlife who has blown his brain on heroin, and we pay for it. It's not just the rich who foot the bill, it's people who are far from rich, like me. We have to foot the bill for these degenerate leeches of society who can get free healthcare no matter what (and it's well known that the free healthcare is very often abused at cost to us).

No one should have free healthcare unless they're physically unable to work. Even a poor person is capable of getting a job at K-Mart and getting onto their health coverage (I work at Walmart). They are perfectly capable of paying their own premiums, but why bother? When you can get it for free, what incentive is there to EARN it? To WORK for it?

And I'm totally against state healthcare. I don't mind surgeons making tons of money, because they have skills that very few have. They work long and hard to get where they are, and they hold lives in their hands. My surgeon stands to make about fifteen thousand dollars for the four hours he spent in my stomach, but I don't mind my premium money being paid to him. He held my life in his capable hands for four hours, and his work has had a great effect on me personally. But when you get "free" healthcare, payed for by taxes, you face the problems Canada faces: Doctors do not get paid as much. Therefore, there is less incentive to go into medical school and strive hard to become a doctor. Thus, you have less doctors. Eventually, the need for doctors becomes greater than the number of doctors available. Since doctor's income comes from taxes, they can never expect to make much more money. Therefore, to get more doctors, you lower the standards necessary to become a doctor. And you know where that leads.

As outlined, our healthcare system has problems (mostly caused by liberals), but it beats the hell out of state-sponsored healthcare.

Quote:And isn't democracy supposed to govern for the PEOPLE in general, not just for the rich? Oh... not according to you.

Almost anyone who is poor can do something about it. That's the great thing about Capitalism. If you want something bad enough, there's always a way to get it. Unless you're lazy. I'm nowhere near rich, but that is definitely one of my goals in life, and even though I have no connections to wealth, there is an avenue of opportunity that will lead to wealth, and all I need to do is be very diligent and work hard. I want no handouts.

Quote:Oh... and as for the second part, I didn't say that... though it is already true that low enough you pay nearly nothing. That's how it should be... everyone who can should pay something, but as your income increases, so should the proportion of it you pay... and the rich shouldn't get all kinds of taxcuts just for them like the Republicans keep trying (and sometimes succeeding) to give them.

No. Everyone should pay the same percentage. It's fair. You claim you don't hate the rich, yet you want them punished for being rich. Why? What am I missing here? Why do you want the rich punished for being rich? And don't say you don't, saying rich people should pay a higher percentage in tax because they can is nothing short of penalizing them because they're rich.

Quote:Trickle-down economic rely on rich people spending and that money actually helping people lower down... I know you'll never believe me, but the real world just doesn't work in that way. Rich people may spend, but it makes very little impact on the non-rich... Reaganomics just left us with a massive debt caused by massive spending and hoping that wealth would trickle-down to try to help... and it didn't. Big surprise.

Net income is up? I'd expect that as time passed... inflation and all... maybe even after inflation is considered. But attributing it to trickle-down Reaganomics is absurd.

Net income is up in percentages. People in general have more money. And Reaganomics, based on when this trend started, is the obvious cause. I already outlined it before but you seem to have ignored it.

Quote:I'd expect a pro-industry person to say that -- that without economic benefit no change should be made. It doesn't work that way when you try to protect this planet (or specific ecosystems in it, many of which are SEVERELY threatened) from being irrevocably damaged... the problem is that no industry will just ... change ... without there being a law telling them to. They won't just take the economic losses like that...

Yes they will. Oil burns much cleaner than coal. Nuclear plants burn much cleaner than power plants that run on oil. Did we change from coal to oil to nuclear energy because we were forced to? No. We did it because each successive power source was more effective and cheaper. That they are cleaner was just bonus. When a cheaper alternative to gas-burning cars comes along, a cheaper alternative that works just as well, people will embrace it. THEN the industry will change. Stupid regulations are not needed.

Quote:Iraq hasn't really complied, no... but they haven't broken the UN rules so conclusively that we need to attack them to 'fix' things. If they had, both the international community and the motoring agencies would agree that something must be done militarially. They do not.

They were to disarm. Instead, they made more weapons. They resist and hide things, obviously because they have something to hide. The evidence is clear.

Quote:More inspections? Yes, definitely. They do help make sure nothing is going on. But this rush to a war that really has very little proof behind it? Absolutely not... I'm not COMPLETELY against war, but I wouldn't support any war unless there is both a GOOD reason to do so and the full support of the international community... and we have neither here.

Inspections unfortunately do little. We cannot check everywhere. Defectors from Iraq told of how they were able to move these things around, and how those who have knowledge of the weapons are commited to silence. Why? If there were nothing to hide, and Saddam was cooperating, you would think he'd open up and help out, for the good of his country. He does not do this. He says "Fuck you" to the UN, and has for twelve years. It's time to do something about him.

Quote:I'm sure if Bush could, he would, like we did back in the '80s, but since he really really hates Sadaam, he must figure it'd be easier if he just invades...

This whole thing about Bush having a personal vendetta against Saddam is crap. If that were the reason for this war, he could easily have arranged for his assassination. That of course would still leave his government. If this were a personal vendetta that would not bother him. The goal is to get his government out. And even then, paying your way into the oil, if that's the goal, mind, is much easier to do, AND it wouldn't draw the scrutiny. Therefore, oil can be ruled out.

Quote:While in theory there are some similarities, in the real world there are very few. Or do you honestly think that North Korea and Cuba have similar governments to Canada and Sweden?

On a basic level, yes. They are certainly not run the same way, but the ideals are similar. Communists are more hardcore about the liberal class hatred, but it's still there in socialist states.

Quote:We don't block trade from China, of course, because they have a lot of stuff to sell us... too much for our government (of either party) to be able to stand up for its ideals. Cuba is small, isolated, and a nation our government has hated for quite a while now... its easy to keep listening to the Florida Cuban exiles and keep it blocked off. I hope that that blockade can be lifted soon... we don't have blockads that strong on other nations with that level of relatively mild dislike for us...

I have a feeling once Castro dies, it will be lifted. It's really him we have the problem with. He's no threat anymore, but he was a huge threat at one time, 1962. While I really don't think we should be sanctioning his country anymore, he's done nothing to improve relations with us.

Quote:Yes, it is probably true that they won't attack. And that China is there to try to help contain them if they so desire. And that they want concessions... but their leadersip isn't really sane, and in the right place I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to attack if they were in Sadaam's position and saw no way to avoid a war... and by that point they would have nuclear weapons no question so we wouldn't want one. Its a very tricky situation and I don't see an easy way out of it...

I think even if it came down to war with Korea, nuclear weapons would not be used. Granted, PRNK's leadership isn't that stable, but they're not of the suidcidal fundamentalist Islamic culture either. You truly cannot trust an Islamic madman with nukes and other WMDs not to use them. So what if we fire ten back for every one he fires at us? He gets to die for Great Allah.

Quote:Not really... not when we disagree like we do and can't think of anything new to say...

But that's what other people are for, like Sacred Jellybean and DLN's posts. I notice you haven't tried to reply to their posts... :)

Um... I answered Jellybean's post... and DLN hasn't said anything you or him haven't said. Before you get on my case, start reading my posts a little closer.

I didn't even read the whole debate about sexuality being a choice or linked to genetics. However, here's my thoughts on it, and they reflect Weltal's thoughts pretty well.

I too don't see how claiming sexuality is something those with whatever orientation can't help but be. That's actually a bit of an insult. That's like saying someone who likes sports or something couldn't help but love sports, as it's built in.

Lots of people link the claim to some mythical "real study on genetics" that "prooves" that one gene on one chromosome is indeed the "gay gene". Though some studies support the claim, like a lot of genetic studies (including ones linking violent behavior to genes and other behavior patterns) this one is under fire recently for accuracy. It wasn't the most accurate of studies, but like rule # (I forget the number) of debating, always cling to whatever some scientist in some circle said that somehow in some way might be interpreted as supporting your point of view. Well, basically that was a lot of me just saying that that particular study didn't end conclusivly and is pretty much just as accurate as a flip of a coin.

Anyway, to the actual thing. What's the big deal about this? There is a sect (not even representing the opinions of all those who are flaming homos, I use the scientific term here) of people who have some huge problem and actually take offense to the idea that sexual orientation is a free will choice. I can think of two reasons. These people, some of whom are straight indeed, may be afraid of their orientation suddenly changing, so they just blot the idea from their mind by claiming it's not a possibility. The other is also fear related. They may fear that if they open it up to free will then that would mean others could ridicule them more openly for whatever reason because it is in fact a choice. In other words, the only reason they would defend THAT point so vehemontly is purely out of fear. If they truly embraced choice of lifestyle (they shouldn't call it a choice of lifestyle if it's not), they wouldn't be so afraid of this potential backlash and would say "we choose this" in a very proud manner, like a gamer saying "I choose you Pikachu!", um, I messed up that comparison... Anyway, seriously I'd think the sexualy oriented would RATHER have it as free will. I mean, you're human, well, you're a falcon, and they have sexuality too, wouldn't you rather know that at any time you could just change forms?

Eh, whatever. In any case I think the main reason is probably the latter of the two I mentioned. They must be terrified of religious people getting all up in their face about it if they said "yeah it's free will". Sheesh, if you can ignore everything else religions might say about you, why not one more? As far as it goes, since I do see it as free will, I do think that just like limiting any other choices, like gambling or whatnot, religions have every right to make "no gay" a part of their requirements without turning into a hate group. Of course, those people driving around beating the living tar out of what their religion calls sinners is just plain stupid and hateful. Why not go around beating up liars too? It's just nuts, but anyway, my main point is this. I think it's free will and I think it's hardly hateful because of that for some religion to say "you can't be gay", but not something stupid like "God hates gays" in that very "you can't help it and we know that" kind of way.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
Okay, let me give you a little lesson in healthcare. See, if you are poor enough, you get free healthcare. My dad has told me all sorts of stories, having worked in an innercity hospital for almost 20 years. Do you know who pays for healthcare for the poor?

Answer: Anyone who actually pays for healthcare.

I recently had a major surgery. The my first bill, which was only for the hospital stay (meaning it did not include the surgeon's bill) was over $40,000! They charged $7,000 for SUPPLIES. My painkillers, percocet pills and Tylenol, were $12 PER PILL. Fresh linens alone were three friggin grand. All this for a three day stint. Of course, I would not go for a forty-thousand dollar surgery that I had to pay for out of pocket unless my life was at stake, I pay medical insurance and they covered it completely. It's the insurance companies who pay for the entire operation, and these outrageous costs. And how do they recoup their money?

Answer: They charge me higher premiums.

Now, do you know why they charged three thousand for linen and twelve bucks for a single Tylenol? The answer is, they need to recoup the losses spent on non-insured patients. They bring a homeless man who drinks himself into a coma into the ER, and we pay for it. They bring in a lowlife who has blown his brain on heroin, and we pay for it. It's not just the rich who foot the bill, it's people who are far from rich, like me. We have to foot the bill for these degenerate leeches of society who can get free healthcare no matter what (and it's well known that the free healthcare is very often abused at cost to us).

No one should have free healthcare unless they're physically unable to work. Even a poor person is capable of getting a job at K-Mart and getting onto their health coverage (I work at Walmart). They are perfectly capable of paying their own premiums, but why bother? When you can get it for free, what incentive is there to EARN it? To WORK for it?

And I'm totally against state healthcare. I don't mind surgeons making tons of money, because they have skills that very few have. They work long and hard to get where they are, and they hold lives in their hands. My surgeon stands to make about fifteen thousand dollars for the four hours he spent in my stomach, but I don't mind my premium money being paid to him. He held my life in his capable hands for four hours, and his work has had a great effect on me personally. But when you get "free" healthcare, payed for by taxes, you face the problems Canada faces: Doctors do not get paid as much. Therefore, there is less incentive to go into medical school and strive hard to become a doctor. Thus, you have less doctors. Eventually, the need for doctors becomes greater than the number of doctors available. Since doctor's income comes from taxes, they can never expect to make much more money. Therefore, to get more doctors, you lower the standards necessary to become a doctor. And you know where that leads.

As outlined, our healthcare system has problems (mostly caused by liberals), but it beats the hell out of state-sponsored healthcare.

Doctors in Canada, the UK, Sweden and other countrys with public health care are still in one of the highest income levels. Canadian Doctors are payed by the government yes, but they are still private practictioners, and are payed on a per visit basis. If they are a bad doctor and nobody goes to them, then they don't get payed, if they are good and everyone goes, then they earn more(just like in the US). Drugs cost less because the government doesn't allow them to charge insane rates. Also the hospitals themselves are not for profit, so the costs can be lower because there isn't someone who owns a chain of hospitals who is trying to earn as much money as possible. Also in the US an insurance company doesn't have to provide medical coverage, if your sick and you don't already have insurance coverage then your screwed.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall

I have a feeling once Castro dies, it will be lifted. It's really him we have the problem with. He's no threat anymore, but he was a huge threat at one time, 1962. While I really don't think we should be sanctioning his country anymore, he's done nothing to improve relations with us.

Why was he dangerouse in the 60's? Because he was allowing one of his allies to install weapons of mass destruction in his country? The United States did the same thing that the Soviets did and there was no international crisis over it, the US installed nukeualr weapons in Turkey, Germany and some of it's other allies capable of striking the USSR, and that was fine, but when the situation was reversed the US decided that it was wrong to do that, but even after the Soviet's removed their missles from Cuba the US kept the missles they had in countrys that were allied with them



Also for the babey breathing part, I used the wrong words, What I should have said was once it was born, I just said breathing because I meant to emphasize the fact that they were already born.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
I didn't even read the whole debate about sexuality being a choice or linked to genetics. However, here's my thoughts on it, and they reflect Weltal's thoughts pretty well.

I too don't see how claiming sexuality is something those with whatever orientation can't help but be. That's actually a bit of an insult. That's like saying someone who likes sports or something couldn't help but love sports, as it's built in.

Lots of people link the claim to some mythical "real study on genetics" that "prooves" that one gene on one chromosome is indeed the "gay gene". Though some studies support the claim, like a lot of genetic studies (including ones linking violent behavior to genes and other behavior patterns) this one is under fire recently for accuracy. It wasn't the most accurate of studies, but like rule # (I forget the number) of debating, always cling to whatever some scientist in some circle said that somehow in some way might be interpreted as supporting your point of view. Well, basically that was a lot of me just saying that that particular study didn't end conclusivly and is pretty much just as accurate as a flip of a coin.

Anyway, to the actual thing. What's the big deal about this? There is a sect (not even representing the opinions of all those who are flaming homos, I use the scientific term here) of people who have some huge problem and actually take offense to the idea that sexual orientation is a free will choice. I can think of two reasons. These people, some of whom are straight indeed, may be afraid of their orientation suddenly changing, so they just blot the idea from their mind by claiming it's not a possibility. The other is also fear related. They may fear that if they open it up to free will then that would mean others could ridicule them more openly for whatever reason because it is in fact a choice. In other words, the only reason they would defend THAT point so vehemontly is purely out of fear. If they truly embraced choice of lifestyle (they shouldn't call it a choice of lifestyle if it's not), they wouldn't be so afraid of this potential backlash and would say "we choose this" in a very proud manner, like a gamer saying "I choose you Pikachu!", um, I messed up that comparison... Anyway, seriously I'd think the sexualy oriented would RATHER have it as free will. I mean, you're human, well, you're a falcon, and they have sexuality too, wouldn't you rather know that at any time you could just change forms?

Eh, whatever. In any case I think the main reason is probably the latter of the two I mentioned. They must be terrified of religious people getting all up in their face about it if they said "yeah it's free will". Sheesh, if you can ignore everything else religions might say about you, why not one more? As far as it goes, since I do see it as free will, I do think that just like limiting any other choices, like gambling or whatnot, religions have every right to make "no gay" a part of their requirements without turning into a hate group. Of course, those people driving around beating the living tar out of what their religion calls sinners is just plain stupid and hateful. Why not go around beating up liars too? It's just nuts, but anyway, my main point is this. I think it's free will and I think it's hardly hateful because of that for some religion to say "you can't be gay", but not something stupid like "God hates gays" in that very "you can't help it and we know that" kind of way.

Haven't there been studies showing that some gay men have lower tetosterone levels than other men? This means that for them it could be genetic
Also there have been some examples of homosexual behavior in animals

Heh, actually I used to have one cat who had to be given away because after several months of trying to get outside, he started, um, bothering our other male cat. Seems he just gave up.

Being homosexual is NOT a choice. It is also not some recent "invention"... it has always existed both among humans and other animals... its just that before recently it wasn't out in the open and it among animals wasn't really known... saying people "choose" to be a homosexual is just so dumb that I can't really think offhand what to say... while it clearly isn't a trait passed directly down to children, it definitely has some kind of genetic backing... probably wherever heterosexualism is defined in most people.

Sexuality comes into place when one's having sex. It'd affect who one goes after, but other than that people have relationships with both genders all the time. Do I make any sense?

Eh, ABF's just a homophobe who doesn't want to admit it's a possibility... :D

Oh, and yeah that's a joke. Sorry old chum. Anyway, I'm fully aware an insult isn't going to help me win this, but simply saying "it's so ridiculous I don't know what to say" is not an argument. "Obviously" it has genetic backing eh? Where's the proof?

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Being homosexual is NOT a choice. It is also not some recent "invention"... it has always existed both among humans and other animals... its just that before recently it wasn't out in the open and it among animals wasn't really known... saying people "choose" to be a homosexual is just so dumb that I can't really think offhand what to say... while it clearly isn't a trait passed directly down to children, it definitely has some kind of genetic backing... probably wherever heterosexualism is defined in most people.

Of course, you have no proof to back any of this, and you're in frank opposition to common sense. Please, if you're going to call my position dumb, at least have a reason to back that up. There have been no genetic studies offering any kind of proof that homosexuality is genetic, and there won't be because it's bullshit. They just want to deny it's a choice because if you don't have a choice, then you can't be responsible for what you do. That's a cop-out for the ages. Being gay is a choice, just like being sexually active at all is a choice. One can choose to be totally celibate, and be neither gay nor straight. But being gay is not natural. If you look in nature, while some animals do practice homosexual acts, nature DEFINITELY favors heterosexuality. That's why female animals go into heat, release pheromones, and can reproduce offspring with male sperm.

There are no very, very few actions a human being can do that they cannot control. Their sexual urges are definitely NOT one of them. Even though you might personally find it revolting, you can choose to have sex with a man yourself right now. Even if you're heterosexual, there is nothing natural that stops you from having sex with a member of your own gender. NOTHING. And even if you're gay, there is nothing natural that could stop you from having sex with a woman. If homosexuality were something you could not control, because it were genetic, there would be no such thing as bisexuality. Bisexuality is proof positive that sexual preference is a choice. Again, if you can offer ANY solid proof to the contrary, do so, because simply calling my position dumb when it makes absolutely perfect sense, just doesn't cut it. For that matter, can you even DISPROVE anything I've just said?

It's obvious that the physical act of homosexuality is one's own choice. I could slip a Roofie into my room mate's drink and violate his sweet body while he serenely slumbers. Yes, THAT is a choice. But it's just an example, I swear! *hides Roofies*

But let me ask you something... I'm assuming the two of you (Weltall, Dark Jaguar) are straight. You're sexually aroused by women. You fantasize of luscious, soft breasts in nice, warm bubble bath. But have you ever had a homosexual fantasy?

The ability to go out and have sex with a member of the same gender is one thing, obviously a choice, but inherent sexual arousal OF members of the same gender is NOT a choice. Can you help but loving women? If you really tried, do you think you could live a homosexual lifestyle and be truly happy? If necessary, could you CHOOSE to uphold a sexual relationship with another man? If we lived in a gay society where women were forbidden from men, your sex life would be hard, very hard. Because repressing strong, sexual urges that are channeled from the unconscious isn't by any means easy. You may have the choice to not act them out, but you couldn't MAKE yourself be sexually aroused by a certain member of whatever gender/race/species. *hides cat*

All joking (shifty eyes) aside, do you see what I'm saying?

Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
It's obvious that the physical act of homosexuality is one's own choice. I could slip a Roofie into my room mate's drink and violate his sweet body while he serenely slumbers. Yes, THAT is a choice. But it's just an example, I swear! *hides Roofies*

But let me ask you something... I'm assuming the two of you (Weltall, Dark Jaguar) are straight. You're sexually aroused by women. You fantasize of luscious, soft breasts in nice, warm bubble bath. But have you ever had a homosexual fantasy?

The ability to go out and have sex with a member of the same gender is one thing, obviously a choice, but inherent sexual arousal OF members of the same gender is NOT a choice. Can you help but loving women? If you really tried, do you think you could live a homosexual lifestyle and be truly happy? If necessary, could you CHOOSE to uphold a sexual relationship with another man? If we lived in a gay society where women were forbidden from men, your sex life would be hard, very hard. Because repressing strong, sexual urges that are channeled from the unconscious isn't by any means easy. You may have the choice to not act them out, but you couldn't MAKE yourself be sexually aroused by a certain member of whatever gender/race/species. *hides cat*

All joking (shifty eyes) aside, do you see what I'm saying?

No, I don't agree. If our culture were one were homosexuality were openly encouraged from a very early age, or even forced, people would have little trouble having gay sex. There would be no choice involved. Of course, the reproductive aspect would not be there, so the human race would die after about a hundred years :D

But even your sexual urges are a result of your choice. You don't just one day become straight or gay. It's something that develops. Most people are heterosexual because most other people they are in contact with are. Those they are closest with at a young age are usually heterosexual, therefore, that's the choice they make, even if unconsciously. Those who experience the opposite are more likely to become gay.

Then again, urges alone do not determine whether you're gay or not, just like you're not a murderer even if you have the urge to kill someone. It's whether you ACT on those urges. And as I said earlier, your urges are a result of experience, not genetics. No baby is born gay.

Sacred Jellybean is absolutely correct. "Choice" has nothing to do with it... people don't just choose to be gay. If they did, I imagine a lot less people would be gay than are... but its not a choice. It just is that some people (the vast majority) are heterosexual, and a few are homosexual... its true with any species. Even ones that really aren't smart enough to make that kind of "choice". Your environment and upbringing aren't related in any way to why people are gay or not... its genentic. Does it go from parent to child? Obviously not... but it IS genetic. There is no other sane explanation. Bisexuality, of course, works the same way...

On a related issue.
Why do people like you call it "Special" rights? The term makes no sense... all that is wanted is to add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination laws that already protect people from being discriminated against because of age, gender, religion, and other reasons. It isn't fair that you can fire someone because of their sexual orientation... you can't for age, gender, or religion, so why for that? Its just wrong...

I 100% agree on the notion that employees shouldn't be fired based on sexual orientation. I don't think that it should be included in affimative action; the former, though, is just as wrong as firing someone based on race, gender, etc.

Quote:Most people are heterosexual because most other people they are in contact with are. Those they are closest with at a young age are usually heterosexual, therefore, that's the choice they make, even if unconsciously. Those who experience the opposite are more likely to become gay.

How do you know this for a fact? Unless you have some sort of odd scientific studies to back this up, this is just as unfounded as saying that homosexuality is the result of a chemical imbalance.

Quote:Then again, urges alone do not determine whether you're gay or not, just like you're not a murderer even if you have the urge to kill someone. It's whether you ACT on those urges. And as I said earlier, your urges are a result of experience, not genetics.

I'm no psychology expert, but I believe that what stimulates the libido is too instinctual to be chosen upon. Don't you think there would be a lot less homosexuals if every person could easily make themself be heterosexual and fit in with the rest of society? Sexual stimulation is just too big of a portion of the mind to be easily configured. A homosexual may put on a facade, may try as hard as possible to act straight and adopt that lifestyle and enjoy it, but his/her sexual urges will never be satisfied other than self-pleasuring. I don't think I could make the switch, even if I really tried. I'm not a homophobe, I don't repress homosexual thoughts, I'm not even grossed out by kissing a guy. It simply doesn't arouse me, nor could I try to make it so.

You made the analogy of satisfying sexual urges to that of violent urges. As I said, I'm no psychology expert, but introspection tells me that sex is MUCH more important to act out than violence. In an intrapersonal perspective, that is; this has nothing to do with passing on one's genes. If I had to work for the ability to masturbate or stab some random person in the eye for personal pleasure, you can bet your ass I'd pick the former. :p

What specific gay rights are we talking about, by the way? Marriage? Abolition of laws against sodomy/homosexual demeanor and activity(sadly, they do exist)? I believe in these and am disappointed that only 2 states of the union support gay marriages. I don't see any legitimate reason why same-sex marriages should be restricted...

I thought it was only Vermont, and technically they aren't marriages -- they are called "civil unions"... but mean the same thing legally. And yes, more states should do that... along with getting rid of antisodomy/homosexual behavior laws in states that have them (there are only state laws about that, not federal... and I think most of them are in the South).

Ss for how people are homosexual... I completely agree with Sacred Jellybean here. I just don't see how environment has an impact... you either are or you aren't, unless you are bisexual... its genetics -- you have no say in the matter. If people could choose, the number of gay people (and who was) would be very different from how it is... Also, I'm sure that there are a LOT of people out there who are gay but hide it or deny it... because they "can't" be homosexual... but in truth they have no control over it.

I don't think anyone could say what arouses someone is by some instant choice; like if I suddenly decided geese were sexy. That's not how it works, I agree. But now we're talking nature versus nurture. Some of you are saying NATURE, that we're all wired with our sexuality.

But I disagree. Like Weltall was saying (and you all seemed to ignore) is that sexuality ISN'T a one-time decision, but that it's a gradual thing. Children aren't sexual beings for about eight years or so, but during that time they see a lot of things and make a lot of observations, whether they know it or not.

Psychology leans more that way, what with unconsious learning and everything. The mind wires itself constantly, even if the wiring slows down after childhood. Somebody else will make the point I'm trying to, so I'll just stop. Bye.

I agree with both Falcon and Flecky on the matter... if I were to give my opinion on how I think homosexuality comes to be in a person, I'd actually lean towards "nuture" during the first 8 or so years of a human's life. It's true that it's when the most development of the mind occurs. However, I think that after a certain point, perhaps adolescence, it's impossible to convert sexuality by force. I think its impractical to concern sexuality as something that can be controlled when considering gay rights.

Falcon: Yeah, you're correct about the civil unions in Vermont. I've also heard from more than one source that same sex marriages are allowed in Hawaii (perhaps they're also deemed "civil unions"). And yes, most anti-homosexual laws are present in the south.

When I say it's a choice, I don't mean you wake up one day and you decide you're gay... though that is very possible, I'm sure it's rare in the extreme. But it is a choice you make. You are NOT born gay. You are born ambiguous. It is your life experiences as a child and a teenager that lead you to your choice. There is no evidence of homosexuality being genetic that I've ever seen, and while you're telling me to prove common sense, you continue to make that claim and show no proof whatsoever. You are no more born gay than you are born a Pepsi drinker or a Dallas Cowboys fan or a smoker or a Christian. Those decisions, not as profound as sexuality but similar in basics, are decisions a person makes in life. Rarely are they sudden, but they are decisions. No one is born with genes telling them what to drink, what team to like, whether to smoke or what religion to follow. Those are not genetic. And there are no genes that tell you what gender you want to screw. Sure, sexual urges are natural, and instintive. But, all they are for YEARS are raw sexual urges with no focus. You are born wanting to have sex, but not knowing what to have sex with. THAT is what you choose. It's like fear. Fear is definitely a human instinct, but while you have fear as an instinct, you aren't born knowing what to be afraid of. Your fears in life are learned, and then you eventually decide what to be afraid of and what not to be afraid of (and often times as you grow out of childhood, you decide some things that scare you don't scare you anymore). Humans are born with instinct and it's life experience that shapes these instincts into more complex forms, it's what changes instinctive fear into perhaps fear of the dark. And it's what changes instinctive sexual urges into homosexual urges.

Again, this is not only psychology in it's most basic form, it's common sense. You can cry genetics, but I'm of the school of people taking responsibility for the actions they choose.

Now, as for special rights? No, I don't think sexual preference should be protected against job applications. For one thing, it should NEVER BE AN ISSUE. And usually, when you apply for a job, the interviewer does not know you, and therefore, unless you go to great lengths to make it apparent, does not know if you're gay or not. I also do not think religion should ever be an issue on the same level (and it rarely is), but while the first amendment states that one cannot persecute another for his religious beliefs, it states no protection for sexual preference. Of course, if a gay man is smart, he won't make an issue of being gay at work, for not only does your sex life have no business at work no matter what you are, if you make an issue of being gay, you basically deserve what you get. Employers do not ask your sexual preference on a job application, so the only way they can know it is if you freely tell them. So no, sexual preference should not be a protection against losing a job... because then whenever a gay man or woman gets fired, all they have to do is claim they're being discriminated against, and bam, employers are hit with thousands of discrimination suits. You should not receive special protection because of a choice you make.

Weltall, you make perfect sense except for one thing.

If something is sub-conscious, then it's hardly your "choice".

If one is making a choice, it is of their own free will. If all these homosexuals are "choosing" to be gay, then why are so many scared of who they are, and who they have become? Why do they not WANT to be gay?

It's not a choice they made, it's what they have been conditioned to do by their environment. Something they had no control over.

Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
Weltall, you make perfect sense except for one thing.

If something is sub-conscious, then it's hardly your "choice".

If one is making a choice, it is of their own free will. If all these homosexuals are "choosing" to be gay, then why are so many scared of who they are, and who they have become? Why do they not WANT to be gay?

It's not a choice they made, it's what they have been conditioned to do by their environment. Something they had no control over.

The effects of your environment on you in most cases are changable. You can be brought up a Catholic and become a Protestant later in life.

Gays who are scared aren't scared of being gay, they're scared of people's reaction to them being gay. They would definitely be gay if that were not a factor.

Weltall... more bizarre "reasoning' from you. Given what you've said already in this thread, I expected it... and it makes no sense at all, like usual.

I'm not completely sure what makes you gay, but do know it has nothing at all to do with any kind of choice... I'm sure it is partly nature (there must be some gene for it, like most other things of that nature), but yes, nurture might have a role... but only in some people who are already affected towards it by nature. Which rules out most people.

I just can't even begin to understand why you think people choose to be gay. Most people who are, given the choice, probably wouldn't want to be... but their personal decisions have nothing at all to do with it. They can't control it any more than they can their gender, or make themselves younger because they wish they were. Comparing something like your sexual preference to being a sports fan or soda preference is insulting... those are clearly decisions. Sexuality just isn't... and I highly doubt you have any proof to show it is. There isn't any. You can repeat yourself again, but it won't make it any more sensible or less insulting...

Okay. So it should be perfectly fine to fire someone, refuse to hire someone, evict someone from their apartment, refuse someone service, or do any other kind of discrimination if they are gay. Because, by your logic in that paragraph, they should have been smart and stayed in the closet because who can help it if they come out and people are suddenly scared of them and want to get rid of them? Only stupid people actually tell others their preference because, as you say, you deserve it if you "decided" to be gay... after all, its evil and all. Discrimination sure isn't bad... its human nature, nothing we can do about that. By that logic, murder should be legal too... after all, you hate those people and want to get rid of them. Human nature... no problem, I guess.

Do you support those rights for age, race, religion, or gender in any way? If so, you are even more of a hypocrite than you already are...

No proof for the genetics argument?

Didn't think so.

I agree that Age, gender and race should have protections. They're not choices. Sexual preference and religion are choices. However, you should not disclose those to your employers. They cannot discriminate against you if they don't know what you are.

I've outlined, in detail, my position, and gave very sound psychogical explanations. All you've done to counter is say "You're wrong". Never detailing why. Using genetics but never offering even so much as conjecture as to why that could be. So please, provide proof of your own insane positions before you demand it of me.

That a person is sexual is not a choice. WHO they are sexual with is a choice. I hate repeating myself because you'll just say I'm wrong (most likely without proving it), and then we're at square one again. So keep being blind. That's a choice too, you know.

I'm just going to add my two cents here.

I know someone who is gay, but does not want to act upon these urges. All of his family and friends support him with whatever he wants to do, but he doesn't want to be attracted to the same sex so he is seeking help.

How to I feel about homosexuality? Let me just say this: all living creatures procreate for a reason: to reproduce. Homosexuality goes against the basic laws of nature. Of course there is the pleasure aspect of sex, but that's simply an inscinctive force to get all creatures to reproduce. That having been said, I have nothing against gays. I don't think any less of anyone if they're gay, and I happen to have some friends who are gay. I also think that it's wrong to have any prejudice towards gay people.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
[B]The effects of your environment on you in most cases are changable. You can be brought up a Catholic and become a Protestant later in life.

[quote]Gays who are scared aren't scared of being gay, they're scared of people's reaction to them being gay. They would definitely be gay if that were not a factor.

True, but quite irrelevant. If these people 'chose' to be gay, then they wouldn't be fighting against their innevitable lifestyle, no matter what the reason. I too know someone who is gay, but doesn't want to be. He can't understand how he turned out this way, and would like nothing more than to be 'normal'. It was NOT his choice. If he could choose one thing, it would be the other way around.

The choice was made, not by them, but by the environment they were in.

Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
True, but quite irrelevant. If these people 'chose' to be gay, then they wouldn't be fighting against their innevitable lifestyle, no matter what the reason. I too know someone who is gay, but doesn't want to be. He can't understand how he turned out this way, and would like nothing more than to be 'normal'. It was NOT his choice. If he could choose one thing, it would be the other way around.

The choice was made, not by them, but by the environment they were in.

Come on now, you expect me to believe there's some invisible and irresistable power that compels gay people to be gay against their will?

Any choice can be reversed. Some people lack the will, or desire, to do that. But it doesn't mean it can't be done. Your environment shapes you, definitely, but that doesn't mean you're tied to it indefinitely.

Quote:Come on now, you expect me to believe there's some invisible and irresistable power that compels gay people to be gay against their will?

Why would people fight it? Why not simply choose otherwise, instead of attempting to prove otherwise (to his/her self, and others). Why be angry at what they have become?

Sure, in some cases, it's merely a facade to continue their lifestyle under the guise of being 'normal', but to other people, it's a serious attempt at rebelling against what they have become, in an attempt to 'reverse' it. Or in some cases, a futile attempt to prevent it.

This is something that happens, in most cases, unbeknownst to the person, not necessarily "against their will" (as you phrased it). If something is sub-concious, then they have not made a decisive "choice" in the matter.

Quote:Any choice can be reversed. Some people lack the will, or desire, to do that. But it doesn't mean it can't be done. Your environment shapes you, definitely, but that doesn't mean you're tied to it indefinitely.

Indeed.

Oooh, goody! We can debate subconsious now! First off, why doesn't anyone remember the superconscious any more?

A few Canadian provinces also have civil unions for gays. The federal government has also said that a common law marrige can be between two men, two women or a man and a woman.
The Federal government controls marrige laws but the Ontario Supreme Court ruled that not allowing homosexual marriges is unconstitutional. Therefore the federal government has a year to change federal marrige laws by either making it so that churches control marrige and the government only does civil unions or they can allow gay marriges. If they choose not to do anything then federal marrige laws will no longer apply in Ontario and that would affect over a quarter of the Canadian population. They probably wouldn't leave marriges to just the church though because then the marrige laws would most likely be ruled unconstitutional again. Some of the churches have already said they would support gay marriges anyways though.

What...have I created?