4th April 2003, 6:48 AM
Weltall, I believe you made a statement like, "Well, because you can't convince me, I win."
To be honest, nothing you have said has convinced the opposition, so does that mean that they win as well? I see this more as a stalemate than anything.
I have come to a state where I believe I am a tolerant person. But as a person that champions tolerance, I must be tolerant of people that disagree with me. I must be willing to accept that some people are not tolerant of my opinion, even if I am tolerant of their opinion. However, I know that the discussion is going nowhere if the person believes that my opinion is inherently inferior.
I wonder how much of a choice sexual orientation really is. If it is purely a choice, did everyone here make the choice to be heterosexual? Did Weltall say to himself, "Here are the pros and cons of the situaton: if I'm gay, I'll live a life that will be shunned by society. If I'm straight, I'll better society and bring about more human beings. I've made the decision. I will be attracted to females."
I think we can all agree that the decision, if one exists, is not at this level of cognition. The process to choose sexual orientation is more subconscious than, for example, the choice of ice cream flavor.
However, for reasons brought up before, it is quite clear that sexual orientation is not at the opposite end of the spectrum. Experience in life plays a role in the decision process. Sexual orientation is not at the level of cognition as skin color (that is to say 0 cognition).
So we are left with the conclusion that this decision is somewhere between 0% and 100% on the cognition scale, where 0 is completely genetic, and 100% is conscious on the level of daily decisions (ice cream flavor, what to eat, business decisions, etc.).
Personally, I find the whole discussion of control in decisions moot. The government has decided that descrimination in public institutions may not occur based upon things that people have absolutely no control over, including skin color and gender (although this type of descrimination undoubtedly continues to occur in the workplace). However, the government has also decided to ban descrimination in public institutions based upon things that people have a lot of control over, such as religion. But what is the common thread in all of these things? They are decisions, genetic, subsconsious, or conscious, that affect only (and I say "only" with caution) the individual under consideration. The private actions of a consentual adult homosexual couple do not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else, just as a person choosing to become a bhuddist does not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else. Simulataneously, this protects the right of a person to believe that homosexuals are inferior. However, if this belief inspires the person to shoot a homosexual person, the right of the victim to live is held higher than the right of the person to shoot a gun.
To be honest, nothing you have said has convinced the opposition, so does that mean that they win as well? I see this more as a stalemate than anything.
I have come to a state where I believe I am a tolerant person. But as a person that champions tolerance, I must be tolerant of people that disagree with me. I must be willing to accept that some people are not tolerant of my opinion, even if I am tolerant of their opinion. However, I know that the discussion is going nowhere if the person believes that my opinion is inherently inferior.
I wonder how much of a choice sexual orientation really is. If it is purely a choice, did everyone here make the choice to be heterosexual? Did Weltall say to himself, "Here are the pros and cons of the situaton: if I'm gay, I'll live a life that will be shunned by society. If I'm straight, I'll better society and bring about more human beings. I've made the decision. I will be attracted to females."
I think we can all agree that the decision, if one exists, is not at this level of cognition. The process to choose sexual orientation is more subconscious than, for example, the choice of ice cream flavor.
However, for reasons brought up before, it is quite clear that sexual orientation is not at the opposite end of the spectrum. Experience in life plays a role in the decision process. Sexual orientation is not at the level of cognition as skin color (that is to say 0 cognition).
So we are left with the conclusion that this decision is somewhere between 0% and 100% on the cognition scale, where 0 is completely genetic, and 100% is conscious on the level of daily decisions (ice cream flavor, what to eat, business decisions, etc.).
Personally, I find the whole discussion of control in decisions moot. The government has decided that descrimination in public institutions may not occur based upon things that people have absolutely no control over, including skin color and gender (although this type of descrimination undoubtedly continues to occur in the workplace). However, the government has also decided to ban descrimination in public institutions based upon things that people have a lot of control over, such as religion. But what is the common thread in all of these things? They are decisions, genetic, subsconsious, or conscious, that affect only (and I say "only" with caution) the individual under consideration. The private actions of a consentual adult homosexual couple do not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else, just as a person choosing to become a bhuddist does not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else. Simulataneously, this protects the right of a person to believe that homosexuals are inferior. However, if this belief inspires the person to shoot a homosexual person, the right of the victim to live is held higher than the right of the person to shoot a gun.