This is sooo gay

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Um, no. That is because they are richer, they should be giving a bigger part of their income back... it has nothing to do with disliking anyone... its about how people should all give what they can afford to reasonably give -- and for rich people that percent is a lot higher than for poor...

So what you're telling me is that it's okay to tell a person "You've worked hard to become wealthy, you possess a work ethic, a drive, and intelligence that normal people don't have, thus, your income is higher then most. Because you make more money than they do, we're going to take more from you than we do from them. That's the reward for hard work and perserverence."

Taxing the wealthy isn't done to help the poor, it's the liberal minority trying to undermine the capitalist system and replace it with a stagnant failure known as socialism.

Just because both parents are something it does NOT gaurantee that the child is.

Especially in this case where, if you have forgotten, those aren't the two people who the genetic material came from!

Many gay parents who have children use their own reproductive systems in the process, either as a sperm donor to a surrogate mother, or as the recipient of donated sperm.

Only someone like you would say something so silly... only you see it as a problem because only to your eyes is any decay happening, and not to the eyes of anyone else! Those things you mention all together... um, liberals don't support all of those in some blanket thing as I'm sure you know... I mean, abortion, homosexuality... those are problems which are only issues because of intractable people like you who will never see the right of the arguments... as for the rest? Real social problems... which neither side is able to solve (except for the racism thing... which in many cases is supported by conservatives who sure don't hide their racism too well (see: Trent Lott and all those like him)...)...

Liberals have had the worse track record for racism by far in recent times, foremost in their support for Affirmative Action, which is inherently and unashamedly racist. Then there's WVA senator Robert Byrd, a card-carrying KKK member, Jim Moran, the Virginia representative who recently was disgraced after blaming the Iraq war on Jews, and the possible presidential nomination of Al Sharpton, one of the most vicious racists alive.

And I know that liberals don't see things like the destruction of the family and the murder of children as bad, but those of us with morals do.

Can't help but wonder if your liberalism is genetic?

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 know very well this isn't a debate you can 'win', but ABF made specific claims, and if he can't prove them, if the proof he states exists really does not, then he really proves he has no business participating in the discussion. It's one thing to tell me that homosexuality is genetic, it's another entirely different thing to prove it. He's said it ad nauseum, but he's yet to offer a shred of proof.

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.

Definitely, yes. There are many choices one does not consciously make, and I believe sexual orientation is one of them. But that it is a choice is painfully clear to me. It's definitely not something you just decide one day, but it's something you consider often before you're in a position to act on it. If it were not a choice, bisexuality could not exist, as genetics are pretty rigid: If you were born gay, you could never show an interest in women at all. Yet some people do show interest in both. If it truly were genetic, you would think the ties to same sex would be too strong to break, as many genetic traits are hard, if not impossible to negate by will alone. I think that some people who might be gay choose not to because of the repercussions that come with that decision, but I never once heard of a person who was so gay to the core of their being that they failed to stop it despite trying.

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.).

I could believe that, but it's definitely slanted more to choice. I just believe that most people who are gay give it serious consideration, some decide to go ahead and some do not. If it were more genetic than not, the simple fact is that more people would be gay, because there would be no stopping it. Some people do, and that is nearly impossible if the condition is inflicted by a person's genes.

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.

Again, I agree. And I'm not against people wanting to be gay, because as I stated earlier, what goes on in a person's bedroom is their business and no one elses. The problem I have is the possibility that the lifestyle becomes popularlized and common, because the fact that the gay lifestyle has special consequences cannot be denied, and there is my personal revusion of it. Then there are the people lobbying for gay people to get special rights, and I don't believe a choice warrants a special bonus. Gay people are still people as much as anyone, I'm the last one to say otherwise, but what it comes down to is that publicizing your sex life, gay or straight, usually leads to bad things and is a stupid thing to do. And I do not believe people have the right to be protected from their own stupidity.