Random Politics & Religion #06

Nope.

Couldn't even include "you" in your retort?

Nope, as in, I'm not going to attempt to have a heated discussion with someone who makes ***up and projects them onto other people.

The same someone defending the *** out of homophobes. The same person who equates a strong dislike for homophobes to literally wishing gays were forced to be straight or dead.

So, nope.

I'm not projecting anything. So, what in your mind am I projecting?

Nope, not me.

I'm attacking the event. You are attacking a group of people for their viewpoints. Kindof like how that killer did. Except you haven't (yet) gone so far as to murder somebody that we know of.

You are attacking a group of people you disagree with. Plain and simple. And anybody who points that out is either "projecting" or "making ***up" in your mind. Wake up to reality man. You are just as bad as the murder in your blind hatred....

Now I know you aren't talking about me now.

Who's projecting what now?

Actually, I'm surprised I still have posting ability.

Usually I would be banned for having an opinion about now. I guess everyone else's report features are broken too.

I certainly know a certain somebody is spamming the hell out of his report button at the moment....

Don't do that. First off, it's not true, and secondly, meta-commentary like that is just passive-aggressive nonsense. You both probably need to take a step back, though, as it's crossing the line from "heated, but still kind of civil" into something more.

Well, yes. That goes without saying. The prevalence of any one weapon will likely result in that weapon being used the most. Restrict that weapon, though, and people will use something else. What gets me is how people still bring up the gun violence rate and compare it to countries without guns as if that says anything useful at all. The key metric is murder rate, and you have to break it down by how many murders would or would not have occurred if stricter gun laws were in place.

When it comes to these crazy mass-shootings, I always think about whether or not the shooter would have been deterred by such laws. The answer (as far as I can tell) is often "no". In this particular case, you had a man that wanted to kill a bunch of people in a crowded space that likely knew that he wouldn't survive. The only other alternative I can think of to guns is explosives, which would have turned out worse for everybody.

I honestly don't have a big problem with people talking gun control, but using mass shootings as the soapbox seems like the stupidest time to do it, because although it's the easiest time to point a finger and say "Derp a der guns bad!", they're also some of the least likely shootings to have been prevented by gun laws.

You are right, sorry.

I'm still a little teeved from something else though. Probably what brought out my comments from earlier >.>

I wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks, I promise you that.

And if it did, I would have just reported it and not responded to it.

Possibly, but then we would be left with a more "efficient" way of killing that, like you said, would have left everyone in a worse situation.

Many whateverphobic phobic people consider those who they fear as less than human. And therefore expendable.

And being gay isn't a choice. Pulling a triger is a choice though.

How is this still a thing...

That's not necessarily true. Several genes have been identified as markers for orientation, but environmental things like hormones in the womb have also been linked. It's still not understood fully, but it is most definitely not a choice.

They're all just correlations at this point. Actually figuring out and proving a causal relationship doesn't have much backing partly because of ideological reasons and partly because it's not really important. Homosexually occurs in many species, it's obviously not unnatural or detrimental, so who really cares why?

Sounds gay

Yeah, the science certainly isn't settled on the "born that way" part either, but it seems clear that it isn't a conscience choice for the majority. The more you look into it, the more fluid the understanding of sexual preference is. It sucks that the whole thing has become so politicized that people feel the need to deal in absolutes on the issue, but as you said, "who really cares why?"

been a lot of shootings over the past couple of years

Still not the time to talk gun control.

I hope you'very heard back from everyone you know.

If you haven'the they'very started to release the names if you need to check.
http://www.cityoforlando.net/blog/victims/

The debate on Homosexuality being genetic is the same as the debate on Autism and Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in that there is no consensus on causes. Dealing with absolutes and saying that there is a, erm... 'gay gene', is flawed. While I suspect that sexual inclination is affected by genetics it is certainly not the entire package and I believe that environmental factors/personal experiences are what serve as catalysts to activate said genes.

I am a high-functioning autistic who struggled through childhood, adolescence and continue to struggle with aspects of it - namely sensory overload, speaking problems and social 'twitches'. These made face-to-face communication where I could not control the flow of a social event problematic and still makes group speaking (in person) nearly impossible. It was made worse or rather compounded through my experiences and varied/changing environments. I suspect that homosexuality operates in a similar manner in that genetics lay the potential for a person but it takes environmental or personal experiences to complete the process. It would not surprise me in the slightest if future, more comprehensive, studies proved that ASD and LGBT lifestyles are connected.

In order to be LGBT one must look at the same sex in a perticular manner. I dont understand how anyone can claim that they were or others are born gay. Children are not born leaning towards any sexual disposition whatsoever. They are not born "straight" nor LGBT but rather oblivious and unaware of such realities to begin with. I dont see such as the truth regardless of what research claims is or is not fact. If you choose not to look at the same sex in a sexual manner are you still gay? Of course not. Being gay is all in the mind. It's where it all begins.

So, you're saying that a straight person could just choose to be gay? You acknowledge that scientific studies overwhelmingly show that orientation is hardwired, why do you think your anecdotal personal observations counter that at all? Tons of things are determined before they manifest. Is baldness a choice because children have hair?

If they choose to fantasize over someone of the same sex. I dont see why not. I dont buy into any of that. I alrdy said that. So only Doctors can have opinions. Which they themselves constantly change routinely. That is hereditary. So doctors are claiming homosexuality as hereditary then?

They change opinion based on new research and evidence, not on a whim.


At least partly, yes.


The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it.

It's impossible for there to be a "homosexual gene" as such a gene wouldn't survive more then a generation in he long chain of mutations that is our genetic history. The liberals really try to twist ***around to defense this but hard coded same-sex-non-reproductive genetics simply aren't possible. Different-sex-reproductive genetics are 100% hard coded into genetic material, it's how we went from lizards to apes and then to humans. With that in mind, every human is born "heterosexual" by default and then a combination of inherited behavioral frameworks and life experiences triggers the preference switch.

The whole "I was born this way" *** excuse was made as a passive defense mechanism to deflect social blame. It's a way of shifting "blame" for someone's sexuality away from themselves, which is humiliating. Homosexual people should just stand up and declare how proud they are for their choices. There is nothing more empowering then making an active decision in one's own life.

"I can't help being homosexual I was born this way" is just another way of saying is wrong with being homosexual and that the person isn't responsible for it.

"I chose to be homosexual because it's amazing and I enjoy it greatly" is saying that not only is there nothing wrong but that being homosexual is great and the person is responsible for that their involvement in that greatness.

What the ***...

No they don't, not even close. The exact opposite was shown in children as young as a few days after birth. Though it's admitted that at that age it's really difficult to determine preferences by facial expressions and where their eyes look the most.

How do you "Scientificlly" explain Bisexuals then? Sometimes gay. Sometimes straight. Whichever way the wind blows for them. Whatever they personally choose to be as of at that moment in time.