I'm guessing Maph would say that she should have been allowed to stay.
Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago to Culture
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Can you point to the "gene pair" that is identified with homosexuality? If so can you now advise us why the pair crops up and has not been weeded out of the genome as genetics demands a non productive mutant strain must be? There are records of homosexual acts going back as far as written history, yet if it's truly genetic in nature and not simply a case of animalistic lust or desire as I contend, why hasn't the evolutionary process produce ONE case of a homosexual union producing offspring - even a failed reproductive function?
Because maph it cannot. No matter how many hundreds of links to homosexual propaganda websites you produce the one bit of incontrovertible proof you cannot produce is a living child.
Therefore the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn is that homosexuality is at most the ardent affection and/or sexual union between members of the same sex. It is simply lust and desire, not biology. Not genetics. Lust and desire for members of the same sex.
sorry.
International Business Times - Does A ‘Gay Gene’ Exist? New Study Says ‘Xq28’ May Influence Male Sexual Orientation:
http://www.ibtimes.com/does-gay-gene-exi...
According to this article, homosexuality in men is partially caused by a particular gene in a specific region of the X chromosome known as Xq28, inherited from the mother. So yeah, your arguments against a genetic cause are not looking very substantial...
Also, I would argue that animalistic lust and desire have their roots in biology as well. Breeding is a basic animal instinct, and instincts come from biology.
If they could not reproduce with members of the opposite sex, then you might make a point that there was a shift being made in the genome to the end that a homosexual union would produce offspring. But that's not the case. There are just two sexes, male and female.
That leaves a medical cause - which both you and I reject, OR the conclusion I have came to - lust, desire, however you want to label it today, it's still a lifestyle, a choice, not as you are maintaining, a "immutable biological fact" - it's not.
A business owner forced to provide a service to a customer that violates the business owners religious stand is a violation of the business owners civil rights. There is no obligation to enslave a business owner in order that the customer not be inconvenienced or embarrassed.
And could you please clarify what you mean by "medical cause"?
There's also theories about epigenetics, which you can read about here:
Business Insider - NEW THEORY: The Gay Trait Is Passed Down From Parent To Child:
http://www.businessinsider.com/evolution...
There are other places in the world where the sexes share bathrooms.
Why should some immutable characteristics be OK to discriminate over and others not? You are inconsistent and illogical. It seems that anything that you deem "acceptable" or "immutable" is required to be allowed - at the point of a gun no less. That, as others have said, is tantamount to slavery, and you are the whipmaster.
Failing that test as a pass - the only biology test that evolution recognizes - it's not biology, it's desire and lust.
So - Prove it.
So now we have people who claim that they are men in a womans body who lust after another woman. And you want us to accept that as being "how they were born". You also deny that the is a homosexual gene, only because if there was one a treatment might be found. You say it's not a medical condition that could be cured. I think I've fairly represented your viewpoint.
Prepare to be shocked my friend - I agree with everything I asked you to confirm. I do not believe that there's a homosexual gene, because there would be some mutation form of a birth possible if there was, and there can never be a birth that arose from a homosexual paring.
I do not believe it is the result of a medical condition that can be treated and cured with medicine because there are no clinical aberrations found in people claiming to be homosexuals.
I also do not believe that homosexuality is the result of evolution. In part because there have been people around who engaged in homosexual sex acts for millennia and they still cannot reproduce themselves. HOWEVER when they engage in a sexual act with a member of the opposite sex they have been found to be able to give birth and to cause a full term pregnancy. Ask a genetics professor if a member of a mutant strain of one animal can cause a pregnancy in a member of a divergent strain? I'll tell what he will tell you - no, that's not possible. Man is said to have evolved from monkey's, can they breed together? Dogs are domesticated wolves, but while some may claim to have successfully crossbred them, the genetic markers are all wolf. Coyotes are another animal from that same branch the has separated itself far enough to now have lost the ability to crossbreed successfully with a dog. They are seen as a distinct animal from the common dog or wolf.
How about fish? Can you breed a tuna egg with a catfish sperm and get another creature that's not either tuna or catfish? Nope.
How about a horse and the zebra? Again the answer is no. I don't even know that they would try to mate, but another African animal, the Arabian horse and the American quarter horse? Yes they can and the result is a butt ugly horse that can run forever and can corner pretty good - but it's not half the horse it's linage predicted it might be.
So now back to our couple, the same sex couple of humans. It's not evolution, because if it was it's been around long enough that the individuals involved would not be able to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex - barring individual medical problems, this is not the problem, they ARE fertile. It's not biology because if it were a medical condition those involved would be looking for the magic cure, but you assure me there is none.
What are we left with? How about it is the oldest of reproductive drives - lust. It's the same drive that made most high school Senior boys chase after the home coming queen - lust, desire, passion, whatever you want to label it as, EXCEPT you are telling me that those engaging in it want to do it so much that it's the same issue as a black man being black, the same as a Japanese person in a all white community? NO! All those have been given protected status because they were born with this attribute in their physical being.
You say that homosexuals are born that way. In order to meet that test, they must be able to reproduce themselves AND to produce another homosexual. A black person mating with a black person gets a black person. A Mexican mating with a Mexican will give birth to a Mexican child.
Now prove you can rise to the test, otherwise you are just being a thug and a bully ordering a business owner be be your slave when he does not want to serve you based no your lust and desire.
But regardless, you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand how genetics, biology, and evolution work. Roughly 95% of men are sexually attracted to women, and 95% of women are sexually attracted to men. That indicates that sexual orientation is absolutely controlled by biology, otherwise you would never get so clean a division. And if it's controlled by biology, then it must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology. Your claim that it would have to provide a course for same-sex reproduction is a baseless assumption. That's not how genetics or evolution work. Genetic mutation is purely random. It does not have to structure itself in a way that is always perfectly consistent, or that always allows for reproduction, and there is no logical reason to assume that it would need to work like that. Many people are absolutely born with genetic conditions that prevent them from reproducing. By your logic, it would be impossible for anyone to be born with such a condition, but we know that isn't the case. Genetic mutation does NOT require that every single individual organism be born with the ability to reproduce, and your insistence that it does reveals your ignorance. Also, you're ignoring the possibility that people can be carries of a recessive gene, but have a dominate gene which overrides it.
And actually yes, there HAVE been differences scientifically observed in people born with same-sex attractions and gender identity issues. The fact that you haven't researched the topic and aren't aware of those differences doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply means you're not educated on the issue. If you want to approach this topic from an informed and knowledgeable position, then here's a video from Stanford University that talks about human sexual behavior, including homosexuality and transsexuality.
Stanford University - Human Sexual Behavior I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_j...
Homosexuality discussed from 1:13:27 to 1:23:50.
Transsexuality discussed from 1:23:55 to 1:29:45.
You are either, completely schizophrenic or as I've said all along a bored teenager trolling among adults. In either case, I've proved you wrong in whichever mind you are using and now that you've blocked yourself into a very tight corner and been proved to be wrong, I'm out. Go play with somebody else.
Oh, and no, commercial property is very different from residential property. One is your personal space, and the other is open to the public, so naturally the regulations for each are going to be different from each other.
---
I assume you meant to say, "Many things that used to be settled in court are now controlled by regulations."
But regardless, whether they dress themselves or have someone else dress them, they can still wear clothing. That guy Nick Vujicic certainly doesn't go around naked everywhere, does he?
At least that's how it works in a case I'm party to at the moment.
And I don't think having the losing side of a court battle always pay the legal costs would necessarily be a good idea. There is already a legal procedure through which that can be done, but it has to be specifically applied for, and the judge has to approve it. Making it happen automatically in every case would cause very big problems.
I own myself. I own the fruits of my mind and my labor. I am free to exchange or not to exchange with whomever I please. Since any business that I own (my property) is the fruit of my labor, and since I can exchange with whomever I please, or choose not to exchange with whomever I please, ipso facto, I have the right to refuse anyone service/goods in my place of business (except for certain protected classes of persons whom some unelected panel of judges has dictated that I must).
Maph, if you had a printing company that specialized in printing atheistic magazines and pamphlets and I rolled in and asked you to print Christian pamphlets and bibles AND demanded that every word be cross checked with a text I gave you (King James Bible) are you saying you'd just go fire up the presses?
And I would have no problem whatsoever with printing religious material, if that's what a customer wanted. :P
Now tell me how you respond. Remember, you are a public business and must accept any customer - right?
If a custom auto shop specializes in making a certain kind of car, it's understandable that they probably wouldn't be the best place to go if you wanted something else.
To go with your example, all I'm saying is that an auto shop like the one you described would not be able to turn away black people who wanted red hot rods. Business can control what they make, but not who buys it.
Also, a government must use force on occasion, otherwise it wouldn't be able to preform its essential functions. A different definition of tyranny is needed.
I know I'm not going to get what I'm asking for, but I can still ask.
Ordering a business owner to violate his religious tenants by providing a creative service is ok, but telling your buddies to hit the road and find somebody who would enjoy doing a service for them would be bad??
Sorry, creative services demand a certain clear mindset and starting with the notion that I'm your slave and must do this job for you is NOT conducive to doing this serfs best efforts.
Why can't you understand that your rights get checked at my businesses front door? I was not in business to bring joy to your life. Only a petty tyrant would think that a businessman works for them, that he is there waiting to serve them. What spoiled children we have raised in this generation.
Anybody still not understand why I closed my business and went on strike?
And I'm just wondering why stargeezer did what he did. I'm always interested in alternative ways of earning money, and I simply asked out of curiosity. That's all.