All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Ever try to get into an "exclusive" dance club. There are people kept waiting in a line, yet other "desirable" people walk right in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    And your rationale for deciding thusly?

    There are other places in the world where the sexes share bathrooms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If you can classify something so clearly obvious as needing "nuance" then you can claim anything must be treated thusly. That leads to utter arbitrariness. I don't want to live in that society.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Why?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If it cannot result in offspring, it is ipso facto a non-viable mutation. Only a mutation that enhances the ability of the species to propagate is viable and "natural." Others (those that truly are mutations) will soon die off as they cannot reproduce themselves, or if they can and are less survivable, will survive at a lower rate and eventually die off. That, my friend, is basic evolution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Where is the "social contract" of which you speak? I never signed it.

    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).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by livefreely 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If 5% of people are prone to any other behavior or response does that mean they are biologically prone? I don't think you gave any real scientific information. I can make a video. What difference does it make? If you like vinyl you like vinyl are you trying to justify your feelings on this subject because you have determined your self worth on what you heard from others? Don't do that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    and over in the other thread you say there is a gay gene.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a pipe dream. We were not talking about attraction. YOU bring genetics into the discussion and then dodge when it's pointed out the homosexual paring cannot be supported by genetics. So now you hold that the "attraction" is genetic based - which can't be scientifically quantified. Admit it, my conclusion is the only viable and provable conclusion. Lust and desire, a choice, a lifestyle. And no court except the most liberal would allow you to infringe on a business owner who disagrees with your lifestyle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    About the link you offered. It has not been peer reviewed. In fact NONE of the "studies" that have over the years claimed to have discovered a "gay gene" have never stood up to review. And I'm pretty certain a study produced by a homosexual group, using subjects selected from the immediate community, all subjects, "researchers" and most likely the secretary who typed it were "subjects" - it will never stand scrutiny.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Your argument is illogical. You're basically saying that if there is no possibility for gay and lesbian people to reproduce with each other, then it's impossible for same-sex attractions to be controlled by genetics. However, that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny. There is absolutely nothing in biology that would prevent an individual from being attracted to someone they are incapable of reproducing with. All that's happening really is that the genes which control sexual orientation sometimes get flipped. That's all. The fact that same-sex reproduction is impossible does not support the claim that inversion of a genetic trait is impossible, because it's not.

    And could you please clarify what you mean by "medical cause"?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly what I was saying. They cannot reproduce with themselves, but they can with members of the opposite sex. That IS exactly the case for there being no genetic base for homosexuality. None at all.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    No. I have sufficient resources for a comfortable living over a few lifetimes. Did you not understand why a businessman would go on strike? Perhaps a reread of AS is due.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Homosexuals are not infertile. Many gay and lesbian couples can and do have children. They may not be able to reproduce with each other, but that doesn't mean they can't reproduce. As for a specific gene pair, a quick google search turned up this article:

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Isn't curves for women being simplistic then? Or is it not nuanced enough to be all inclusive... it is in the public sphere and probably has that association clause. Sheesh talk about a tangle web of demands.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm just trying to deal with the complexities of reality instead of relying on overly-simplistic and arbitrary rules.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If you closed your business and went on strike, then you harmed nobody but yourself. Question: how do you make a living now that you closed your personal business? Did you become an employee at some large corporation?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Many things that used to settled in court are not controlled by regulations."
    ---
    I assume you meant to say, "Many things that used to be settled in court are now controlled by regulations."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    So force used against people you don't agree with is good, but force used against groups you do agree with is bad??

    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?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo