- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You know what, I've humoured you this far, but I'm sick of it and I don't give a flying **** what you think of my opinion and I'm not going to spend another moment of my day amending and correcting your bastardization of what I post. Read my posts, agree or disagree, or ignore them - I don't care.
Have a good day.
It has nothing to do with my agreeing with either. Marriage between 2 same sex people is wrong? That's opinion. And yes, I objected to his opinion.
Gay being a choice: not an opinion so believing it is either willful or unintentional (based on religious belief...fine, same difference)...ignorance.
Ha ha ha...I was going to use an example like: if his opinion is that the sky is purple and not blue....is he wrong or that's 'just his opinion.'
And then I remembered that stupid thing going around about the dress! LOL
I personally don't think he should be running for office at all. I've been saying for the last year that he's not a politician. I don't think he has what it takes to lie, cheat, pontificate, etc. But I'm not sure how much less offensive to people he's going to be on this issue anyway. He doesn't approve of gay people, and I don't see that ever changing. There's not really a way he can sugar coat that to make it appealing to many.
Hope all is well with you Shoelady!
So everyone is mad because he said that gay sex in prison if proof that being gay is a choice. .
No, not reaching for anything.
Did you decide to be straight?
Some people see the sky as purple. I don't even know what "blue" is except what I think it is. For all I know I see it differently.
My point is Carson has an opinion that is probably the result of his religious beliefs. Obama also invoked God at different times when he said that about marriage. Carson's opinion that being gay is a choice is no more harmful than the POTUS candidate displaying and articulating a clear opposition to SSM, which is what Obama did. Yet I believe a lot of people still voted for him in spite of that.
OMG are you talking about the "is it blue and black or white and gold" thing with the dress? I'll bet that was emailed to me at least 20 times by different friends and shared on my FB page 220 times. I was ready to find that dress and kill it with a pair of scissors. Argh!
Yours is a junior high debate tactic. Does not work here. Welcome to the Big Leagues.
This is not about me, but about a scientific study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins related to homosexuality being a choice or not.
It's a choice.
McCain didn't move into the White House in 2009, so Palin didn't help him win.
I believe that we heard this same story back when Sarah Palin was helping McCain lose in 2008. :roll:
I'm the one with a background in biology....you obviously are not. You couldnt even interpret the study properly.
And you cant even answer a very basic question: did you choose to be straight?
Your education was a wasted one then, as you're blinded by ideology... and ignore science.
Misinformed, a very short memory at best, and downright deceitful at worst. (Your lean is laughable btw)
Here, let me help you recall what YOU wrote.
What ideology?
And you still didnt answer: did you choose to be gay?
Why no answer?
I'm the one with a background in biology....you obviously are not. You couldnt even interpret the study properly.
And you cant even answer a very basic question: did you choose to be straight?
What is more astounding is that this did not come from the average ignorant politician, but from a physician turning politician.
I know what I wrote and I also know that McCain lost, he didn't win. So how did Palin help him ? :roll:
It's obvious... you ignore science in an attempt to fulfill your idea(ology) of the world.
I told you some points ago, those junior high tactics have no place here. It's not about me and my choices.
A study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins reveals truths about choice.
Your ideology doesn't allow you to accept it because it upsets your world view. That's a typical Lib trait, and a terrible one for anyone who has anything to do with science to embrace.
So, talking about me instead of the discussion....yeah, that's not an avoidance tactic. /sarcasm
Ok. Well, if you want to discuss like an adult, why not just answer my simple question: did you choose to be straight?
People, all people, sometimes stick their foot in their mouth or screw up saying what they are trying to say. The guy apologized.As far as I'm concerned, this non-issue is officially a non-issue.
So everyone is mad because he said that gay sex in prison if proof that being gay is a choice. Okay. Maybe I missed the scientific studies that were done on why people engage in homosexual sexual activities in prison that either back him up or prove him wrong. I missed them.
Barack Obama said marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's much better, because he never mentioned that he had proof of that.
Lesson to future politicians - never say "I have proof" or else the opposing party will be very upset. Say whatever you want about your opinion, though.
The American Psychological Association notes that while there is "there is no consensus among scientists" on how sexual orientation develops, few individuals experience a "sense of choice" on the matter.
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.
However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of one's own sex) and bisexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.
Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female)* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing.
Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.
APA Understanding Sexual Orientation
So, talking about me instead of the discussion....yeah, that's not an avoidance tactic. /sarcasm
Ok. Well, if you want to discuss like an adult, why not just answer my simple question: did you choose to be straight?
Are you offering this as a bit of trivia or as an excuse?Other doctors playing politicians have said plenty of things just as stupid.
Or he has bad advisers who didn't think through the issues that will come up right out of the gate.
The answer is that we are all predisposed to be straight. Evolution chose our sexuality, however, somewhere along the line our social evolution allowed us more liberties, where our sexual urges were not dealt with by our built-in self gratification mechanism, but instead consciously and consensually and in some cases without consent, on others. Masturbation is generally agreed upon by most biologists and anthropologists to be a vestige (Yes they actually use that word) of our ancestral lack of mates at any given moment throughout history. It was a way of us to cope with our needs and urges without upsetting the social hierarchy. It was an evolutionary advantages for us, and a necessary one. I think it still is, but I do understand how many might think of it as a vestige leftover in our DNA.
That said, it is typically not in dispute that we evolve socially much faster than we have biologically, and as a result for anyone that thinks about this in more objective scientific terms, it's not hard to make the logical connection why some might assume homosexuality is more a socially conscious choice than it is anything related to our biological and evolutionary disposition.
Tim-
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?