Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Relig

Please show us all the study where a incest gene was found. in all humans and animals and all chances of it being environmental eliminated.

And cannibalism and rape genes.

LOL Oh well I guess we will have to legalize incest rape and cannibalism so we don't discriminate against a genetic trait.

This is just too funny for words.

 

The NFL is now saying they don't discriminate on the basis of x, y, z or "any other improper standard."

Now that's progressive! Any other improper standard? By whose standards? By the PC standards, of course.

 

Well, according to him... we are born that way.




By the way... awesome bod, but my girl is hotter.

 

Talk to me when you have tax exempt status.

 

OK.

Yes, I think there are hundreds, though perhaps half a hundred important studies. Whether you wish consider their findings "speculation" seems contingent on whether you agree with them.

Uh, this is simply not so. There are correlations which show that homosexuality does tend to run in families. There are studies showing that families with more frequent homosexuality ALSO tend to have more offspring, when more distant relatives (second cousins) are included. In fact, since correlations are much easier to do than genetics, there are plenty of them showing indications of indirect heritability. Hence the focus on epigenetics.

Ah, determinate. I take it you find studies looking at environmental factors to be less speculative, since they seem to be looking where you prefer. Of course, even these studies are looking at prenatal environments - that is, womb conditions.

But a more recent study has found a correlation between their sample of homosexuals (about 400 individuals) and a specific DNA string on one chromosome. This is of course only suggestive of a genetic basis, but the same could be said of, say, nose shape. Probably hundreds of genes contribute, at some point in development, directly and indirectly, to nose shape. We KNOW that's genetic, but finding the gene(s) responsible is still WAY beyond current knowledge.

IF homosexuality meant sterility, and IF it were entirely genetic, and IF the genes contributing to homosexuality were not also required for something essential, this would be correct. But homosexuals are certainly not sterile, and so far the genetic contribution is indeed speculative and at best non dispositive, and since IF any genes are involved in any way, what ELSE those genes do can't be identified, we really can't make this overall claim.

I found this claim so preposterous I immediately suspected a religious source. And sure enough, the link goes straight to a religious site. In actual fact, SSA starts being apparent (to those who know what to look for) at around the age of 2.

But the "socially induced" thing is a howler. So we have all these children, growing up without the slightest awareness that sexual orientation even exists, and certainly carefully protected from ever seeing any. Sex is bad for the children, don't you know, we won't let them look at it or talk about it, it's taboo. And along comes puberty, and most of these children start taking an interest in the opposite sex, and SOME start taking an interest in their own sex. Nothing "socially induced" about ANY of these children. But of course certain religions have to preach that it's some kind of conscious choice, because if it's not, how can it be a sin?

Some of the most virulently anti-gay preachers turn out to be, uh, well, gay. Like Eddie Long, and Ted Haggard. And despite a lifetime of fighting it, they can't change because it isn't a choice and never was.

 

There is no cannibal and rape and incest gene. My god. How misinformed can a person possibly be? Learn to read what is said.

Animals do not recognize "personhood" in others, so they are unable to recognize any taboo around eating meat that is available or taking sex that they can. They don't know that what they are doing would be considered "wrong" or "taboo" by humans because they aren't conscious. That they might eat one of their own species, that they might have sex with one of their family members, that they might force another animal to have sex with them isn't because genes programmed them to commit cannibalism, incest or rape, it is because genes programmed them to eat and have sex.

Only humans recognize those things as taboo, and that is because they cause harm to other people, and we long ago realized just how badly the human body reacts to being raped, eating humans or procreating with family members. So we have constructed social stigma about partaking in these activities, and therefore most people don't do it.

Homosexual behaviour in mammals has been found even when other sources of procreation were available. In fact, it isn't uncommon for such animals to be completely bisexual, and have sex with either gender on a regular basis. Now you either have to argue that they are choosing to do this, or that such behaviour has a genetic basis.

Seriously... lol.

 

It's not the asking should the black florist be forced by law to participate in the celebration, we will agree to disagree but acknowledge your consistency.

I find it no stranger than a homosexual wanting someone who has a moral opposition to participate in their celebration.

And if you did so and they proved it, which they could be suing for your records you would be in violation just as surely as you declined their request in the first place and in fact I see no difference. So you would be OK if the florist or photographer in the AZ lawsuit simply tripled their rates for homosexuals?

 

All the time telling people they "make no sense"... and this is what you come up with.

Lolz...

 

You deleted 97% of my post. Which is awesome because I remember thinking "I'm not sure if I should split this up into paragraphs, because there is a good chance this guy will just pick one and respond to that, and the one he picks will most certainly not make sense unless read within the context of the rest of the post."

Lo and behold...

 

The cite the study that prove homosexuality IS genetic and which genes are the cause.

Not in a genetic trail and especially studies of twins who are separated or family members which are separated. See my previous cite. And correlation does not prove causation, keep that in mind.

Yes since the genetic cause speculation is being shown to be a fallacy the move towards trying to find a cause in the womb, anything to try and show it is "before birth".

Once again correlation does not prove causation.

No it mean there would not be enough procreation going on to sustain it. That they are not sterile only gives weight that it is not genetic that physically for the purpose of procreation gays must do so heterosexually.

Well then provide a study to refute it.

Not some kind just is a choice and a behavior which they find immoral and therefore would rather choose to participate in a celebration of it. Why would you force them to do so in violation of THEIR moral beliefs?

 

LOL I did. You need to read your own words:

Of course they are genetic. Animals usually are not conscious, they simply act out their biological programming

Exactly which face am I talking to? The one who claimed rape incest and cannibalism are genetic or the one who is denying it now?

That isn't genetic. Its reasoning. My God you need to read your own posts.

You are making my point for me. They are reacting to their environment. Period. Not genetics.

Once again an environmental argument not a genetic one. It is awfully nice of you to make my argument for me however

Of course that couldn't be more laughably wrong. We just went through things found in the animal world that are NOT genetic because they do not happen all the time nor more importantly can you point to ANY gene in any studty found 100% of the time where the environment is completely taken out as a factor that represents that aspect of their lives. How do you miss the obvious over and over again?

Let me ask you a simpler question. Why do homosexual bodies prepare for procreation when sexually stimulated as the rest of humanity when the only course of natural procreation is through heterosexual sex?

Go ahead, dance. lol

 

Once again, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. But here is a study which you may find interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fluenced-by-genes-us-study-finds-9127683.html

Yes, this is something to keep in mind. Studies have found lots of correlations, and correlations suggest further studies. It's fascinating to me that SOME correlations can be found to nearly any suggested underlying cause, but none of these correlations is high enough to be compelling. We're clearly dealing with something very complex.

Not really. There are strong indications that sexual orientation is not purely genetic, and also strong indications that genes play some role in the process in some way. No single explanation has been found to hold up.

This is a misunderstanding. These studies are trying to figure out as many contributing factors as can be supported by replicable evidence. This isn't religion, where one STARTS with the conclusion and tries to make the evidence fit, and naturally assumes any other evidence is equally result-oriented. So we find that identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share a homosexual orientation, fraternal twins more likely than non-twin siblings, and later children more likely to be homosexual than earlier children to the same mother. All of these correlations involve prenatal conditions in one way or another. Certainly the possibility shouldn't be rejected out of hand.

And once again, there is no proof in science. Correlations are suggestive. Where there IS causation, there will be correlation, but not necessarily the other way around. So it's foolish to dismiss all correlation before some considerable study to determine whether the correlation is coincidence.

But read some of the studies finding that more productive families (more children per set of parents, across a span of relatives) tend to have higher incidence of homosexuality. You seem to be assuming that the propensity for homosexuality, whateverr it might be, is possessed ONLY by the homosexuals themselves. But any knowledge of genetics shows this to be incorrect. For example red hair (or manic depression!) runs in families, but only a minority of individuals have the trait itself. EVERY member of the family carries the genes for these traits, but those genes are only rarely expressed.

So if there ARE genes that combine to increase the probability of homosexuality, this does not by any means indicate that ONLY homosexuals carry those genes. That's what those correlations are all about - trying to understand why homosexuality does not "breed out". It could be that those genes also contribute to high fertility when expressed somewhat differently. If that is so, then we have a tradeoff - higher fertility at the expense of occasional homosexuality within a family lineage. Please do not oversimplify the situation here, it's very complex.

You want a study proving a negative, that socialization is NOT a factor? Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. BUT once again, we're not dealing with anything simple here. Homosexuality itself does not appear to be a binary yes/no condition. There are bisexuals, and there are nominally heterosexual or nominally homosexual people whose "wiring" is such that they can enjoy an intimate relationship with someone who also qualifies as a very close and compatible friend. Nonetheless, the policy position that nobody is "really" homosexual, and are only tricked into thinking they are by evil people, doesn't seem to show up in any valid study. Science does not work by trying to rationalize policy positions.

??? I can't parse this sentence. Sexual orientation is not a choice. I suppose you could say that one could choose not to follow their orientation - most Catholic priests are both heterosexual AND celibate. But just speaking personally, I don't consider it valid morality to insist that others be prohibited from having or following an orientation different from your own. I can understand someone insisting that you ACCEPT what they are, but I would not condone someone demanding participation in any intimate way. And no, baking a cake or taking a photograph is not intimate participation.

 

I didn't claim that rape and incest and cannibalism is genetic, I claimed that such behaviours have a genetic basis (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, ALL GENES INTERACT WITH THE ENVIRONMENT) as is perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't insane. I claimed that eating and screwing are genetic. Genes don't recognize procreation as the goal; they recognize sex as the goal. Genes don't recognize cannibalism as a goal, they recognize food as the goal. Genes don't recognize rape as the goal, they recognize sex as the goal.

Let me ask you something: do you think animals make the choice to eat their own species? Or maybe they decide "Hey, you know what would be weird and kinky? If I banged my sister." Of course not. Animals are not conscious. They do not have morals or the ability to rationalize. They do not recognize personhood. Literally everything they do has a biological and genetic basis.

So when a person commits cannibalism and rape and incest, he does so because his genetic impulses have not been tempered by social stigma. He doesn't care if he is banging his sister, he cares about having sex. He doesn't recognize cannibalism as something that is "wrong," he recognizes human flesh as food.

When a gay man has sex with another man, his body isn't "prepping" for procreation, no more than an infertile person is "prepping" for procreation when they get aroused. They are prepping for sex, which is enjoyable in and of itself, and needn't result in children in order to be worthwhile or pursued. That is something you consistently ignore. There are plenty of people who are born infertile, and yet they have totally functional genitals and are driven for sex as much as anyone else. There are also people who are born totally asexual, even though they have all the requisite bits. So clearly genetics isn't as mindnumbingly simple (and stupid) as you seem to think it is.

 

The bolded part is the problem here.

 

You post says that your ignorance on this topic is compelling.

 

Yes, they are private businesses and can do whatever the ---- they want.

 

I'm not sure your point. My stance is that any owner should be able to refuse service to anyone they wish, for whatever reason they want. If the owner of a restaurant wants to be a racist swine, they should be allowed to do so.

But I do appreciate your attempt at a point. You (probably unwittingly) just put your finger on why exactly there is a MAJOR difference between race, and sexual preference, and why there are no rights like are accorded to a race when considering homosexuality.

 

Those who are trying to justify their perverted lifestyle by hijacking the civil rights movement are making a mockery of legitimate civil rights struggles. No wonder black civil rights leaders are upset about it.

 

If you want people to be able to refuse service for any reason, lobby your representatives to enact that law. Of course it will have negative economic repercussions and result in a great deal of racial animosity for little to no tangible gain in freedom (as bigots can already do this by starting a private business), but I certainly agree that each state has the right to regulate commerce as they see fit.

You'll have to explain how I "unwittingly" proved your point. Because both race and sexual orientation are not matters of choice, but instead the result of biological and genetic programming (which in turn are influenced by and shape the environment). So if a gay person has no choice to be gay and decides to tell people about it, that is no different from a black man not wearing a mask and gloves.

But please, I'd LOVE to hear your views on the topic. It'll end up just like the Paul Ryan v. Joe Biden debate. Me laughing, snearing and getting away with it, you pretending that you aren't in over your head.

 

THEN THEY AREN'T GENETIC FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! lol If the environment is REQUIRED for the behavior ITS NOT GENETIC.

You can't have it both ways slick.

I would go for the personal attacks too if I was loosing.

Looks like I have to educate you again. Its not the sex but the reaction of the body to sexual stimuli preparing the body for procreation that IS the gneeitc factor. How you relieve that urge doesn't change the reaction of the body. For the love of God please read it this time.

That's right. They have no moral compass. The genetic drive as you already admitted is to eat. That does not mean cannibilism is genetic or they would eat each other all the time if eating their own was genetic and they don't. That's what you keep missing.

YES IT IS. This fallacy of yours is truly astounding. Do gay men produce sperm? YES. Is sperm ejaculated during sex regardless of the type for men? YES.

What other function scientifically proven does sperm perform other than procreation? Answer the question.

I don't believe the ignorance you are spewing.

The preparation of the penis getting hard and cutting the urine flow off is to introduce sperm to the urethra. My God get a 5th grade book on sex ed for the love of Pete.

Not only did I not ignore it, I addressed it and it doesn't change the body's reaction to sexual stimuli other than intersex people who have a proven genetic disorder.

Those are intersex people. Please for the love of GOD read on the subject. That is a proven genetic defect.

Show me one study, ANY study where it states the homosexual male's sexual arousal does not prepare the body for procreation and the sperm to ejaculate. ANYWHERE. Back up your fallacy.

And stop running from the question:

Why do homosexual bodies prepare for procreation when sexually stimulated as the rest of humanity when the only course of natural procreation is through heterosexual sex?

Answer the question.

 

Thanks for your advice. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers did that 240 years ago, when they wrote the Constitution. That's what the Right of Free Association means.

The Constitution is Federal. This trumps States. Just because other (unConstitutional) laws - like anti-discrimination BS) has been layered over it, doesn't mean that we shouldn't object.

Blacks cannot change the perception that they're black just as women cannot conceal that they're women. Gays, however, do not suffer such a disadvantage.

Hence, they should not be considered on the same level.

Except that you had to use the word 'if' in your description, causing your attempt to fail. It's funny that in order to draw a parallel, the gay guy actually has to tell someone he's gay.

Does the black guy have to do that?

You've lost before I even had to be charitable and presume for the sake of argument that the gay "has no choice" but to be gay.

Cede the argument.

You can act out any way you wish. You aren't even in my galaxy when it comes to debate, and Paul Ryan is light years more intelligent than Biden.

 

Again, the title is misleading. There is currently no law stopping someone from posting a sign not allowing gays in any establishment.

 

You could put a 'period' behind each word and be wrong. Your post shouts that you misunderstood what he said. You laughed at his apparent lack of understanding of the non-existence of an incest, rape and cannibalism gene when that is what HE said. He was comparing it to the scientific discovery of a 'homosexual gene', which is really a deviation of a specific chromosome.

Apparently you were unaware, and didn't possess the wit to figure it out within the context of his explanation to you.

Reading. It's fundamental. I think you should take your arrogance and presumption of debate superiority and hit a lower end forum.

 

Maybe that's what your idea of freedom of association means. But that isn't what the Courts say. I tend to argue based around what is real, not what is my hypothetical fantasy land.

The Constitution is federal, yes. And the Constitution clearly states that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government belong to the States or the People, respectively. This has not been interpreted in a way that justifies your point of view. Now you can either whine about it and say something silly like "SCOTUS is pushing the ghey agenda!!!`" or just accept the fact that the vast majority of all Americans will NEVER support that point of view, the Courts will never change their minds on this issue, and that the changing demographics of your country guarantee it.

Jewish people are able to conceal their Jewishness. So you are saying that refusing to serve Jewish people should not be treated on the same level as not serving blacks? That is your argument?

My attempt doesn't fail based upon the use of the word "if." Your comprehension fails. It doesn't mean I am opening the question of choice up to debate, because there is no debate. Homosexuality clearly has a genetic and biological basis, equally influenced by the environment as heterosexuality. I am using if in the propositional sense. As should be clear to anyone not utterly desperate to prove that point.

I haven't really seen you debate much, but I highly doubt that you are "in a different galaxy." If you are, it most definitely doesn't operate according to the same logic as this galaxy.

- - - Updated - - -

I can only presume that you haven't read the rest of that particular debate, otherwise you would see clearly that I never suggested there was a gene, even though there is a genetic and biological origin for such behaviour. It's called a sex and food drive not limited by social stigma. I know it's difficult for people to understand genes, but to suggest the idea that it requires a particular gene that controls all such behaviour in order for that behaviour to have a biological basis is mindblowingly absurd.

 

Who is your girl, by the way? You see folks, I made the choice to be interested in this answer.