So you think homosexuality is a choice?

Yes. The worker voluntarily agreed to take what he could get. But that doesn't mean society can't make a new deal.

 

You mean redistribute the wealth differently than the distribution made as the result of individuals left to freely exchange. Like I said.

 

Individuals 'left to freely exchange' in a particular legal/cultural structure. One that says that workers get no equity in profit unless agreed otherwise.

I'm talking about changing that legal/cultural structure, to, just to offer an illustrative example, one that says workers get a 1/3 equity in profit, unless agreed otherwise.

 

awesome concept and off topic. But, are they willing to go payless for months like I do when cash flow is tight and there isn't much gross profit?

 

What silliness. First because 1/3 interest in profit would reduce most workers wages and because most workers would not agree to exchange their labor for a portion of the not yet realized profit.

 

I've made a new thread for this economic tangent. response to this post is here: http://www.politicalforum.com/econo...ibution-just-distribution.html#post1062957640

 

I've made a new thread for this economic tangent. response to this post is here: http://www.politicalforum.com/econo...ibution-just-distribution.html#post1062957667

 

Oh, *tssss*, don't do that. He gets mad when you say, "hey we've gotten off topic, I'll make a new thread." I did so, and he still hasn't responded to the thread I created.

 

Dont think I fail to follow you two with YOUR irrelevant tangents wherever you take them, because I am mad. I suspect you both introduce them to avoid addressing the content of the thread.

 

He's mad.

 

I'll say. Somehow we are "you two" when I never knew you existed until 30 seconds ago....

 

Try and string together a few words relevant to the topic of discussion, if you can.

- - - Updated - - -

Since I AM making the statement, your awareness is irrelevant. I knew you both existed.

 

Common, I've heard and personally seen a lot of cases, when people where heterosexual before and becoming homosexual, or were homosexual first, then becoming heterosexual.
You can be completely lost with this kind of thinking.
In order to avoid this confusing let's call "homosexual" who is currently homosexual.
So, in prison, there are predominant number of males are becoming homosexual. Homosexual propaganda increases number of homosexuals, acting like an advertisement, "try it and see if you like it", there are "week souls", which are easily controlled by TV. Feminism decreases number of sexually available women and also pushes "week souls" to do each other.

So, there are some tiny amount of people are born this way, like we have autistic people, which is also mental disorder, etc. Nature is not prone to mutations.

American people are extremely brainwashed. Does TV has a anti-homosexual propaganda? It's outlawed or hunted, because it's "homophobic".
So, I find these polls as "under the gun" collection and they can't be really relied on what people think.

It's very easy to understand comparing it to advertisement of some product - there are some people who always buying some product - product A.
But with advertisement we increase it's number, some "weak souls" will be buying product A, even if they don't really need it, just because it's popular.

So, why we should advertise homosexuality, which is a mutation from the point of nature? We don't advertise the autism, saying that there is nothing wrong to be autistic, right?

 

An interesting summation.

BTW, I think it's pretty naive every time I hear someone say "He can't be gay! He was married and had two kids!"

 

Every case requires investigation. There are "bi" people too.

 

Yes to both. On the subject of bisexuals, I think there people who lean one way or the other and just "play" and then there are those who truly are equally attracted to both sexes. The latter would be rarer from what I've read. There genetic anomalies too like hermaphrodites.

 

homosexuality is nothing more than a preference for those of the same sex. A preference that can change over time in different circumstances. Friend of mine now prefers men, although he was married for 25 years with three children, after getting a divorce he went without sexual relations for 4 years. He discovered homosexuality on a drunken night with a man 20 years his junior. Says as a divorced, overweight, balding heterosexual man in his 50s he never got laid. As a homosexual he gets it all the time. He now prefers men.

 

Sorry, dude, but now we're just arguing in circles. Obviously, like the IQ bell curve, there is a range where humans are concerned. That goes with sexuality too. If you want to believe sexual preference is purely choice, go ahead. My fields of expertise and accumulated knowledge through studies of the subject have proven to me that sexual preference is more than choice. Want to consider it a genetic mutation? A freak genetic occurrence like Down Syndrome or webbed toes? Fine. At least you'd be more correct than just saying people choose to be gay so asshats with narrow points of view will beat them with baseball bats and hang them on barbed wire fences.

 

awesome, show me the conclusive medical test which proves that I was born heterosexual and I'll be lockstep with you.

Until that time, self proclaimed "experts" can take their condescending attitudes and tuck them away. You have no more proof than I do of whether or not my choosing heterosexuality was a choice.

 

Ahh, now we are really getting down to the nitty gritty. You are heterosexual by choice. Fine. I fully accept that.

I, OTOH, am heterosexual by genetics. It wasn't a choice. I just liked girls with titties and a cooch when the time came that I started taking a sexual interest in things. In those days I'd never even heard of gays. The parents weren't talking about sex either so it wasn't like they were brainwashing me. It was just a natural attraction. If I avoided the natural attraction, that would have been a choice.
Think about it.

 

I call BS on your anecdote.

 

show me the conclusive medical test which proves that I was born heterosexual and I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

 

I'm content with you just admitting that you are heterosexual by choice. Says it all for me, sir.

Just so we're clear, I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) who you (*)(*)(*)(*), suck or fall in love with. I consider that to be a private matter and under the guidance of one of our nations greatest documents:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

and as a great man once said, "we can pursue but aren't assured of catching up"

So we have an accord, we both agree that there is no way to verify or refute my claim that I was born heterosexual

 

Obviously you are again confused and mistaking me for Martin.