| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2012 01:13:02 PM · #301 |
| BTW, previously I had mentioned that there was another NM case that was similar. I may be wrong now and this ruling is actually the appeal of the same case. Can someone confirm this? |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 01:25:49 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, previously I had mentioned that there was another NM case that was similar. I may be wrong now and this ruling is actually the appeal of the same case. Can someone confirm this? |
I cannot confirm, other than to say I keep a pretty close eye on NM, and this is the only case I recall. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 03:47:35 AM · #303 |
I will actually go on record here and say what most people are afraid to. I am actually glad that religious ignorance gets kicked in the nuts in cases like these, I hope that they always lose, that it happens more frequently, in more places, to more people that continue to cling to ridiculous and idiotic notions. Period.
As to the 'good Doc' and his cult reference, we can just ignore such rhetoric. It is useless and pointless.
Message edited by author 2012-11-03 03:48:15. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 06:21:43 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I will actually go on record here and say what most people are afraid to. I am actually glad that religious ignorance gets kicked in the nuts in cases like these, I hope that they always lose, that it happens more frequently, in more places, to more people that continue to cling to ridiculous and idiotic notions. Period.
As to the 'good Doc' and his cult reference, we can just ignore such rhetoric. It is useless and pointless. |
you must not have read much of this thread if you think people are afraid to say that |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 10:04:54 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I will actually go on record here and say what most people are afraid to. I am actually glad that religious ignorance gets kicked in the nuts in cases like these, I hope that they always lose, that it happens more frequently, in more places, to more people that continue to cling to ridiculous and idiotic notions. Period.
As to the 'good Doc' and his cult reference, we can just ignore such rhetoric. It is useless and pointless. |
you must not have read much of this thread if you think people are afraid to say that |
ROFL |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:07:50 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I will actually go on record here and say what most people are afraid to. I am actually glad that religious ignorance gets kicked in the nuts in cases like these, I hope that they always lose, that it happens more frequently, in more places, to more people that continue to cling to ridiculous and idiotic notions. Period.
As to the 'good Doc' and his cult reference, we can just ignore such rhetoric. It is useless and pointless. |
you must not have read much of this thread if you think people are afraid to say that |
You forgot to include the word "Most" in your comment... it does make a difference. You must also consider that he did not limit his comment to DPC but seemingly was alluding to the general public, and that we truly do not have any facts to support any point of view in this regard.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:15:53 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I will actually go on record here and say what most people are afraid to. I am actually glad that religious ignorance gets kicked in the nuts in cases like these, I hope that they always lose, that it happens more frequently, in more places, to more people that continue to cling to ridiculous and idiotic notions. Period.
|
i cant say how such that statement bothers me. you shouldn't be glad that other peoples beliefs get "kicked in the nuts" because you don't agree with them. Be tolerant that other believe in what you don't and when their beliefs start to infringe on the rights of other speak up, but don't be thrilled for them to be slapped down.
Be content that the courts rule the way they do in order to be fair to everyone. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 04:21:59 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, previously I had mentioned that there was another NM case that was similar. I may be wrong now and this ruling is actually the appeal of the same case. Can someone confirm this? |
It is the same case, the second hearing being the appeal of the Commission's finding.
This thread has been going on so long that I can now find The National Review (an excellent conservative magazine) picked out the same issue I was pissed about at the original finding; the expansion of what is and is not a âpublic accommodationâ.
Outside of baseball I almost never agree with George Will, but I do like this paragraph;
"The Huguenin case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical. First, a disputed behavior, such as sexual activities between people of the same sex, is declared so personal and intimate that government should have no jurisdiction over it. Then, having won recognition of what Louis Brandeis, a pioneer of the privacy right, called âthe right to be let alone,â some who have benefited from this achievement assert a right not to let other people alone. It is the right to coerce anyone who disapproves of the now-protected behavior into acting as though they approve of it, or at least into not acting on their disapproval." |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 04:41:45 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Outside of baseball I almost never agree with George Will, but I do like this paragraph;
"The Huguenin case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical. First, a disputed behavior, such as sexual activities between people of the same sex, is declared so personal and intimate that government should have no jurisdiction over it. Then, having won recognition of what Louis Brandeis, a pioneer of the privacy right, called âthe right to be let alone,â some who have benefited from this achievement assert a right not to let other people alone. It is the right to coerce anyone who disapproves of the now-protected behavior into acting as though they approve of it, or at least into not acting on their disapproval." |
freakin brilliant! |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 06:22:29 PM · #310 |
Probably the most surprising aspect of Brennan's articles for the general DPC ranterati is the fact the articles don't sound like polemics or frothing incoherence. There is actually a reasoned position to stand on.
I think it was mentioned in the very original article posted, and you can see it in the ruling itself, but the judge wrote that it may have been the defense just didn't make the correct argument and if they had, the case may have been ruled quite differently. The judge proceeded then to say what the correct argument might be. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 06:34:31 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Probably the most surprising aspect of Brennan's articles for the general DPC ranterati is the fact the articles don't sound like polemics or frothing incoherence. There is actually a reasoned position to stand on.
I think it was mentioned in the very original article posted, and you can see it in the ruling itself, but the judge wrote that it may have been the defense just didn't make the correct argument and if they had, the case may have been ruled quite differently. The judge proceeded then to say what the correct argument might be. |
So, whichever side loses has a legitimate grievance ... unfortunately the situation doesn't lend itself to a tie ... |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 12:08:50 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Probably the most surprising aspect of Brennan's articles for the general DPC ranterati is the fact the articles don't sound like polemics or frothing incoherence. There is actually a reasoned position to stand on.
I think it was mentioned in the very original article posted, and you can see it in the ruling itself, but the judge wrote that it may have been the defense just didn't make the correct argument and if they had, the case may have been ruled quite differently. The judge proceeded then to say what the correct argument might be. |
So, whichever side loses has a legitimate grievance ... unfortunately the situation doesn't lend itself to a tie ... |
I can agree with that sentiment. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:15:54 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I was using the drunk thing as an example |
Indeed, it's just a very bad example which has very little in common with the issue. As has been pointed out, a better example might be ethnic minorities perhaps. |
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:22:12 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I was using the drunk thing as an example |
Indeed, it's just a very bad example which has very little in common with the issue. As has been pointed out, a better example might be ethnic minorities perhaps. |
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
Are you honestly equating gay sex with the disease of alcoholism?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:24:02 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I was using the drunk thing as an example |
Indeed, it's just a very bad example which has very little in common with the issue. As has been pointed out, a better example might be ethnic minorities perhaps. |
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
Not being gay I can't say with certainty whether or not it is a choice but my attraction to woman came about naturally so I can only assume the same for those that are attracted to the same sex. Having homosexual sex is a choice as much as choosing to have heterosexual sex. Being attracted to the same sex would likely come about naturally as being attracted to the opposite sex. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:39:06 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I was using the drunk thing as an example |
Indeed, it's just a very bad example which has very little in common with the issue. As has been pointed out, a better example might be ethnic minorities perhaps. |
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
Not being gay I can't say with certainty whether or not it is a choice but my attraction to woman came about naturally so I can only assume the same for those that are attracted to the same sex. Having homosexual sex is a choice as much as choosing to have heterosexual sex. Being attracted to the same sex would likely come about naturally as being attracted to the opposite sex. |
+1
MinsoPhoto is totally right. How can you POSSIBLY equate sexual attraction with an addiction to alcohol. Such a thing is pure hogwash!
Someone who is gay can no more choose who they are attracted to than someone who is straight. Sure, someone could be gay and then choose to be celibate, but are you seriously saying that that is what ALL gays should do? Or that they should ignore their inherent attraction and form intimate relationships with persons they are wholly unattracted to? Your comments, klkitchens, are nothing more than homophobic nonesense. Educate yourself before you spew such hatred. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:48:33 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Your comments, klkitchens, are nothing more than homophobic nonesense. Educate yourself before you spew such hatred. |
Well, to be fair, we should cut him at least some slack, as he's either from, or spends a great deal of time in, Georgia, and is religious. It's pretty likely that he's operating on bad information here, and has just failed to really think this through. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 02:52:09 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by frisca:
How can you POSSIBLY equate sexual attraction with an addiction to alcohol. Such a thing is pure hogwash! |
I know a lot of alcoholics. There is pretty good science that indicates that the inability to drink in moderation has a strong genetic component. Alcoholics are always alcoholics, even when they haven't had a drink in years.
I know a lot of homosexuals. There is pretty good science that indicates that sexual orientation has a strong genetic component. Homosexuals are always homosexuals even when they haven't had a relationship in years.
So both seem to be innate tendencies, that a person is born with, that can be acted on or not. The biggest difference is, I know plenty of happy well adjusted homosexuals who enjoy their sex lives, while the only happy alcoholics I know have taken the pledge never to drink again. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 03:04:20 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I was using the drunk thing as an example |
Indeed, it's just a very bad example which has very little in common with the issue. As has been pointed out, a better example might be ethnic minorities perhaps. |
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
and this is why we need court rulings to keeps folks from discriminating against each other. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 03:31:25 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Well except homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than a born condition. Not all alcoholics drinks. Not all with such urges act on them.
Homosexuality is a choice. |
So.....
What you're saying here is you know virtually nothing about either homosexuality or alcoholism.
You are born with either "condition".
Alcoholism kills, though......
|
|
|
|
11/05/2012 05:08:12 PM · #321 |
This is where I think people start letting their emotions get ahead of themselves. People tend to think in terms of a false dichotomy, it is either purely genetic or purely a choice. Science has shown this is not the case. The best explanation to date is there is a genetic predisposition that requires an environmental trigger. What is that trigger? Nobody knows and it may not even be the same from person to person.
So, some important ramifications present themselves that will challenge some people. First, the trigger may be a choice. Not in the active "I choose to be gay" sense but in the sense that the trigger could be a manifestation of our actions. If/when the trigger is discovered then people would, in fact, have the choice to become gay or not (if predisposed) by utilizing the trigger or avoiding it. (A simplistic description, to be sure). The logic of this makes sense when thinking of all the other attractions/fetishes/alternate lifestyles that exist in the sexual realm. It doesn't make sense to posit they each has a separate genetic cause. Why assume homosexuality is any different than a leather fetish or liking blondes?
Some people do claim to have chosen to be gay. I believe Nixon's daughter is an example of this. I only bring this up because people usually believe they are speaking out of tolerance when asking the rhetorical question, "who would ever choose to be gay?". The question is possibly offensive to such people that DO choose to be gay.
The details of homosexuality and lesbianism may be completely different. Just an academic point.
As has been brought up many times, an inference usually made after bringing up the non-choice of being gay is the assumed unreasonableness of non-acceptance. One does not follow the other.
Message edited by author 2012-11-05 17:10:08. |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 07:39:24 PM · #322 |
Honest to goodness, I thought we were discussing discrimination. But since you started it....
I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what the causes of homosexuality are, or what the details are of male vs female homosexuality, or exactly how many people claim that they're gay by choice, or have been "cured," or whatever.
Then there's the assumption that being gay is some sort of clinical sexual deviation, even though, like heterosexual people, when gay people describe their own relationships, they tend to talk about love and family and home, not just about boinking. But people who think that gay sex is icky tend to get hung up on the sex part, so I guess that's understandable.
I'm sorry, but discrimination is not acceptable. I don't care what religious or clinical terms you apply to make it seem acceptable, it just isn't. That whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing? It has to apply to everyone equally.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2012 08:15:09 PM · #323 |
| this thread has gone around in circles so many times now I feel a little dizzy |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 08:21:56 PM · #324 |
| So Jason, was your heterosexuality a choice? If you don't believe it was a choice then what do you attribute the environmental trigger being in your situation? |
|
|
|
11/05/2012 08:25:09 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is where I think people start letting their emotions get ahead of themselves. People tend to think in terms of a false dichotomy, it is either purely genetic or purely a choice. Science has shown this is not the case. The best explanation to date is there is a genetic predisposition that requires an environmental trigger. What is that trigger? Nobody knows and it may not even be the same from person to person. |
I don't necessarily agree. I feel that most thinking people more follow the line of reasoning that there has to be the predisposition in order for the trait to become evident and encompassing.
For example. I am exceedingly mechanically inclined. I'd love to say that my abilities with mechanical things are strictly my own, but I have an innate sense of how mechanical things function. I'm fascinated by them and curious about them. I have no chance of explaining that's something that I've brought about by choice. If anything, I come from a background where blue-collar types of pursuits are looked upon with a great measure of disdain. Nobody in my family tree would willingly pursue such a path.
However......I'm adopted, so that gives them an out. My environment, if anything, repressed my natural inclination to be able to fix things.
Yet for almost forty years what thrilled my very soul was to fix cars, and the worse I had to start with, the more I loved what I did.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, some important ramifications present themselves that will challenge some people. First, the trigger may be a choice. Not in the active "I choose to be gay" sense but in the sense that the trigger could be a manifestation of our actions. If/when the trigger is discovered then people would, in fact, have the choice to become gay or not (if predisposed) by utilizing the trigger or avoiding it. (A simplistic description, to be sure). The logic of this makes sense when thinking of all the other attractions/fetishes/alternate lifestyles that exist in the sexual realm. It doesn't make sense to posit they each has a separate genetic cause. Why assume homosexuality is any different than a leather fetish or liking blondes? |
Okay......playing devil's advocate here.....growing up in an environment of gentility with an emphasis on class structure and breeding, what the heck kind of trigger do you suppose was available to me to have chosen a career in British automobile restoration?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some people do claim to have chosen to be gay. I believe Nixon's daughter is an example of this. I only bring this up because people usually believe they are speaking out of tolerance when asking the rhetorical question, "who would ever choose to be gay?". The question is possibly offensive to such people that DO choose to be gay. |
I can't say as I've *EVER* heard someone say that. And I'd like to think I more exposure to the gay community than the average straight guy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The details of homosexuality and lesbianism may be completely different. Just an academic point. |
Oh, DO elaborate! Gender makes a difference?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As has been brought up many times, an inference usually made after bringing up the non-choice of being gay is the assumed unreasonableness of non-acceptance. One does not follow the other. |
I'd have to disagree with you there. To me, and it's *my* opinion, from experiences I've had, that the proponents of choice are generally walking around with blinders, and are determined to keep their belief in the myth.
|
|
