<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It also means that LeVay and such were reckless as well. But since you missed it, I'll post another section: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself.</div> Yet like you, these scientists still made the claim that homosexuality was completely linked to nature. I think not.</div> Again, you're misrepresenting my views. I never claimed homosexuality was completely linked to nature. I said I don't know where it comes from, but I'll assume it's not due to a mental weakness on their part (which I consider insulting). As for the section you cited, it shows that they were unable to find a "gay gene" -- a "sine qua non for homosexuality". That doesn't prove that homosexuality is therefore conditioned. That's simply an erroneous conclusion to draw. They make no claim one way or the other about where homosexuality comes from. It's unknown. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Walk it off, seriously. You said essentially "let them be" (referring to gay people), but at the same time, I don't want gay people in my locker room for similar reasons ("natural" reaction), yet you're not supporting my cause. Thus I posed a question, which was "hypocrite?". </div> I don't see the hypocrisy. Your "cause" is infringing on the right of another to use the same locker room because it makes you feel uncomfortable. If I said it was ok for you to be denied the right to certain facilities to accomodate gay people, then that would be hypocritical. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Lastly, I'll say it once again, I don't have anything against gay people in the NBA (or you, heh). If I had to, of course I would be in a locker room with them as well, but homosexuality is not caused solely by genes, so lay off. You're making large generalizations.</div> I didn't make that generalization. I don't believe I ever said that homosexuality is determined by genes. I have no idea where it comes from.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Again, you're misrepresenting my views. I never claimed homosexuality was completely linked to nature. I said I don't know where it comes from, but I'll assume it's not due to a mental weakness on their part (which I consider insulting).</div> Great. Though I disagree that you haven't implied that claim. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> As for the section you cited, it shows that they were unable to find a "gay gene" -- a "sine qua non for homosexuality". That doesn't prove that homosexuality is therefore conditioned. That's simply an erroneous conclusion to draw. They make no claim one way or the other about where homosexuality comes from. It's unknown.</div> It is quite likely that it is conditioned though, at the very least that is what it shows, or else the sine qua non for homosexuality would be apparent in the pair of brothers mentioned. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I don't see the hypocrisy. Your "cause" is infringing on the right of another to use the same locker room because it makes you feel uncomfortable. If I said it was ok for you to be denied the right to certain facilities to accomodate gay people, then that would be hypocritical.</div> Yawn? Who cares. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I didn't make that generalization.</div> Hmm... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I don't believe I ever said that homosexuality is determined by genes. I have no idea where it comes from.</div> I like this approach more.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's recap what we are dicussing right now: You're pissed because I don't think homosexuality is entirely genetic. I however, think it is genetic and a choice, and have presented various quotes to uphold my belief. How are you going to prove that all homosexuals are born in that fashion? My job is much easier though.</div> Your belief on where homosexuality comes from has never been the issue. I don't know where you get some of this stuff. It is late, though. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> Again, you're misrepresenting my views. I never claimed homosexuality was completely linked to nature. I said I don't know where it comes from, but I'll assume it's not due to a mental weakness on their part (which I consider insulting). </div> Great. Though I disagree that you haven't implied that claim.</div> I don't think I implied it either. Personally, I think people are born predisposed to having a particular orientation. How that comes about biologically, I have no idea. And whether that predisposition results in an attraction towards the same sex, or the opposite sex, or a mixture of both might be determined by environment also to some extent. Again, I have no idea. I don't think anyone does, really. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It is quite likely that it is conditioned though, at the very least that is what it shows, or else the sine qua non for homosexuality would be apparent in the pair of brothers mentioned.</div> It would be apparent if that particular gene they were looking at was indeed a "gay gene." That it was shown to not be a gay gene doesn't mean that homosexuality is therefore conditioned. I don't think it says much at all about the likelihood of homosexuality being conditioned either. That's not something you can conclude from the article. If it was, the authors probably would have said so themselves. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yawn? Who cares.</div> You don't, evidentally. But if I'm being called a hypocrite, of course I'll dispute it. Don't throw such labels at people if you can't back it up. Particularly on an internet message board. We don't need that stuff here. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Hmm... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't believe I ever said that homosexuality is determined by genes. I have no idea where it comes from. </div> I like this approach more.</div> No clue what that's supposed to mean.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Your belief on where homosexuality comes from has never been the issue. I don't know where you get some of this stuff. It is late, though.</div> Uh ok... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I don't think I implied it either. Personally, I think people are born predisposed to having a particular orientation. How that comes about biologically, I have no idea. And whether that predisposition results in an attraction towards the same sex, or the opposite sex, or a mixture of both might be determined by environment also to some extent. Again, I have no idea. I don't think anyone does, really.</div> Congrats. Why are we arguing then? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> It would be apparent if that particular gene they were looking at was indeed a "gay gene." That it was shown to not be a gay gene doesn't mean that homosexuality is therefore conditioned. I don't think it says much at all about the likelihood of homosexuality being conditioned either. That's not something you can conclude from the article. If it was, the authors probably would have said so themselves.</div> That's just a portion of the article though. The issue was quite thoroughly discussed and I don't need that specific example to make my case. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You don't, evidentally. But if I'm being called a hypocrite, of course I'll dispute it. Don't throw such labels at people if you can't back it up. Particularly on an internet message board. We don't need that stuff here.</div> What we also don't need is sensitive PC crap. But let me say the following: ~I posed it as a question at first, which I felt you inadequately answered. ~In the future, I'll refer to you as a "Double-Thinker" then, to not hurt your feelings ( in other words, this is ridiculous, hypocrite isn't that bad an insult). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> No clue what that's supposed to mean.</div> I agreed with what you said at that particular moment. Keep this beautiful synergy we have going.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">That's just a portion of the article though. The issue was quite thoroughly discussed and I don't need that specific example to make my case.</div> Alright. I don't think a case can be made just based on the information in that article. It eliminates certain possibilities (or, at least, tells us to be skeptical about certain claims), but that isn't enough to make a convincing case that homosexuality is created by environment. <div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> What we also don't need is sensitive PC crap. But let me say the following: ~I posed it as a question at first, which I felt you inadequately answered. ~In the future, I'll refer to you as a "Double-Thinker" then, to not hurt your feelings ( in other words, this is ridiculous, hypocrite isn't that bad an insult).</div> I hope your confusion has now been adequately cleared. And in the future if you think someone is contradicting themselves, just say so instead of charging hypocrisy. Calling someone a hypocrite is like calling them a liar. You're implying that they're being deceptive. It is inflammatory. There's no need to throw insults like that at someone just because you disagree with them or think their argument isn't sound.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Alright. I don't think a case can be made just based on the information in that article. It eliminates certain possibilities (or, at least, tells us to be skeptical about certain claims), but that isn't enough to make a convincing case that homosexuality is created by environment.</div> When did I make this case? What I and the article said, was that it is caused by both factors. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I hope your confusion has now been adequately cleared. And in the future if you think someone is contradicting themselves, just say so instead of charging hypocrisy. Calling someone a hypocrite is like calling them a liar. You're implying that they're being deceptive. It is inflammatory. There's no need to throw insults like that at someone just because you disagree with them or think their argument isn't sound.</div> Well you do realize I'd be calling you a hypocrite in that scenario, just in a different manner? It doesn't matter if I call you a liar either. Personally I don't care when people call me by some racial slur either. I think you dwell too long on this part of the thread.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When did I make this case? What I and the article said, was that it is caused by both factors.</div> If that's what you believe, fine, but the article doesn't say that. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just not one of the article's findings. Otherwise, the authors would have said so themselves. That would be quite a discovery. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Well you do realize I'd be calling you a hypocrite in that scenario, just in a different manner? </div> Firstly, you haven't even shown a contradiction in this case, and yet you still haven't revoked the charge of hypocrisy. And saying that you think someone is contradicting themselves, and saying they're being hypocritical are two different things. You can inadvertantly contradict yourself. But a hypocrite is essentially a liar. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It doesn't matter if I call you a liar either. Personally I don't care when people call me by some racial slur either. I think you dwell too long on this part of the thread.</div> Personal attacks matter on this board, if you want to remain a member. If you didn't realize that, I'm telling you now. Keep that in mind in the future.
Explain how one could be conditioned to be gay? What would conditioning do to the brain to cause homosexual attraction? Why? Even if this is true, how would this support your theory that gay is not only genetic? If being straight is how everyone is born, how and why would they condition themselves to be gay? Explain the "phenomenon" of how the first gay person? What would have partially conditioned them to become gay?
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If that's what you believe, fine, but the article doesn't say that. I mean, it makes sense, but it's just not one of the article's findings. Otherwise, the authors would have said so themselves. That would be quite a discovery. </div> Not really. This is your interpretation of the article and quite frankly it is very gullible. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Firstly, you haven't even shown a contradiction in this case, and yet you still haven't revoked the charge of hypocrisy. </div> I don't think you've shown I haven't. Move on that's your opinion. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And saying that you think someone is contradicting themselves, and saying they're being hypocritical are two different things. You can inadvertantly contradict yourself. But a hypocrite is essentially a liar. </div> Well I think you were being a liar then, too bad. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Personal attacks matter on this board, if you want to remain a member. If you didn't realize that, I'm telling you now. Keep that in mind in the future.</div> Hey seriously, don't lecture me, I don't need you to tell me about the rules. I sincerely doubt that calling you a hypocrite is "against the rules", if it is, someone needs to PM me right now to clarify the situation. <div class="quote_poster">23MJordan23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Explain how one could be conditioned to be gay? What would conditioning do to the brain to cause homosexual attraction? Why? Even if this is true, how would this support your theory that gay is not only genetic? If being straight is how everyone is born, how and why would they condition themselves to be gay? Explain the "phenomenon" of how the first gay person? What would have partially conditioned them to become gay?</div> The author states that saying homosexuality is only caused by genes (or vice-versa) is equally ignorant.
<div class="quote_poster">23MJordan23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Explain how one could be conditioned to be gay? What would conditioning do to the brain to cause homosexual attraction? Why? Even if this is true, how would this support your theory that gay is not only genetic? If being straight is how everyone is born, how and why would they condition themselves to be gay? Explain the "phenomenon" of how the first gay person? What would have partially conditioned them to become gay?</div> The author states that saying homosexuality is only caused by genes (or vice-versa) is equally ignorant.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Not really. This is your interpretation of the article and quite frankly it is very gullible.</div> It is your interpretation of the article which is incorrect -- that they have somehow proved that homosexuality is caused, in part, by environment (if I understand you correctly). They haven't proven any such thing, nor did they set out to prove that. Again, to be clear, I don't have a problem with you personally believing that is the case. But I don't agree that it is one of the findings of the article. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think you've shown I haven't. Move on that's your opinion.</div> This isn't a matter of opinion. You're saying that I'm contradicting myself, and further that I'm a hypocrite/liar. Either I am one, or I'm not. There's isn't any subjectivity involved. You made the accusation, but you are unable or unwilling to actually point out the contradiction. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Well I think you were being a liar then, too bad. Hey seriously, don't lecture me, I don't need you to tell me about the rules. I sincerely doubt that calling you a hypocrite is "against the rules", if it is, someone needs to PM me right now to clarify the situation.</div> That isn't against the rules, if you can actually show it. If you can't or you're unwilling to explain the accusation, then it's just name calling. And, yes, that sort of stuff is against the rules of this board. One of my responsibilities here is to make sure members understand stuff like that. Sorry. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The author states that saying homosexuality is only caused by genes (or vice-versa) is equally ignorant.</div> Yes, but he doesn't state that homosexuality therefore must be caused by both. That isn't shown in the article. The conclusion one can legitimately draw is the methodology from some of these other studies which claim homosexuality is purely genetic is flawed and we should therefore be skeptical.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It is your interpretation of the article which is incorrect -- that they have somehow proved that homosexuality is caused, in part, by environment (if I understand you correctly). They haven't proven any such thing, nor did they set out to prove that.</div> They pretty much proved it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Again, to be clear, I don't have a problem with you personally believing that is the case. But I don't agree that it is one of the findings of the article. </div> K. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> This isn't a matter of opinion. You're saying that I'm contradicting myself, and further that I'm a hypocrite/liar. Either I am one, or I'm not. There's isn't any subjectivity involved. You made the accusation, but you are unable or unwilling to actually point out the contradiction. </div> I felt I already made my case, and that you have not disproved it. What qualifies as a hypocrite? Your criteria must be more strict than mine. I simply believe you made a dubious comment that can be seen as hypocritical. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> That isn't against the rules, if you can actually show it. If you can't or you're unwilling to explain the accusation, then it's just name calling. And, yes, that sort of stuff is against the rules of this board. One of my responsibilities here is to make sure members understand stuff like that. Sorry. </div> Well it wasn't random name calling, nor should you continue to be offended so easily. I don't buy it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes, but he doesn't state that homosexuality therefore must be caused by both. That isn't shown in the article. The conclusion one can legitimately draw is the methodology from some of these other studies which claim homosexuality is purely genetic is flawed and we should therefore be skeptical.</div> Ok that sounds almost the same as what I previously stated before.
You never explained why assuming that it is a "gene" or brain chemistry thing is "ignorant"...you have yet to prove that "conditioning" would cause it...how could a conditioner be such a powerful force when it comes to actual attraction...not "forced" conscious decisions due to conditioning. Do you believe that "conditioned" people have been duped, conned or violated ? Why are there so many straight people raised by gay parents?
<div class="quote_poster">23MJordan23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You never explained why assuming that it is a "gene" or brain chemistry thing is "ignorant"...you have yet to prove that "conditioning" would cause it...how could a conditioner be such a powerful force when it comes to actual attraction...not "forced" conscious decisions due to conditioning. Do you believe that "conditioned" people have been duped, conned or violated ? Why are there so many straight people raised by gay parents?</div> Bored yet? I know I am. I don't know for sure who the hell is duped or conned, but I understand what Horton said. In the end, scientific journals should do most of the explaining for us. If we apply this approach, then one can come to the reasonable conclusion that homosexuality is caused by various factors. Now if I don't personally agree with that lifestyle, that doesn't mean I hold any empirical knowledge yet to support that claim.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">They pretty much proved it.</div> I don't agree, but whatever. This isn't going anywhere. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I felt I already made my case, and that you have not disproved it. What qualifies as a hypocrite? Your criteria must be more strict than mine. I simply believe you made a dubious comment that can be seen as hypocritical. </div> A hypocrite is someone who believes one thing, but says another. Their personal beliefs or actions contradict what they publically say. Your case: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">said essentially "let them be" (referring to gay people), but at the same time, I don't want gay people in my locker room for similar reasons ("natural" reaction), yet you're not supporting my cause. Thus I posed a question, which was "hypocrite?".</div> The question I've asked, repeatedly, is where precisely is the contradiction? Yes, I support the right of gay people to "be gay." I also support your right to feel uncomfortable around gay people (is it necessary for that to even be said?). What I do not support is this idea that gays should be forced out of a locker-room because you or others feel uncomfortable around them. I don't think any one should be denied facilities simply because other people feel uncomfortable. That's the basic principle I'm appealing to. If you still maintain that I'm being a hypocrite, just show where I'm going against that principle. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Well it wasn't random name calling, nor should you continue to be offended so easily. I don't buy it. </div> I wasn't offended until you said "who cares" when I asked you to clarify. If I call someone a hypocrite, first I'm going to make sure I know what I'm talking about. And if they want to know why I said they're a hypocrite, I'll precisely point out where the hypocrisy is or admit I was mistaken. That's just common decency.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't agree, but whatever. This isn't going anywhere.</div> What isn't there to agree about? You've said almost the exact same thing. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> A hypocrite is someone who believes one thing, but says another. Their personal beliefs or actions contradict what they publically say. Your case: The question I've asked, repeatedly, is where precisely is the contradiction? Yes, I support the right of gay people to "be gay." I also support your right to feel uncomfortable around gay people (is it necessary for that to even be said?). What I do not support is this idea that gays should be forced out of a locker-room because you or others feel uncomfortable around them. I don't think any one should be denied facilities simply because other people feel uncomfortable. That's the basic principle I'm appealing to. If you still maintain that I'm being a hypocrite, just show where I'm going against that principle. </div> You said my natural feelings weren't rational. Now once again, figure out why I posed the question if you were a hypocrite. You exclusively look out for their rights (make no compromise); and they will be no worse off in a different locker room. Next issue. What facilities would they be denied? They would just be in a different locker room, that is as equally capable since the NBA is loaded with hardcore cash. But in the end I could "walk it off" and use the locker room, even if gay people are in it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I wasn't offended until you said "who cares" when I asked you to clarify. If I call someone a hypocrite, first I'm going to make sure I know what I'm talking about. And if they want to know why I said they're a hypocrite, I'll precisely point out where the hypocrisy is or admit I was mistaken. That's just common decency.</div> Well that's the thing, even "who cares" shouldn't offend you. In fact I don't appreciate you threatening me with the rulebook. K, so we're even.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What isn't there to agree about? You've said almost the exact same thing.</div> You are referring to this, I think: "The conclusion one can legitimately draw is the methodology from some of these other studies which claim homosexuality is purely genetic is flawed." That isn't the same, or almost the same as "homosexuality must be, in part, conditioned." It is still possible that homosexuality is completely natural, and one is essentially "born gay", and yet these studies they are critiquing are still flawed as they say. In other words, maybe homosexuality isn't genetic in the way which is claimed by some of these scientists they are critiquing, but you can't then infer that homosexuality is therefore partially caused by environment. There are too many unknowns; too many things about the human body which we don't know. The authors of the article never make that claim which you are attributing to them, because doing so would be logically unsound on their part. It would be another example of the "bad science" they themselves are critiquing. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You said my natural feelings weren't rational. Now once again, figure out why I posed the question if you were a hypocrite. You exclusively look out for their rights (make no compromise); and they will be no worse off in a different locker room. Next issue. What facilities would they be denied? They would just be in a different locker room, that is as equally capable since the NBA is loaded with hardcore cash. But in the end I could "walk it off" and use the locker room, even if gay people are in it. </div> Ok, so you say I'm only looking out for their rights, while I'm denying your rights. Is this where you feel the hypocrisy lies (I'm still trying to figure that out)? Which of your rights am I denying? You don't have a right to exclusive access to facilities any more than white people in the 60s had a "right" to exclusive access to a bathroom because they felt "uncomfortable" sharing it with blacks. If you think that's a right, then I disagree strongly. People don't have rights to exclude someone else from something, unless it's their own property. You say they will be no worse off in a different locker room. That's the old "separate but equal" argument used by segregationists. I think it's dangerous, and only encourages divisions between people. We should just get over our hangups about gay people, instead of feeding into it by separating them from us. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Well that's the thing, even "who cares" shouldn't offend you. </div> It's blatant sign of disrespect. I care if someone else thinks I'm a hypocrite or a liar. But you've tried to clarify what you meant in the past couple posts, so it's not an issue now. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In fact I don't appreciate you threatening me with the rulebook. K, so we're even.</div> You said: "It doesn't matter if I call you a liar either. Personally I don't care when people call me by some racial slur either. I think you dwell too long on this part of the thread." Based on this, it looked to me that you needed to be reminded what the rulebook says.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You are referring to this, I think: "The conclusion one can legitimately draw is the methodology from some of these other studies which claim homosexuality is purely genetic is flawed." That isn't the same, or almost the same as "homosexuality must be, in part, conditioned." It is still possible that homosexuality is completely natural, and one is essentially "born gay", and yet these studies they are critiquing are still flawed as they say. In other words, maybe homosexuality isn't genetic in the way which is claimed by some of these scientists they are critiquing, but you can't then infer that homosexuality is therefore partially caused by environment. There are too many unknowns; too many things about the human body which we don't know. The authors of the article never make that claim which you are attributing to them, because doing so would be logically unsound on their part. It would be another example of the "bad science" they themselves are critiquing.</div> That's extremely unlikely and the author made more than enough comments to infer "nurture" being a cause. Further, I've seen straight people turn gay. I know what I saw. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Ok, so you say I'm only looking out for their rights, while I'm denying your rights. Is this where you feel the hypocrisy lies (I'm still trying to figure that out)? Which of your rights am I denying? You don't have a right to exclusive access to facilities any more than white people in the 60s had a "right" to exclusive access to a bathroom because they felt "uncomfortable" sharing it with blacks. If you think that's a right, then I disagree strongly. People don't have rights to exclude someone else from something, unless it's their own property. </div> No that's not why I posed the question of "Hypocrite?". You simply made a very awkward comment considering the discussion we're having. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You say they will be no worse off in a different locker room. That's the old "separate but equal" argument used by segregationists. I think it's dangerous, and only encourages divisions between people. We should just get over our hangups about gay people, instead of feeding into it by separating them from us.</div> The NBA is loaded, how do you know their facilities wouldn't be equal? I think it encourages comfort in the locker room. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> It's blatant sign of disrespect. I care if someone else thinks I'm a hypocrite or a liar. But you've tried to clarify what you meant in the past couple posts, so it's not an issue now. </div> Hooray! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You said: "It doesn't matter if I call you a liar either. Personally I don't care when people call me by some racial slur either. I think you dwell too long on this part of the thread." Based on this, it looked to me that you needed to be reminded what the rulebook says.</div> And I didn't.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">That's extremely unlikely and the author made more than enough comments to infer "nurture" being a cause.</div> Alright. I'll just say I don't agree it can be inferred from their comments and leave it at that. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting "huevonkiller":</div><div class="quote_post">No that's not why I posed the question of "Hypocrite?". You simply made a very awkward comment considering the discussion we're having. </div> You didn't simply pose the question. You flat out said I was a hypocrite: "You said just because it's a natural reaction doesn't mean it is rational. That's what people who don't believe in homosexuality say (thus you're a hypocrite)." Yes, gay-bashers and I may agree that a natural reaction isn't necessarily rational. We also agree that the sky is blue. Again, I'll ask, how am I a hypocrite? <div class="quote_poster">Quoting "huevonkiller":</div><div class="quote_post">The NBA is loaded, how do you know their facilities wouldn't be equal? I think it encourages comfort in the locker room.</div> They aren't equal, because they're separate. And it encourages comfort by legitimizing homophobia and denying civil rights. So I'm against it.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Alright. I'll just say I don't agree it can be inferred from their comments and leave it at that.</div> The author himself will tell you otherwise. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You didn't simply pose the question. You flat out said I was a hypocrite: "You said just because it's a natural reaction doesn't mean it is rational. That's what people who don't believe in homosexuality say (thus you're a hypocrite)." Yes, gay-bashers and I may agree that a natural reaction isn't necessarily rational. </div> Yeah, so you came off as a hypocrite. Why would you go out of your way to defend such an "irrational" behavior (homosexuality)? When I state something is irrational, I'm implying that it is wrong. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> We also agree that the sky is blue. Again, I'll ask, how am I a hypocrite? </div> Well you didn't say that did you? You made a different statement and that's a bad comparison because the sky is indeed blue; there's no argument there. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> They aren't equal, because they're separate. And it encourages comfort by legitimizing homophobia and denying civil rights. So I'm against it.</div> We're not dealing with public elementary schools here (students from public schools don't get paid millions of dollars and aren't taken care of by a players' union). A facility can indeed be seperate and equal if rich bastards from the NBA are involved. I'm sure some homosexuals want to come out and if that happens, they might be better off in a different locker room. Anyway, it doesn't concern me to the point of suicide.
