Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

[Keller61]

Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

That's not really a good argument. There are a lot of things that people choose to do that don't benefit them in the long-run.

I assume you mean drugs and stuff like that. Well, those at least give you pleasure in the short-term; there's a reason why people do them. For what reason would you choose to have sex with people you're not attracted to? Unless of course, you are attracted to them, which is not something you can choose.

That being said I don't think homosexuality is 100% a choice. I think it is to a certain extent but is more heavily influenced by environmental factors and how you were raised/what you were exposed to. People are going to call me a homophobe for that opinion, but science actually agrees with it, considering that no gene or combination of genes have proven to lead to homosexuality. So from that it's clear that it's based on nurture and choice rather than nature.

Based on what I've read, there is far more evidence for genetic and hormonal factors leading to homosexuality than there is for environmental factors. Can you cite a study that "proves" environmental factors cause homosexuality? Just because we haven't discovered an exact combination of genes that produce homosexuality doesn't mean that genes don't play a role. Frankly, I don't think you understand how science works at all.

[Charizard]

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

And that's why I always assumed one was born gay. Why go through that if you dont have to? But at the same time, identifying with a certain religion results in persecution and discrimination, some places to the point of death. In other ways, peoples actions made out of choice result in persecution, so it doesn't prove much.

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Okay, so when did you choose to be straight? I fail to see why it would be different for people who's sexuality differs from your own.

And the religion argument doesn't add up because religion is something people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in, so that's very different from people "choosing" a sexuality that in many cases, in the majority of countries, they're being told is wrong. Then you have homosexual animals, I mean logic is just so heavily on the side of being born with it.

I do agree that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not, because that implies that it's 'less right' if it is. But as somebody who doesn't identify as straight myself, and has never made any decision about that whatsoever, the idea of it being a choice is absurd.

And somebody can be bi & still be primarily interested in a certain gender. Bisexuality is a spectrum, it's not just a 50/50 split down the middle.

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual. I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby. I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

And I have to disagree with your second paragraph, respectfully of course. Why do you have to believe in a religion starting at birth? A lot of people choose their own religion, or belief in deity at many different ages. People should educate themselves before choosing a philosophy to live their life by to avoid bias. And anyway, there are plenty of choices we make that result in persecutio in addition, which was my original point. Saying, "why would I choose to be gay and be discriminated and face persecution willingly" is not proof.

[Charizard]

[Tweet] [/Tweet]

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Holy hell is that guy dumb.

He was actually pretty educated at a prestigious institution, and very pro-gay. However, he didn't really become gay until he was 18, so he was just speaking on his experience.

Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

Sexuality is complicated; there probably isn't a singular gene that determines it, but more likely a large combination of factors. There are plenty of scientific articles you can read on the subject. Just because we can't pinpoint exactly what is causing it doesn't mean that nothing is causing it.

What I know for certain is that I've never met anyone who says that they chose their sexual orientation. It's an absurd concept when you think about it. When you think about how strong your sexual feelings are, do you really think that you could just choose to switch them off? Of course not. You can't help feeling sexually attracted to certain people. You can choose not to act on those feelings, but you can't choose not to feel them.

For us straight dudes its not complex at all. One month were into blondes, the next Asians, the next tattooed chicks.

[KayDee35]

That being said I don't think homosexuality is 100% a choice. I think it is to a certain extent but is more heavily influenced by environmental factors and how you were raised/what you were exposed to. People are going to call me a homophobe for that opinion, but science actually agrees with it, considering that no gene or combination of genes have proven to lead to homosexuality. So from that it's clear that it's based on nurture and choice rather than nature.

Your thinking in this post is muddled and far from the kind of theorizing and empirical confirmation that happens in science.

First, lack of evidence does not mean support for the opposing theory. If we lack genetic evidence of a psychological trait, that does not mean we get to automatically cite nurture as the primary cause. Genomics is a young field and the search for a 'gay gene' is not on the forefront of genetic research as there are more pressing matters (cancer, autism, etc.) that receive far more funding.

Second, nurture will always be involved in behavioral traits. Without someone being exposed to math, we would never find out that they are a mathematical savant.

[Nazrmohamed]

I didn't read the whole law but I wonder how they classify a business and whether or not these rules would reply to religious organizations. Not the religious shop owner but the actual church itself.
I find it absolutely silly that a religious business owner would deny anyone based on sexual orientation. First because even if one thinks it's a sin the bible clearly states to love sinners and non sinners alike because truth be told we are all sinners. (Let he who has no sin cast...). And besides, nobody is asking that business to bring their work home with them, just serve the public.

With that said though the difference is that churches are actually in the business of promoting the way if god. Not to be accepting of popular view. I can see how religions can envision a world where laws dictate what message they can preach. Perhaps one day it may be considered a hate crime to preach an anti gay message.

[Carlton Banksy]

And that's why I always assumed one was born gay. Why go through that if you dont have to? But at the same time, identifying with a certain religion results in persecution and discrimination, some places to the point of death. In other ways, peoples actions made out of choice result in persecution, so it doesn't prove much.

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Okay, so when did you choose to be straight? I fail to see why it would be different for people who's sexuality differs from your own.

And the religion argument doesn't add up because religion is something people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in, so that's very different from people "choosing" a sexuality that in many cases, in the majority of countries, they're being told is wrong. Then you have homosexual animals, I mean logic is just so heavily on the side of being born with it.

I do agree that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not, because that implies that it's 'less right' if it is. But as somebody who doesn't identify as straight myself, and has never made any decision about that whatsoever, the idea of it being a choice is absurd.

And somebody can be bi & still be primarily interested in a certain gender. Bisexuality is a spectrum, it's not just a 50/50 split down the middle.

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual. I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby. I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

And I have to disagree with your second paragraph, respectfully of course. Why do you have to believe in a religion starting at birth? A lot of people choose their own religion, or belief in deity at many different ages. People should educate themselves before choosing a philosophy to live their life by to avoid bias. And anyway, there are plenty of choices we make that result in persecutio in addition, which was my original point. Saying, "why would I choose to be gay and be discriminated and face persecution willingly" is not proof.

Okay, but did you at any point choose to be straight? Whether you agree with Freud or not, you were either born hetero or you developed into it, it's not a decision you made.

I've never heard of an LGBTQ+ person saying that their orientation was a choice, and unless you think we're all conspiring against the heteros there's a reason for that. Just about everybody who says it's a choice identifies as a heterosexual who never actually made that choice themselves, and the people who supposedly made it find the idea laughable... I mean that should probably tell you something.

[KayDee35]

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual.

Freud is interesting but isn't a significant part of serious scientific psychological discussion anymore. While there is some plasticity to human sexual orientation, more so in females than males, there is evidence that it is quite inflexible past a certain age. Bisexuals also show sexual plasticity but they are a minority.

I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby.

Your physiological development was at a different stage when you were a baby than when you became an adolescent. Athleticism has a significant genetic component but Michael Jordan wasn't dunking the basketball when he was a baby, either.

I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

I feel strongly for gay rights for 3 reasons. There's some evidence for a genetic basis. People should not be persecuted for consensual acts. And discrimination against any part of society has long-term negative social and economic impact for that group and for society in general (e.g., blacks in this country).

[soxfan2003]

That being said given, a person who bakes cakes or photographs weddings SHOULD have the right to discriminate against gays, whites, blacks, heterosexuals, short people, tall people, skinny people, overweight people or whoever he or she wants to discriminate based upon sincerely held religious beliefs at least.

So you're against the Federal Civil Rights laws? You think segregation and Jim Crow laws should have remained in place? You think it should be legal for people to deny others food, gas, employment, housing, mortgages, and other goods/services based upon race or other characteristics?

For the NCAA and other people to complain about Indiana's recent law is a joke when they knowingly have much less of an issue with states that deny gays marriage or civil unions!!! Why not refuse to have the NCAA tournament or NCAA games in any state without gay marriage or civil unions????

I get the point but just because there are worse laws elsewhere does not mean we should leave bad legislation alone. This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.

But that being said, if the gay rights movement and opponents opposed to marriage being redefined had more "common sense", they would have been pushing "compromise" such as "civil unions" for all. And let private institutions define "marriage".

This has nothing to do with "common sense" but is rather a statement that gays should be comfortable with a separate but equal term for their marriages. That does not work when the government recognizes "marriage" on legal grounds. Heterosexual couples can still have their "Muslim marriages" and "Christian marriages."

Perhaps small businesses like with under 10 employees allowed to discriminate on religious grounds.

That's like 99% of the businesses in many small towns. So a black family could be denied food, gas, and lodging while driving through large parts of the U.S.?

I actually think gays are making a mistake in pushing this agenda. It is not a way to make friends out of reasonable people.

This is just as much an "agenda" as a woman's right to vote or for people to marry those of another race. "Reasonable people" did not support those things in their time. They had to be dragged into the future with legislation that they opposed. Now we look at those things as a given but they were controversial issues back then. The same goes for gay marriage. People will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and all this talk about an "agenda" will be forgotten or dismissed as thinly veiled bigotry.

You have inserted straw man arguments that are ridiculous. The state or federal government disallowing blacks and whites to marry is a heck of a lot different than a florist deciding to not support a gay marriage for religious reasons or a piano player doing the same. A gay couple can go to another florist or buy there cake elsewhere or even grow their own flowers and bake their own cake. From my work experience in high school and in college breaks -- 7 years total -- , I learned a lot about weddings since I had to set them up. Easily setup 300+ of them over the years and I sometimes interacted with people who brought in the cakes and florists. It's a radical gay agenda for gays to be complaining about florists and people who bake cakes when you recognize how many different people do those activities. We are not talking monopolies here like the cable companies denying gays cable TV in the 1980's.

Name 10 businesses in the entire US prepared to discriminate against blacks or gays shopping for groceries, gasoline or lodging? Most lodging and big grocery stores that people go to have way more than 10 employees. As mentioned previously, I have worked at a hotel for many years and known 3 different people who own motels. Most gasoline places just take charge cards and they don't ask for your race!

I am opposed to the Federal Government treating gays separately from heterosexuals and have been for over 25 years. I don't think the term "marriage" should be recognized by the federal government. I said civil unions for ALL that the federal government recognizes and that means gays and straights and bisexuals. Gays just like straights then can go to any private institution and have their non legally binding ceremony called "marriage" or anything else. If Church X doesn't recognize same sex marriage, gays can go to church Y or make up their own private institution that does. It doesn't have to be a church. They can setup private institutions that discriminate against straights. I have no problem with that. And if you do, you are kind of being ridiculous. Why? Should we have it illegal to have a "LGBT hiking groups" on meetup.com or different meetup groups in which you have to be of a certain age or sex? If I tried to join one of those groups and admitted that I was straight in the application or not the target age or gender, I certainly don't blame them for not allowing me to join.

For my particular state, I am completely in favor of the religious freedom bill President Clinton signed into office applied at that state level as well. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't want anyone opposed to my sexual orientation or lifestyle decision forced to bake a cake for me or photograph my wedding or play the piano. I say lifestyle decision since while I believe most people are "born gay" probably from some sort of biological process and others -- think mostly bisexuals -- can be attracted to both sexes so it is an actual decision on their part. A couple famous bisexual woman have admitted this applies to their own personal circumstances. If supporting the law that Clinton signed for my state makes me against Federal Civil Rights bill, it makes Clinton previously against the Federal Civil Rights bill as well. Truth is I don't know enough about the Federal Civil rights bill to say definitively whether I would have voted for it or not. I don't like discrimination that doesn't have a constitutional basis such as religious freedom but I sure like the constitution and states rights.

I take the Federal Bill of Rights seriously and the constitution seriously. If the constitution is wrong and it has been in the past, there is an amendment process to fix it.

I am 100% against federal government discrimination in any form against any citizen including gays but I am in favor of the constitution as well. Not all US citizens have the option to permanently move elsewhere since other countries may not accept them. Discrimination against woman, African Americans and other groups should never have been written into the Constitution.

As for states, I actually do think they should be allowed to discriminate --- as long as they aren't in violation of the US Constitution/Federal laws -- and they should be allowed to do other crazy things like set taxes at 85% or barely tax at all as long as people have the power to move with their feet and are not enslaved/prevented from moving. If the state of Alabama wants to discriminate against gays or blacks or short people in a manner in which the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, citizens can move. If CA wants to discriminate against whites in the future, the state can as long as they aren't in violation of the constitution. Whites can move out of that state. After saving up for a year, I myself moved across country after college with only $5000 to my name and no job.

People often talk about how good the federal government has been but with a weaker federal government not interfering as much with states business, perhaps the US would have avoided a couple of very costly wars and ended the war on drugs that has imprisoned lots of non violent black men much sooner.

[Charizard]

Okay, so when did you choose to be straight? I fail to see why it would be different for people who's sexuality differs from your own.

And the religion argument doesn't add up because religion is something people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in, so that's very different from people "choosing" a sexuality that in many cases, in the majority of countries, they're being told is wrong. Then you have homosexual animals, I mean logic is just so heavily on the side of being born with it.

I do agree that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not, because that implies that it's 'less right' if it is. But as somebody who doesn't identify as straight myself, and has never made any decision about that whatsoever, the idea of it being a choice is absurd.

And somebody can be bi & still be primarily interested in a certain gender. Bisexuality is a spectrum, it's not just a 50/50 split down the middle.

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual. I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby. I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

And I have to disagree with your second paragraph, respectfully of course. Why do you have to believe in a religion starting at birth? A lot of people choose their own religion, or belief in deity at many different ages. People should educate themselves before choosing a philosophy to live their life by to avoid bias. And anyway, there are plenty of choices we make that result in persecutio in addition, which was my original point. Saying, "why would I choose to be gay and be discriminated and face persecution willingly" is not proof.

Okay, but did you at any point choose to be straight? Whether you agree with Freud or not, you were either born hetero or you developed into it, it's not a decision you made.

I've never heard of an LGBTQ+ person saying that their orientation was a choice, and unless you think we're all conspiring against the heteros there's a reason for that. Just about everybody who says it's a choice identifies as a heterosexual who never actually made that choice themselves, and the people who supposedly made it find the idea laughable... I mean that should probably tell you something.

I get your point. If Im straight subconsciously due to nurture it still isn't me choosing to be. That's a good argument. There are still cases where homosexuality is denser in certain environments, like the romans, and in the american prison system.

The bible doesn't really even say much about gays. With the way some act, you'd think it was a commandment. I don't recall anywhere in the new testament where Jesus hates on gays.

[xBulletproof]

This is over. Pence signed the 'fix' to include what people assumed was there. It was never put to the test, and I severely doubt it ever would have done what people assumed. In court I don't see how it ever would have been upheld the way people feared.

Doesn't matter though, its done.

[Star-Lord]

[Tweet] [/Tweet]

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Holy hell is that guy dumb.

He was actually pretty educated at a prestigious institution, and very pro-gay. However, he didn't really become gay until he was 18, so he was just speaking on his experience.

Or he was gay the entire time, and only accepted himself for who he really is at 18. I don't know. I'm not his psychologist.

Sexuality is complicated; there probably isn't a singular gene that determines it, but more likely a large combination of factors. There are plenty of scientific articles you can read on the subject. Just because we can't pinpoint exactly what is causing it doesn't mean that nothing is causing it.

What I know for certain is that I've never met anyone who says that they chose their sexual orientation. It's an absurd concept when you think about it. When you think about how strong your sexual feelings are, do you really think that you could just choose to switch them off? Of course not. You can't help feeling sexually attracted to certain people. You can choose not to act on those feelings, but you can't choose not to feel them.

For us straight dudes its not complex at all. One month were into blondes, the next Asians, the next tattooed chicks.

Always tattooed chicks.

[Neutral 123]

That being said given, a person who bakes cakes or photographs weddings SHOULD have the right to discriminate against gays, whites, blacks, heterosexuals, short people, tall people, skinny people, overweight people or whoever he or she wants to discriminate based upon sincerely held religious beliefs at least.

So you're against the Federal Civil Rights laws? You think segregation and Jim Crow laws should have remained in place? You think it should be legal for people to deny others food, gas, employment, housing, mortgages, and other goods/services based upon race or other characteristics?

For the NCAA and other people to complain about Indiana's recent law is a joke when they knowingly have much less of an issue with states that deny gays marriage or civil unions!!! Why not refuse to have the NCAA tournament or NCAA games in any state without gay marriage or civil unions????

I get the point but just because there are worse laws elsewhere does not mean we should leave bad legislation alone. This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.

But that being said, if the gay rights movement and opponents opposed to marriage being redefined had more "common sense", they would have been pushing "compromise" such as "civil unions" for all. And let private institutions define "marriage".

This has nothing to do with "common sense" but is rather a statement that gays should be comfortable with a separate but equal term for their marriages. That does not work when the government recognizes "marriage" on legal grounds. Heterosexual couples can still have their "Muslim marriages" and "Christian marriages."

Perhaps small businesses like with under 10 employees allowed to discriminate on religious grounds.

That's like 99% of the businesses in many small towns. So a black family could be denied food, gas, and lodging while driving through large parts of the U.S.?

I actually think gays are making a mistake in pushing this agenda. It is not a way to make friends out of reasonable people.

This is just as much an "agenda" as a woman's right to vote or for people to marry those of another race. "Reasonable people" did not support those things in their time. They had to be dragged into the future with legislation that they opposed. Now we look at those things as a given but they were controversial issues back then. The same goes for gay marriage. People will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and all this talk about an "agenda" will be forgotten or dismissed as thinly veiled bigotry.

You have inserted straw man arguments that are ridiculous. The state or federal government disallowing blacks and whites to marry is a heck of a lot different than a florist deciding to not support a gay marriage for religious reasons or a piano player doing the same. A gay couple can go to another florist or buy there cake elsewhere or even grow their own flowers and bake their own cake. From my work experience in high school and in college breaks -- 7 years total -- , I learned a lot about weddings since I had to set them up. Easily setup 300+ of them over the years and I sometimes interacted with people who brought in the cakes and florists. It's a radical gay agenda for gays to be complaining about florists and people who bake cakes when you recognize how many different people do those activities. We are not talking monopolies here like the cable companies denying gays cable TV in the 1980's.

Name 10 businesses in the entire US prepared to discriminate against blacks or gays shopping for groceries, gasoline or lodging? Most lodging and big grocery stores that people go to have way more than 10 employees. As mentioned previously, I have worked at a hotel for many years and known 3 different people who own motels. Most gasoline places just take charge cards and they don't ask for your race!

I am opposed to the Federal Government treating gays separately from heterosexuals and have been for over 25 years. I don't think the term "marriage" should be recognized by the federal government. I said civil unions for ALL that the federal government recognizes and that means gays and straights and bisexuals. Gays just like straights then can go to any private institution and have their non legally binding ceremony called "marriage" or anything else. If Church X doesn't recognize same sex marriage, gays can go to church Y or make up their own private institution that does. It doesn't have to be a church. They can setup private institutions that discriminate against straights. I have no problem with that. And if you do, you are kind of being ridiculous. Why? Should we have it illegal to have a "LGBT hiking groups" on meetup.com or different meetup groups in which you have to be of a certain age or sex? If I tried to join one of those groups and admitted that I was straight in the application or not the target age or gender, I certainly don't blame them for not allowing me to join.

For my particular state, I am completely in favor of the religious freedom bill President Clinton signed into office applied at that state level as well. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't want anyone opposed to my sexual orientation or lifestyle decision forced to bake a cake for me or photograph my wedding or play the piano. I say lifestyle decision since while I believe most people are "born gay" probably from some sort of biological process and others -- think mostly bisexuals -- can be attracted to both sexes so it is an actual decision on their part. A couple famous bisexual woman have admitted this applies to their own personal circumstances. If supporting the law that Clinton signed for my state makes me against Federal Civil Rights bill, it makes Clinton previously against the Federal Civil Rights bill as well. Truth is I don't know enough about the Federal Civil rights bill to say definitively whether I would have voted for it or not. I don't like discrimination that doesn't have a constitutional basis such as religious freedom but I sure like the constitution and states rights.

I take the Federal Bill of Rights seriously and the constitution seriously. If the constitution is wrong and it has been in the past, there is an amendment process to fix it.

I am 100% against federal government discrimination in any form against any citizen including gays but I am in favor of the constitution as well. Not all US citizens have the option to permanently move elsewhere since other countries may not accept them. Discrimination against woman, African Americans and other groups should never have been written into the Constitution.

As for states, I actually do think they should be allowed to discriminate --- as long as they aren't in violation of the US Constitution/Federal laws -- and they should be allowed to do other crazy things like set taxes at 85% or barely tax at all as long as people have the power to move with their feet and are not enslaved/prevented from moving. If the state of Alabama wants to discriminate against gays or blacks or short people in a manner in which the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, citizens can move. If CA wants to discriminate against whites in the future, the state can as long as they aren't in violation of the constitution. Whites can move out of that state. After saving up for a year, I myself moved across country after college with only $5000 to my name and no job.

People often talk about how good the federal government has been but with a weaker federal government not interfering as much with states business, perhaps the US would have avoided a couple of very costly wars and ended the war on drugs that has imprisoned lots of non violent black men much sooner.

This is nonsense. It is easy to say that when you have little fear that this will actually happen to you. The U.S has a history of not only discrimination, but state sanctioned slaughter of certain minority groups. If this is libertarianism, then it's pretty ridiculous.

[Neutral 123]

This is over. Pence signed the 'fix' to include what people assumed was there. It was never put to the test, and I severely doubt it ever would have done what people assumed. In court I don't see how it ever would have been upheld the way people feared.

Doesn't matter though, its done.

It's probably time for Pence to resign.

[Neutral 123]

And that's why I always assumed one was born gay. Why go through that if you dont have to? But at the same time, identifying with a certain religion results in persecution and discrimination, some places to the point of death. In other ways, peoples actions made out of choice result in persecution, so it doesn't prove much.

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Okay, so when did you choose to be straight? I fail to see why it would be different for people who's sexuality differs from your own.

And the religion argument doesn't add up because religion is something people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in, so that's very different from people "choosing" a sexuality that in many cases, in the majority of countries, they're being told is wrong. Then you have homosexual animals, I mean logic is just so heavily on the side of being born with it.

I do agree that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not, because that implies that it's 'less right' if it is. But as somebody who doesn't identify as straight myself, and has never made any decision about that whatsoever, the idea of it being a choice is absurd.

And somebody can be bi & still be primarily interested in a certain gender. Bisexuality is a spectrum, it's not just a 50/50 split down the middle.

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual. I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby. I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

And I have to disagree with your second paragraph, respectfully of course. Why do you have to believe in a religion starting at birth? A lot of people choose their own religion, or belief in deity at many different ages. People should educate themselves before choosing a philosophy to live their life by to avoid bias. And anyway, there are plenty of choices we make that result in persecutio in addition, which was my original point. Saying, "why would I choose to be gay and be discriminated and face persecution willingly" is not proof.

So you can choose to be with a man sexually tonight if you just decided? That can become the desire of your sexual lust?

[xBulletproof]

This is over. Pence signed the 'fix' to include what people assumed was there. It was never put to the test, and I severely doubt it ever would have done what people assumed. In court I don't see how it ever would have been upheld the way people feared.

Doesn't matter though, its done.

It's probably time for Pence to resign.

Not sure why. To appease people paranoid of something happening that was never proven it would? I'm not sure why that's necessary when he's already appeased them by making sure it never happened in the first place.

Sure, the bill was a solution looking for a problem. Resigning however seems awful overboard.

[Neutral 123]

This is over. Pence signed the 'fix' to include what people assumed was there. It was never put to the test, and I severely doubt it ever would have done what people assumed. In court I don't see how it ever would have been upheld the way people feared.

Doesn't matter though, its done.

It's probably time for Pence to resign.

Not sure why. To appease people paranoid of something happening that was never proven it would? I'm not sure why that's necessary when he's already appeased them by making sure it never happened in the first place.

Sure, the bill was a solution looking for a problem. Resigning however seems awful overboard.

He's not innocent. He knew what he was doing. He got caught, and wimped out, but these are the types of destructive weasels that don't belong in politics.

[Yoshun]

It's interesting how so many people still believe homosexuality is a choice. I wonder if those same people lack exposure, or have very little exposure, to those in the homosexual community?

[Neutral 123]

It's interesting how so many people still believe homosexuality is a choice. I wonder if those same people lack exposure, or have very little exposure, to those in the homosexual community?

Or to themselves. If homosexuality was a choice, then sexuality period is a choice. What they believe is that they themselves could choose to be gay tomorrow if they wanted to. That makes no sense to me at all.

[Yoshun]

It's interesting how so many people still believe homosexuality is a choice. I wonder if those same people lack exposure, or have very little exposure, to those in the homosexual community?

Or to themselves. If homosexuality was a choice, then sexuality period is a choice. What they believe is that they themselves could choose to be gay tomorrow if they wanted to. That makes no sense to me at all.

Oh yea I agree. I mean I didn't wake up one day and say, "I'm going to like women." I just think exposure to something different sometimes makes us more aware of ourselves.

[soxfan2003]

[

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote.

Government has a monopoly on voting and a near monopoly on education son. Since capitalism requires private ownership, what effect could it have?

You did not explain how the all-powerful invisible hand of the free market solved segregation.

Do you think segregation is solved? I don't. I am not saying it is an awful thing for it not to be solved as long as the government isn't segregating people. But many people including liberals still self-segregate by race and/or income.

In addition, capitalism probably contributed to woman voting and it was government that prevented woman from voting in the first place. More woman gained some economic power. Economic power often leads to political power.