Houston becomes the largest city to elect openly gay mayor?

[RJDiogenes]

You were doing okay up until "stupid." In Misc, you must keep the discussion civil.

in fact, it is a natural trait people are born with,

Isn't that a convenient assumption.

At least it falls in line with the liberal agenda and you wont get warned for it. But it wont help anyone in the end and will keep people dying. But I guess that's okay to some for political gain.

Ah, very nice. Calling an opinion stupid is an offence here but calling homosexuality a reason for death isn't.

Great! Just great!

^Seriously. I was going to point out to RJ that you called TLS's and companies' opinions stupid, not any poster themselves.

Maybe if somebody creates a religion where flaming is a holy tenant...?

Is it really that hard for people to be civil? Or are you just that eager to play into your opponents hands?

Now, again, how about getting back to the actual discussion?

 

[RJDiogenes]

in fact, it is a natural trait people are born with,

Isn't that a convenient assumption.

No, it isn't. Aside from being common sense, it's science; and it's been well known for quite some time.

 

[ST-One]

Is it really that hard for people to be civil? Or are you just that eager to play into your opponents hands?

Calling opinions 'stupid' is now off limits?
Good to know.

It's a great way to perpetuate ignorance and stupidity under the veil of civility.

God knows it sooo improper to call the opinion that my homosexuality would lead to the demise of the moral fabric of society or that it would lead to more dying () 'stupid'.

Now, again, how about getting back to the actual discussion?

Yes, indeed. Let's go back to discussing things.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

in fact, it is a natural trait people are born with,

Isn't that a convenient assumption.

No, it isn't. Aside from being common sense, it's science; and it's been well known for quite some time.

Gay gene, RJ?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The most current research I have seen indicates homosexuality is a combination of genetic and gestational factors (hormones, etc.) but that it is predominantly (if not totally) an inborn trait.

We consider religion a protected status, even though you aren't born with that, yet the research indicates your sexual orientation is something you're born with, and we have people who would use it to persecute them. Sad.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The most current research I have seen indicates homosexuality is a combination of genetic and gestational factors (hormones, etc.) but that it is predominantly (if not totally) an inborn trait.

We consider religion a protected status, even though you aren't born with that, yet the research indicates your sexual orientation is something you're born with, and we have people who would use it to persecute them. Sad.

Well, advocates been looking for this supposed gay gene for how long?

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say you're right. People can still vote for someone or not for whatever reason they wish.

 

[Pingfah]

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say you're right. People can still vote for someone or not for whatever reason they wish.

Wow, i'm so totally relieved you clarified your position for us, I think people were still a little unsure about that one.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The most current research I have seen indicates homosexuality is a combination of genetic and gestational factors (hormones, etc.) but that it is predominantly (if not totally) an inborn trait.

We consider religion a protected status, even though you aren't born with that, yet the research indicates your sexual orientation is something you're born with, and we have people who would use it to persecute them. Sad.

Well, advocates been looking for this supposed gay gene for how long?

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say you're right. People can still vote for someone or not for whatever reason they wish.

Maybe you should take a class on genetics so you understand how these things work.

And thanks for admitting up front you wouldn't vote for someone specifically because they're gay.

 

[Pingfah]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The most current research I have seen indicates homosexuality is a combination of genetic and gestational factors (hormones, etc.) but that it is predominantly (if not totally) an inborn trait.

We consider religion a protected status, even though you aren't born with that, yet the research indicates your sexual orientation is something you're born with, and we have people who would use it to persecute them. Sad.

Well, advocates been looking for this supposed gay gene for how long?

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say you're right. People can still vote for someone or not for whatever reason they wish.

Maybe you should take a class on genetics so you understand how these things work.

And thanks for admitting up front you wouldn't vote for someone specifically because they're gay.

I made that clear on page one I believe. Contrast it to people who would vote for a person specifically because they are homosexual. Or do you think this would not happen?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

If I was letting my choice at the polls be influenced by the candidate's sexual orientation, gender, race, national origin, etc. I'd be ashamed of myself. What matters is what the person's views are and whether or not I agree with them, and to what extent.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

Well it's obvious I'm right about the voting part. I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

 

[Pingfah]

Well it's obvious I'm right about the voting part. I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

Yeah, I know, about 20 times.

If I was letting my choice at the polls be influenced by the candidate's sexual orientation, gender, race, national origin, etc. I'd be ashamed of myself. What matters is what the person's views are and whether or not I agree with them, and to what extent.

I completely agree, he seems to think we are arguing an entirely different point though.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Well it's obvious I'm right about the voting part. I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

Yeah, I know, about 20 times.

Exactly. And I'll be there to speak my opinion whenever the opposite is promoted. You guys do it, why shouldn't I?

 

[Pingfah]

Clearly you have failed to grasp my incredibly simple point.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

Wrong on both counts. There's nothing perfect or logical about it.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

If I was letting my choice at the polls be influenced by the candidate's sexual orientation, gender, race, national origin, etc. I'd be ashamed of myself. What matters is what the person's views are and whether or not I agree with them, and to what extent.

The difference between homosexuality and the other items above is that it flies in the face of my moral beliefs. The others do not, although the national origin issue I might have a problem with.

 

[ST-One]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

Well it's obvious I'm right about the voting part. I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

No, it's not at all logical.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I already explained why it's a deal breaker for me and it's perfectly logical.

Wrong on both counts. There's nothing perfect or logical about it.

Sure it's not. IF you buy into what's being promoted in regard to homosexuality. I, and millions of others, do not.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ I enjoy the way he keeps harping on the same point about voting rights.

The important thing to remember is that what matters is being right. About something.. ANYTHING!

Never mind that it's the most absurdly simplistic point a person could make on this issue, never mind the fact that it is erecting an enormous strawman and that nobody is trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to vote for who they want for whatever reason they wish (but rather that some reasons for not voting for someone are simply banal), just keep repeating it over and over because it's RIGHT and it makes you look as if you are RIGHT about something.

If I was letting my choice at the polls be influenced by the candidate's sexual orientation, gender, race, national origin, etc. I'd be ashamed of myself. What matters is what the person's views are and whether or not I agree with them, and to what extent.

The difference between homosexuality and the other items above is that it flies in the face of my moral beliefs. The others do not, although the national origin issue I might have a problem with.

So you only vote for paragons of moral virtue?

No divorcees, no single parents, no one who partied in college, no who admitted to having a toke, etc. etc.?

What about different religions?

And what is your problem with someone's national origin? If someone came to this country, has made a life for themselves, and they want to repay it with public service, you would have a problem with that?