Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
Yes being gay is the same thing as having a serious birth defect.
Only if you buy "genetics" as the cause, and there's absolutely nothing to support that.
More or less my argument. I mean there's a vast difference between "your child will be gay" and "your child has a serious birth defect that will bring them a lifetime-long need of additional care." And I don't think, either, that there is a "gay gene" or a way to pinpoint inside genetics that child will or will not be gay. At least I've never heard of such a discovery having been made.
Not that even aborting such a child in that case is "right" but at least it's a touch more "legit."
Have you talked to gay people here about some of their parents?!
It's not such a big deal in the US Northeast or West, and much less of a deal elsewhere in the US, Canada, and much of Western Europe. But that's not a big percentage of the world population, or by extension the world's gay population. What do you think will happen to gay birth rates in Russia, India, China, Africa, and the Middle East? Maybe all five of them will meet in Dubai and throw a party.
And the funny thing is, those who think abortion is murder are the ones who are probably most uncomfortable with gays, yet are also the ones who will argue that the pre-natal test caused more murders of gay people than anything else in history.
Have you talked to gay people here about some of their parents?!
It's not such a big deal in the US Northeast or West, and much less of a deal elsewhere in the US, Canada, and much of Western Europe. But that's not a big percentage of the world population, or by extension the world's gay population. What do you think will happen to gay birth rates in Russia, India, China, Africa, and the Middle East? Maybe all five of them will meet in Dubai and throw a party.
And the funny thing is, those who think abortion is murder are the ones who are probably most uncomfortable with gays, yet are also the ones who will argue that the pre-natal test caused more murders of gay people than anything else in history.
I think that acceptance will continue to increase worldwide.
Oh, it's almost certainly not genetic, but there is obviously a difference, and if there is a difference in the womb, somebody will find a reliable way to detect it. Western doctors might get close out of general scientific interest, and will hopefully back far away given the implications. But then again, there are plenty of asshole doctors, and I'm sure an Iranian research staff would have no problem taking Western research to its ultimate conclusion, if nothing else to prove that nobody in Iran is gay. Even if the test gets banned in the West, the demand elsewhere will be quite high, and I'm sure quite profitable.
Are you suggesting that it is a choice?
John Barrowman did a show about the cause a few years ago. He went over the possible reasons, genetics, environment, choice.
He never really came to a conclusion. In reality it could be any of those things, or even a combination.
In the end, it really doesn't matter, it is what it is.
It's a possibility.
Evidence indicates otherwise. I also know I like women not because I chose to I just do. Do you remember ever making this choice?
Not really, no. I mean, genetics could play a part more like making one pre-disposed towards something, then it could still come down to a choice.
We hear a lot of people say "I always felt (this way)", but in some cases a person claims they just made a decision.
I want to point out here, because I'm sure that there's some evangelical Christian lurking around here or who will at some point that will believe or say "being gay is a choice." Really? You know something, not even Exodus International teaches that. Go read their own website. Here's a choice quote for you:
Every so often you read or hear somebody in the pew say that, or, more importantly folks in the American Family Association. Now, let's think about that for a moment. Nobody ever stops to think how monumentally schizophrenic the "traditional family/anit-gay marriage" movement is. On the one hand they say "homosexuality is a choice" and on the other they promote Exodus International and its affiliates who say "homosexuality is not a choice." Isn't it well past time that these people all get on board with their own propaganda. If they don't believe it themselves, then why should anybody else believe it?
Every so often you read or hear somebody in the pew say that, or, more importantly folks in the American Family Association. Now, let's think about that for a moment. Nobody ever stops to think how monumentally schizophrenic the "traditional family/anit-gay marriage" movement is. On the one hand they say "homosexuality is a choice" and on the other they promote Exodus International and its affiliates who say "homosexuality is not a choice." Isn't it well past time that these people all get on board with their own propaganda. If they don't believe it themselves, then why should anybody else believe it?
Name one.
Let's even say for a second that it is a choice. Does this somehow make it okay to treat homosexuals as lesser citizens? Of course not. To me it really doesn't matter because it's completely not my business who someone loves or has sex with.
Bingo...religion is a choice, and we disallow such discrimination, so to say "Because it's a choice" therefore "discrimination allowed" doesn't hold water unless you're willing to sacrifice religious freedom too. In fact, one could say that, in the Bible, since the texts referring to homosexual behavior (Leviticus 16 and Romans 1) respectively actually index the behavior to idol worship, that the issue is ultimately indexed to what's called the First Table of the Law. So, to discriminate against homosexuals, if those who affirm that all homosexual behavior qua behavior is sin, is to seek to legislate the First Table of the Law - the very thing the First Amendment itself is designed to prohibit. Unfortunately, not enough Christians in particular seem to recognize that fact, because they (a) fail to draw a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual behavior and (b) read more into Romans 1 and Lev. 16 than the text itself allows - or, alternatively, IMO, too little. In fact, with respect to (a) this is, as I stated before, a place where they can't seem to get on message. They point people to Exodus but don't realize that Exodus makes a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. So, when they say homosexuality is a sin, they are failing to draw the distinctions their own ministries to which they point people for help draw. This is terribly confusing for those people, and it shows us that, really, at the heart of a lot of the chest beating from people in churches is a profound ignorance of the issue - they don't want to understand their opponents, and consequently, they don't even understand what their own propaganda machine actually says. They don't realize how horribly cruel that is for people who are gay and Christian to have to endure.
Cynthia Nixon has made the claim. However, she also shaved her head, so ya never know.
Think of it as the world being interesting, and not in a good way. It's hard to claim that genetic sex testing (a boy or a girl?) had any good results when passed to India and China, except for the occassional recessive disorder that's avoided.
Since science continually advances at a rapid pace, unless sexuality is determined after birth, someone will find out how to test for it in the womb. This will certainly not be good in any country where gender selective abortions are common, and certainly not good in countries where a woman might get beaten for wearing pants.
Gays in Western countries might not be much help, because they seem to be obsessed with who eats in Chick-Fil-A instead of looking for long term existential threats, and seem content as long as only some babies are "[aborted/murdered]" for being gay.
*** Expects Kestra to snap out of the numbers argument and strongly argue that not one baby should be aborted for being gay, even in Iran, which, while morally correct, will also involve telling women when they can and can't have an abortion. Needless to say, if this test is ever invented there isn't going to be a moral position that makes anyone happy. ***
A worse possibility for the gay community, which I haven't brought up, is what would happen if someone discovers that homosexuality is caused by some simple deficiency in a crucial signaling compound or neurological triggering mechanism, and develops a simple pre-natal treatment like adding folic acid to bread to prevent spinabifida. Then you wouldn't even have the "abortion is murder!" Baptist crowd fighting to stop the abortion of gay babies, you'd just have the virtual disappearance of gays outside of narrow, self-sustaining cultural enclaves in the West. That still probably fits the UN definition of "genocide", even though nobody is actually killed (stopping people from reproducing is genocide, but in this case the straights are reproducing just fine, so it might raise interesting questions).
In part I bring all this up because somebody could make some interesting sci-fi plots out of it, even if for an episodic show where it happens on another planet, and it is something that might actually happen here in some form or another. Of course the intense debate over it might quickly get drowned out when further research starts popping out genetically enhanced designer clones with super-genius IQ's. So yeah, maybe the battle against Kaaaahnnn!!!! stopped the gay testing and saved Sulu.
Of course, I could've asked which parents would sit around and ask, "So, do we want to stay with having an Oscar winning writer, director, and producer with three Grammy's, or should we wait and go for the assistant manager at Chick-Fil-A?"
"Chick-Fil-A. That stuff is tasty!"
I'm going to post something I put on my Facebook page yesterday...Dear Chick Fil-A supporters...1.You're free to believe what you want and support wh you want, but, speaking for myself, I'm not too hip on buying stuff from a store that seeks to disempower me, and it's not just about gay marriage, it's so much more - those that are trying to insinuate it's about gay marriage are wrong, it goes further than that. They take our "gay dollars" and give them to organizations that do more than seek to deny us the right to marry. Some of them would have us have no civil rights whatsoever. They take our money and fund marriage retreats where we are then disallowed entrance ourselves. They take our money and prevaricate when we ourselves ask them questions about what they do with it - they don't own it to our faces, they own it to Baptist Press. That's shady on it's face.
2. That's not "hate" or "intolerance." Being tolerant does not automatically mean I lose the right to boycott you if I want or speak out - No, being tolerant means that in a free marketplace of ideas, we both get to express our views, and it's not "hate" - this is self-preservation on the part of gays - please master those elementary distinctions. There are limits to the quality and quantity of "tolerance" I am obligated to extend - and I peg them to the actions of my opponents - and, speaking for myself, I rarely if ever do this publicly, but this latest round has struck home, because i grew up Baptist and I'm watching them not only treat gays shamefully but also abide by the ninth commandment when they think they will make up from lost sales to one group via increased sales via another (Southern Baptists). This isn't just a moral position; it's a business decision on Cathy's part - it's painfully obvious, but nobody really wants to admit it. I do this because I've spoken out on Baptist issues in my own history, so it's not just about my sexual organization, it's about another group I love, even though I choose now to associate myself with evangelical Presbyterianism.
. Speaking of which, I don't want to support CFA not so much because they disempower gays as much as I do because they aren't too cozy with the 9th Commandment. They're free to believe who they want, but if you're going to tell people to support them (Mike Huckabee, Southern Baptists, and others), then you're only doing so at the expense of the 9th Commandment. They lied about the reason they doh't have Muppet toys and have been caught red handed on Facebook using a fake profile to defend their lies. Really? I mean REALLY? I've said this before: CFA: Good on marriage and family, on that pesky 9th Commandment - a lil "iffy" don't you think?
For my own side in general - Keep it classy. Roseanne, thanks for your intentions, but name calling doesn't do any good.
That should do for the moment.
2. That's not "hate" or "intolerance." Being tolerant does not automatically mean I lose the right to boycott you if I want or speak out - No, being tolerant means that in a free marketplace of ideas, we both get to express our views, and it's not "hate" - this is self-preservation on the part of gays - please master those elementary distinctions. There are limits to the quality and quantity of "tolerance" I am obligated to extend - and I peg them to the actions of my opponents - and, speaking for myself, I rarely if ever do this publicly, but this latest round has struck home, because i grew up Baptist and I'm watching them not only treat gays shamefully but also abide by the ninth commandment when they think they will make up from lost sales to one group via increased sales via another (Southern Baptists). This isn't just a moral position; it's a business decision on Cathy's part - it's painfully obvious, but nobody really wants to admit it. I do this because I've spoken out on Baptist issues in my own history, so it's not just about my sexual organization, it's about another group I love, even though I choose now to associate myself with evangelical Presbyterianism.
. Speaking of which, I don't want to support CFA not so much because they disempower gays as much as I do because they aren't too cozy with the 9th Commandment. They're free to believe who they want, but if you're going to tell people to support them (Mike Huckabee, Southern Baptists, and others), then you're only doing so at the expense of the 9th Commandment. They lied about the reason they doh't have Muppet toys and have been caught red handed on Facebook using a fake profile to defend their lies. Really? I mean REALLY? I've said this before: CFA: Good on marriage and family, on that pesky 9th Commandment - a lil "iffy" don't you think?
For my own side in general - Keep it classy. Roseanne, thanks for your intentions, but name calling doesn't do any good.
That should do for the moment.
