McCain's heroic backdrop

[Dre L]

WHAT?! McCain is an anti-jew, anti-gay, talkative gambler who is marrying a gay jew that believes in Santa Claus? Now I"m really not voting for him, this is the ultimate example of Republicans saying one thing then doing another.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

What is so hard to understand? My prefereance for my self is to be heterosexual..That is my lifestyle preference. What others may choose is their preference. It is not up to me to either agree or disagree with their gay lifestyle.



I feel the say way about abortions. I would not want anyone in my family to have and abortion, but I would not try to stop them if that was their decision. While I personally don't agree with any woman having an abortion, I nor can any man become pregnant, so why should men be even involved in the decision unless the man is the woman's doctor.



Those view may be very libral for some people, but I have some liberal views on some issue and conservative views on other issure, as do most people in this country.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL,



Now I understand. You defined "not believe" as "not prefer". That's cool. I don't really think that gay people choose their preference, however.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

Actually gays do prefer their lifestyle, it's what makes people prefer to be gay, and other not. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.



I call it a preference because nobody can convince me it's a moral issue, a physioligical or a behavior issue. I don't believe that gays choose to be gay, but they have a preference for same-sex relationships.



Probably not too much different then people's preference for certain colors, kind of music, kinds of foods, etc I like brocolli and muishrooms while other people can't stand them. I have no problem with that, and they don't try to ban it, or think people who eat brocolli or mushrooms are imoral or mentally defective.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

I have a preference for Sport Tracs. Does that make me anti-Ridgline?:huh:

 

[Bill V]

...why should men be even involved in the decision unless the man is the woman's doctor.

Because that woman's decision can have years of impact on the man. Whether he has to pay 18 years of child support or not is currently not being decided by the man, or by the baby, but by the woman. True gender equity dictates that if it's "her body, her choice" with regards to giving birth, then it should be "his body, his choice" with regards to doing the labor to be able to pay child support and being involved in the child's life.



There are only four hypothetical options on the abortion issue which allow true gender equity to exist: (Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that all of these are realistic options in the real world. I'm just talking in the hypothetical now.)

--Abortions are not allowed.

--Abortions are only allowed if BOTH the biological mother AND the biological father agree to it.

--If either party--the biological mother OR the biological father--want a baby aborted, it gets aborted.

--The abortion decision is solely the mother's, but if the child is born, the father has the option to not be involved with the child in any way, financially or otherwise.



Now, of these, there is no way the third one would ever survive in the real world--no one would ever force a woman to abort a baby just because the father wants it to happen. The fourth one is also not a realistic option, as it only takes into account the parents' rights and not the child's. And the second option isn't really feasible either, as it opens up too much chance of parental blackmail by biological fathers--"I'll only let you get this abortion if..." Meaning the only which is realistic, and is fair to both parents, is the first one.



Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that more abortion opponents haven't taken this approach from a legal perspective. It seems such a logical (although indirect) way of achieving their desires. It's kind of like the way they went after Capone--they didn't imprison him for murder; they imprisoned him for tax evation.

 

[Josh Langel]

So... we can screw and have the option of not wanting the baby?



Do people not know how babies are made? Or are they just stupid?



I think this promotes a society of people who will not take responsibilty for their actions... and in my opinion that's a bad idea!



If you can't handle a kid than you need to keep things locked up... or be willing to accept responsibilty.



Next we'll be picking the sex... and if it's not what we want... we can have an option to refuse it!



Let's all head over to China now!

 

[Tom Schindler]

Actually gays do prefer their lifestyle, it's what makes people prefer to be gay, and other not. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

I believe Homosexuality is a genitic mutation, birth defect if you will. I am not saying this as if a Gay person is less of a person, but it is more than "Just a choice of life".



A Gay person is attracted to someone of the same sex, not because they choose to be attracted, the same as a straight person is attracted to the opposite sex.



If it is proven that homosexuality is a genetic defect, like a birth defect, IMO, that would be a complete shake-up to the religious right.





Tom

 

[Bill V]

Mud, you clearly didn't read my post.



Currently, women are given the option of not wanting the baby (abortion). If gender equity is to exist, men should have the same option (abortion or non-involvment).



Or, conversely, if men aren't allowed such an option, women shouldn't be allowed it either.



I'm not saying either one, hypothetically, is better than the other. In fact, generally, I'm in agreement with you. I'm just saying that for true gender equality, one or the other is necessary.



If you're as concerned about "taking responsibility" as you claim, fine--choose the second option.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL said:

Actually gays do prefer their lifestyle, it's what makes people prefer to be gay, and other not. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.



...

I don't believe that gays choose to be gay, but they have a preference for same-sex relationships.

Now I'm a little confused by your use of the words: "prefer/preference" and "choose/choice."



To me the term "prefer" will always have an element of "choice" associated with it. Meriam Webster seems to agree with their primary definition:

a: the act of preferring : the state of being preferred b: the power or opportunity of choosing

We are often asked which we prefer. For example: vanilla or chocolate ice cream; boxers or briefs; retirement in Miami or Phoenix?



You state the gay-lifestyle is a perference. You even said it is what makes people "prefer to be gay." However, we established that preference by its definition assumes choice. The rub is that you stated that you don't think people choose to be gay.



So if people don't choose to be gay, then people simply just "are gay" and they don't have a choice in the matter. Those gay people then "prefer" the gay-lifestyle by your assertion.



What does that even mean? If I am gay, and I have no choice in the matter (as you already said), then what other lifestyles are there for me to choose from? Do gays really prefer a gay-lifestyle, or is that really their only option?



Lastly, we keep tossing out this term "gay-lifestyle"...what do we even mean by it? Is it simply a life in which one is openly gay?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



The way I look at it is that it takes two people to make a baby. Both should have a say in aborting it. If there is a split decision (one wants, the other doesn't want the child), then the one that wants the child should be singularly responsible for its custody and its welfare (financially even).



What I just described should be applauded by all feminists.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

However, we established that preference by its definition assumes choice.

You sure about that? I prefer chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream. Does that mean I "chose" chocolate over strawberry? Not really. I just like--or "prefer"--chocolate, for whatever reason.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V, you missed the point. Preference by definition assumes there IS a choice. You prefer chocolate but you can choose strawberry and it's no big whoop.



People don't prefer to be gay as they have no choice (if you believe that). It comes down to what the definition of "gay lifestyle" is to understand if it can be preferred or not, or if there is no choice in the matter. As I said before, if the "gay lifestyle" means living openly as a gay person, than I don't see that as a preference, because I don't see it as a choice...the only other choice in that definition is to either be in the closet, and/or live a sexless life...neither of which are real choices equatable to "strawberry or chocolate", now are they?



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Preference by definition assumes there IS a choice.

I disagree. I assure you, my "preference" for chocolate ice cream is not a "choice". If I could choose to dislike chocolate, I would. Sure, I can abstain from it for a time, maybe even forever, but deep down, I'll always be a so-called "chocoholic". So I honestly don't thing the difference is as much as you claim.



Whether you call either my affinity for chocolate or a homosexual's affinity for the same gender a "preference" or not is beside the point--other than the fact that if you use the term for one, you need to use it for both. What does matter, though, is that there is not a "choice" involved in either case.

 

[Les]

Dictionary: preference (prĕf'ər-əns, prĕf'rəns)



The selecting of someone or something over another or others.

The right or chance to so choose.

Someone or something so chosen.



[Middle English preferraunce, preferment, from Old French preference, from preferer, to prefer. See prefer.]

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V said:

I disagree. I assure you, my "preference" for chocolate ice cream is not a "choice". If I could choose to dislike chocolate, I would. Sure

I never said a preference is a choice. What I said is that preference implies having a choice, by definition. Les also found another definition that states the same.



Preference to me means what one desires most (for whatever reason) among a set of choices. If you don't have a choice, you don't have a preference. You have a single option.



When one doesn't have a choice, it isn't a preference, its just the way it is.

 

[Bill V]

I never said a preference is a choice.

But you DID say that I "prefer" chocolate, and you DID say that "preference, by definition, assumes there IS a choice". So clearly, you are saying that I have a choice. But then you say that, "I don't really think that gay people choose their preference". Which leads me to believe that you don't feel gay people have a choice, and that this is therefore different than my affinity for chocolate. And that simply isn't the case. Regardless of what definitions you use, and whether you call it a "preference", a "choice", a "genetic mutation", or whatever, my point remains--I have as much control over and ability to override my affinity for chocolate as a homosexual has over their affinity for people of the same gender. We can both pretend it doesn't exist. We can both choose to not act on it for significant periods, perhaps even for a lifetime. But in the long run, regardless of all that, I am a chocoholic, and the homosexual is a a homosexual--regardless of how you choose to define "prefer", "choice", or anything else.



If you want to call my affinity for chocolate a "preference", that's fine--then by that definition, homosexuality is a "preference".



If you want to call my affinity for chocolate a "choice", that's fine--then by that definition, homosexuality is a "choice".



If you want to say that my affinity for chocolate is neither a "preference" or a "choice", and that it's something in my genetics, that's fine--then by that definition, homosexuality is neither a "preference" or a "choice".



In the long run, it doesn't matter what terminology you use, as long as you can acknowledge that, when it comes to things we "choose" or "prefer" or "are", these two characteristics belong in the same category.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

Many gays have had sexual relations with the opposite sex, but prefer same sex relationships. So in that case there is a preference or choice.



I don;t know to what extend a gay person may be able to willfully control their preference. Perhaps it is genetic as Caymen suggested, or it may simply be nothing more than a preference? That's the irony of the whole thing. Because there may be some element of choice, many assume gays chose to be gay. For what ever the reason, they may have a choice, but are simply more attracted to someone of the same sex than the opposite sex. This may be why some gay men have been married to women for years and have children and suddenly the guy announces he is gay ??



Years ago, people who were left handed were forcefully taught to be right-handed in schools, primarily because we live in a right-handed world. Now most of us are wiser and know that left-handed people are not any different than right-handed people. Appearantly some wires in their brains got crossed and the were born with their left hands being more dominate. Heck, some people are ambidextrous, just like some people are bi-sexual...Do you consider them gay? I like a lot of different foods, and I like a lot of different colors, and bi-sexuals like both men and women



So in the end I think it is a preference or a choice, I just don't know what motivates that preference for anyone...Nobody knows the answer



...Rich

 

[Bill V]

Boy, did this thread ever take a wild turn from its original subject... :lol:

 

[Les]

That's the irony of the whole thing. Because there may be some element of choice, many assume gays chose to be gay. For what ever the reason, they may have a choice, but are simply more attracted to someone of the same sex than the opposite sex.

Genetically pre-determined, people don't choose to be gay, they are born gay.

This may be why some gay men have been married to women for years and have children and suddenly the guy announces he is gay ??

These men have always been gay, it's just more acceptable today than before, and they probably don't care what people think as much.

Boy, did this thread ever take a wild turn from its original subject...

Bill V, that's for sure...