4/29/2013 4:44 PM
Do you have kids? I have a 6 year old. Play isn't really gender neutral. Of course there are outliers but, for the most part, the boys in his class play with trucks and ninja turtles and the girls play with dolls. And he goes to a school in a very liberal, relatively well off neighborhood where you'd expect to see gender neutral stuff.
4/29/2013 4:50 PM
I thought that was the big thing a few years back.    No more girls only in the Easy Bake oven commercials or boys only in the Tonka truck spots.   Did that not come to fruition?
4/29/2013 5:57 PM
Not that I've seen.
4/30/2013 8:42 AM
Everything you listed, other than homosexual, is basically a career (although criminal is debatable).  Are you only a homosexual now if you're gay for pay?

It has nothing to do with career - the reason the people are given those labels is because they  are all  based upon what those people DO. That's the point.
When I worked in an office the summer after my first year of undergrad, I listened to soft rock every day at work.  However, what I LIKE is harder classic rock.  But was I really a soft rock fan during that summer because what I actually did listen to (my actions) demonstrated that attribute? 

If you willingly chose to listen to soft rock (rather than simply listening because of someone else's preference), then you were a soft rock fan at that time regardless of what you say you like better.
Saying that we are defined exclusively by our actions and not our natural preferences is just stupid, sometimes our environment forces choices on us, but that does not dictate our preference.

We were never talking about circumstances which involve some sort of force from outside yourself, but only about the choices you willingly make.

The only thing that "is just stuipid" is to try to compare willing and unwilling choices. I suggest you are only doing that because you can't find any other way to even attempt an argument here. This one just doesn't work.
I'm curious what bis thinks about porn stars. There are plenty of straight (and married) porn stars who have sex on camera with people of the same gender. Are they only gay while having sex and then do they immediately turn back straight? Or do they actually have to have sex with their spouse to establish their straightness?

If someone is going back and forth between genders in terms of sexual encounters, they are clearly bisexual. In fact, that's so clear I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

I can also list a bunch of preferences and point out that they exist in spite of choices or realities that may suggest otherwise.
Except all those preferences say is that you like or enjoy something; they don't establish you as being anything because you haven't done anything to demonstrate it.
You listed "it wasn't logical" as the reason the definition is made by propaganda.  You're arguing it doesn't apply to all words, but the above statement insinuates otherwise.

No, it doesn't "insinuate" anything. You're assuming that, and as I already stated, you are doing so in error.
"Aimed to justify choices of sexuality" - I don't understand.  Please clarify, be specific.  Not WORDY, but specific.
We've been over this many times. People choose who they are with in romantic and/or sexual situations, and that defines their sexuality.  Some people feel the need to justify these choices and have decided to do so by declaring it isn't a choice and forwarding propaganda to convince others of the same.
I would prefer to be going to O's games, but right now that's a difficult thing for me to do.  There are substantial obstacles in the way of my attending Orioles games.
You're once again trying to compare a situation of forced choice to a situation of willing choice, and it doesn't work that way.

Your willing choices and actions are the ones that define your sexuality, not forced choices.
4/30/2013 8:54 AM
I was just applying logic to your statement, sorry.

Why does someone need to justify what sexual choices they make?  You're kinda just repeating yourself, I'm not understanding.
4/30/2013 9:58 AM
I was just applying logic to your statement, sorry.

Your assumption wasn't logical at all. It was merely a self-serving attempt to twist what I actually said into something it wasn't. I've corrected you multiple times now, so let's move on from it.
Why does someone need to justify what sexual choices they make?

I don't think they do. Some people feel differently and think the choice of sexuality must be justified. Many of them are attempting to do that by putting forth the idea that the choice of sexuality isn't a choice at all.

They have created an entire propaganda campaign around it, with the goal being to get everyone to accept this notion of "no choice" so that people see sexuality as more of an inherent biological element.  Why?

Because if people see sexuality as biological rather than the choice it actually is, they can compare it to gender, race, and other biological attributes and make demands based upon those comparisons.

The goal of the propaganda is to get people to accept their agenda-driven way of defining sexuality. That agenda is to make demands as though sexuality is biological even though logic suggests otherwise. If you can't get people to buy into the biological sexuality argument, you can't make those demands. Plain and simple.
4/30/2013 11:53 AM
2 things - 1) the sex you prefer is biological.  2) Even if we used your definition of what homosexuality is, the demands of equal rights can still be made.  As in "I have gay sex.  Why am I discriminated against because of that?"  So I don't think there's an agenda in the way you think there is.
4/30/2013 12:00 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/30/2013 11:53:00 AM (view original):
2 things - 1) the sex you prefer is biological.  2) Even if we used your definition of what homosexuality is, the demands of equal rights can still be made.  As in "I have gay sex.  Why am I discriminated against because of that?"  So I don't think there's an agenda in the way you think there is.
Agree. There is a group of people that prefers same sex partners. They have no choice in this preference. Letting them marry doesn't harm anyone else or present any other legal challenges.
4/30/2013 1:10 PM
1) the sex you prefer is biological. 

No, it isn't.

Even attraction isn't entirely biological and is absolutely influenced by a number of non-biological factors. That's a fact, and plenty of sources support it.

Beyond that, attraction isn't the only factor in the choice of romantic and/or sexual partners. That's also a fact with plenty of supporting sources.

Put together, it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that sexuality is not biological but the product of the choices one makes.
Even if we used your definition of what homosexuality is, the demands of equal rights can still be made.  As in "I have gay sex.  Why am I discriminated against because of that?"  So I don't think there's an agenda in the way you think there is.

First we need to clear this up again. You say this is "my" definition as though it is something I've invented, which isn't the case. It is simply the LOGICAL definition. Please stop referring to it as being "mine" when that isn't the case.

Second, the agenda is so obvious that if you're going to sit there right now and tell me it doesn't exist based upon what we've already discussed, you are either one of the stupidest people I've ever had any interaction with (seriously) or you are deliberately forwarding that agenda while trying to cover it up at the same time.

Sure, claims of equal rights can still be made. But you know as well as I do that rights based on inherent biology have a much stronger claim than rights based upon choices, which rarely hold up over the test of time.

That is the agenda. That's the endgame. To stake claim to rights and demand things based upon biology rather than choices. In order to do that, you have to rally enough people to believe it isn't a choice and is based upon biology despite overwhelming logical reasoning and evidence to the contrary. That takes a propaganda campaign and a lot of time, but it seems like it is finally succeeding in a way it never did before.

Agree. There is a group of people that prefers same sex partners. They have no choice in this preference.
Who is preventing them from choosing to be with someone of the opposite sex? Why isn't that person or persons being arrested?

Because if no one is preventing them from having that choice, then clearly they DO have a choice.


4/30/2013 1:27 PM
1) Yes, it is.  At least mostly biological.  I do understand there are many environmental factors at play.

2) I'm calling it your definition because I don't know anyone else who thinks that's the definition.  If we're using the "LOGICAL" definitions of words, I'm assuming you also call parkways driveways and driveways parkways.

3) If I don't think there's this massive agenda, and the vast majority of people think there's no massive agenda of manipulating the definition of a word to support their cause, doesn't that make most people you've met "one of the stupidest people you've ever you've ever had any interaction with (seriously)"?

4) Didn't you say (several times) that insulting people simply means you don't have the means to make a valid argument?

5) I don't believe this "agenda" would have any less power had the definition of the word "homosexuality" didn't have to do with preference and instead action.  I don't understand why you do.  

6) Why does this "agenda" bother you so much?
4/30/2013 1:40 PM
Is is possible that a small section of the homosexual population chooses to be homosexual?

Say, for instance, a person is non-committal in either direction.   Sort of a "I could have sex with either or neither.  I just haven't found anyone that creates that feeling in me" kind of thing?     Would they be considered asexual or bisexual?  Then, once they find that person, of the same sex, are they homosexual if they remain committed to that person only?

4/30/2013 1:44 PM
The person who has no preference, is attracted to both, and chooses to stay with a gay counterpart for the rest of his or her life? I would argue is bisexual, as this person is still attracted to both sexes. Biz would argue is homosexual.
4/30/2013 1:49 PM
Honestly, I think it's more complicated than what either of you seem to think it is.    I'm not sure every person can just check a box on the application(so to speak).

4/30/2013 1:54 PM
Yes, it is.  At least mostly biological.  I do understand there are many environmental factors at play.

If you understand the environmental factors are at play, then you also know it's not entirely biological. You can't have it both ways.
I'm calling it your definition because I don't know anyone else who thinks that's the definition.

There are plenty of people who believe sexuality is a choice, and I'm sure you are well aware of that, even if you don't know any of them personally.

Besides that, the number of people you know who agree or do not agree with the definition has nothing to do with whether it is "mine" or not. It would be "mine" if I was responsible for its creation, but I'm not.
 If we're using the "LOGICAL" definitions of words, I'm assuming you also call parkways driveways and driveways parkways.

I see where you are (perhaps deliberately) getting confused. Let me clear it up: I don't use a logical definition just for the sake of using one. I'm perfectly fine with many situations in which words aren't logical.

What I'm NOT fine with is using an illogical definition for the sole purpose of forwarding an agenda-based lie through propaganda.

To make it still more clear: I'm okay with the driveway and parkway thing, as I have no reason to believe anyone has an agenda which benefits from the apparent lack of logic in their commonly accepted definitions.

Clearly sexuality is not in that boat. The propaganda campaign is obvious, even to you as you pretend it doesn't exist.
If I don't think there's this massive agenda, and the vast majority of people think there's no massive agenda of manipulating the definition of a word to support their cause,

A well-done propaganda campaign is one that few people recognize for what it is. After all, if everyone were able to see the BS for what it is, no one would follow it and its mission would fail.

In other words, the very reason the agenda works is because it is designed so that people don't realize it's an agenda.
doesn't that make most people you've met "one of the stupidest people you've ever you've ever had any interaction with (seriously)"

No. If I point out specifically how the agenda works to most people I know, they see it for what it is, even if they didn't before. I know this because I've been doing it for years with this specific issue. Most of the time there is a moment when the person goes "ohhh, yeah, wow". When they don't have something along this line of reaction, its usually because they are in favor of the agenda itself, so naturally they want to deny it exists. A few times, they are simply too stupid to get it, even when it's pointed out for them to see.

Understand that the agenda is hidden from most people, but most of those can easily see it when someone points it out. You apparently either don't want to see it or can't, meaning you deliberately want to deny its existence (highly probable since you are obviously in favor of the agenda) or you are too stupid to get it. Either way it doesn't reflect on anyone but you.
Didn't you say (several times) that insulting people simply means you don't have the means to make a valid argument?

Sure, but I'm not insulting you. I'm just telling you flat out that if you can't understand an incredibly simple concept, then you are too stupid to even be in this discussion. For the record, I don't believe for one second you're that stupid. I think you deliberately deny things because you clearly favor the agenda.
I don't believe this "agenda" would have any less power had the definition of the word "homosexuality" didn't have to do with preference and instead action.  I don't understand why you do. 
I already explained to you what the difference is. Stop feigning ignorance in an  attempt to deny the agenda you're a part of.
Why does this "agenda" bother you so much?
I'm going to start "randomly" putting quotes "around" words for no "reason" like you do.

The agenda bothers me because it supports a lie designed to make demands of others. If you're going to try to tell me or anyone else what to do, the least you can do is be honest about it. The agenda is based on the LIE that "homosexuality is biological and therefore not a choice", and I'm not going to be told what to do by a group of liars seeking to justify the sexual choices people make.

4/30/2013 2:12 PM
If you claim you tell people about your theory on this "propaganda" and they agree with you and have this moment of enlightenment, I'll claim you're a liar. Largely because I don't agree with the argument that anything would change if people used your definition of homosexuality. (I'm calling it "yours" for simplicity reasons. When you see "yours" substitute it with "what you think the definition of homosexuality is."  I'm not as wordy as you are.) They could still ask for equal rights, and I don't see why there would be much of a difference in reaction towards it.  You have yet to explain what the difference would be.  If there IS no difference, then your argument that the definition has been manipulated for the benefit of a group of people falls on its face.

If you can't understand why I'm putting quotes around the word "agenda" then you're one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with, or you're being deliberately dense.

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.