Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) suspended from A&E

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

I see no reason why his beliefs (as wrong as they are) should cause him to be thrown off the air.

Bad publicity, bad for the network.

The public is outraged over him being banned, not for what was said. The network technically looks bad for banning them.

#102 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay.

Ok, so how do gay people "become" gay?

I already said.

You said we can "reprogram our brains" into becoming gay, which is unsubstantiated bullshit.

#103 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Brain_Duster said:

@Sword-Demon said:

I see no reason why his beliefs (as wrong as they are) should cause him to be thrown off the air.

Bad publicity, bad for the network.

The public is outraged over him being banned, not for what was said. The network technically looks bad for banning them.

He wouldn't have been banned if people weren't outraged.

#104 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@dominer said:

You can't choose who you're attracted to. It baffles me that such a huge number people think being gay is a choice.

What, to you, qualifies as "a huge number people"? From what I've seen only a small minority feel that way.

#105 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

#106 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

#107 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

#108 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

Hormones and brain shape have nothing to do with genetics? Surely, you being a biologist from UNL, are aware that it's your genes that determine the release of your hormones, yes?

Here, I'll give you three genes involved in hormones: GH1, GHRHR (which stands for Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone Receptor), and BTK. There are many others.

If people can't be born gay or straight, then people are not "born to reproduce," as you keep claiming, because if they were then they'd have to be born straight.

So as I said, fake biologist: quit with the bullshit.

#109 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

At-will employment's a motherfucker ain't it?

#110 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

Hormones and brain shape have nothing to do with genetics? Surely, you being a biologist from UNL, are aware that it's your genes that determine the release of your hormones, yes?

Here, I'll give you three genes involved in hormones: GH1, GHRHR, and BTK. There are many others.

If people can't be born gay or straight, then people are not "born to reproduce," as you keep claiming, because if they were then they'd have to be born straight.

So as I said, fake biologist: quit with the bullshit.

A lot of things can contribute to that. For example men who are single parents to infants have developed hormones needed to produce breast milk, his body years after birth produced the hormones needed to make breast milk. Happens to many men with infants. If you live a certain lifestyle your body will change, but has nothing at all to do with your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a choice because you can not be sexuality attracted to someone at the ages of 2,3,4,5 ect like gay people claim. rather you accept this fact that it is 100% biotechnology coded in humans to reproduce or not is your choice.

Look at it this way...... gay woman and men who were married to straight men or women without knowing there partner was gay were obviously intimate with each other during there marriage. most of those couples had kids (reproduced ;-). In order for the gay male to get a woman pregnant, he has to obviously be sexually aroused. It was his choice see? For woman arousal greatly increases fertility by over 20%. Again that is choice.

You cant get aroused if your not sexually attracted to someone, and as it is proven rather you admit it or not every man or woman can be sexually aroused by someone of the same sex if you allow it. that is your choice my friends.

#111 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

Hormones and brain shape have nothing to do with genetics? Surely, you being a biologist from UNL, are aware that it's your genes that determine the release of your hormones, yes?

Here, I'll give you three genes involved in hormones: GH1, GHRHR, and BTK. There are many others.

If people can't be born gay or straight, then people are not "born to reproduce," as you keep claiming, because if they were then they'd have to be born straight.

So as I said, fake biologist: quit with the bullshit.

A lot of things can contribute to that. For example men who are single parents to infants have developed hormones needed to produce breast milk, his body years after birth produced the hormones needed to make breast milk. Happens to many men with infants. If you live a certain lifestyle your body will change, but has nothing at all to do with your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a choice because you can not be sexuality attracted to someone at the ages of 2,3,4,5 ect like gay people claim. rather you accept this fact that it is 100% biotechnology coded in humans to reproduce or not is your choice.

Look at it this way...... gay woman and men who were married to straight men or women without knowing there partner was gay were obviously intimate with each other during there marriage. most of those couples had kids (reproduced ;-). In order for the gay male to get a woman pregnant, he has to obviously be sexually aroused. It was his choice see? For woman arousal greatly increases fertility by over 20%. Again that is choice.

You cant get aroused if your not sexually attracted to someone, and as it is proven rather you admit it or not every man or woman can be sexually aroused by someone of the same sex if you allow it. that is your choice my friends.

Goddamn dude, you are seriously full of shit.

#112 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

Hormones and brain shape have nothing to do with genetics? Surely, you being a biologist from UNL, are aware that it's your genes that determine the release of your hormones, yes?

Here, I'll give you three genes involved in hormones: GH1, GHRHR, and BTK. There are many others.

If people can't be born gay or straight, then people are not "born to reproduce," as you keep claiming, because if they were then they'd have to be born straight.

So as I said, fake biologist: quit with the bullshit.

A lot of things can contribute to that. For example men who are single parents to infants have developed hormones needed to produce breast milk, his body years after birth produced the hormones needed to make breast milk. Happens to many men with infants. If you live a certain lifestyle your body will change, but has nothing at all to do with your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a choice because you can not be sexuality attracted to someone at the ages of 2,3,4,5 ect like gay people claim. rather you accept this fact that it is 100% biotechnology coded in humans to reproduce or not is your choice.

Look at it this way...... gay woman and men who were married to straight men or women without knowing there partner was gay were obviously intimate with each other during there marriage. most of those couples had kids (reproduced ;-). In order for the gay male to get a woman pregnant, he has to obviously be sexually aroused. It was his choice see? For woman arousal greatly increases fertility by over 20%. Again that is choice.

You cant get aroused if your not sexually attracted to someone, and as it is proven rather you admit it or not every man or woman can be sexually aroused by someone of the same sex if you allow it. that is your choice my friends.

Goddamn dude, you are seriously full of shit.

Seriously. It's gotten to the point where he makes no coherent sense.

#113 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@worlock77 said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Makhaidos said:

@mrxboxone said:

If you read into my post, I used that as an example as to to explain that no one is born gay. I used that to separate disorder and disease. rather the APA recognizing it or not is irrelevant.

Except it's the APA who decides what is and isn't a mental disorder.

Still waiting for that straight gene you found.

Makhaidos, I know you are gay. If my remarks have upset you I apologize. I know since you are gay, you have strong feelings and opinions on this subject. You and others have said numerous times people are born gay. You even said it is biological, in nature--just like skin pigmentation. It isn't it. No such evidence support that in anyway. There is no "straight or gay gene". It doesn't exist, hence one is not born gay. There is no biological evidence to show otherwise. I don't know what else you want me to say or prove?

Sexual attraction is biological. The shape of your brain (gays have different-shaped brains than straights) is biological. The hormones your body produces to create your sexual urges are biological. The only non-biological aspect of sexuality is preference, and even that can be argued.

You, being straight, never chose to be straight, because being straight is biological. I, being gay, never chose to be gay, for the same exact reason.

There is no evidence of any of that and could all be subject to many contributing factors, GENETICS is not one of them. Sexual attraction is the sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. There for you cant be born gay or straight.

Hormones and brain shape have nothing to do with genetics? Surely, you being a biologist from UNL, are aware that it's your genes that determine the release of your hormones, yes?

Here, I'll give you three genes involved in hormones: GH1, GHRHR, and BTK. There are many others.

If people can't be born gay or straight, then people are not "born to reproduce," as you keep claiming, because if they were then they'd have to be born straight.

So as I said, fake biologist: quit with the bullshit.

A lot of things can contribute to that. For example men who are single parents to infants have developed hormones needed to produce breast milk, his body years after birth produced the hormones needed to make breast milk. Happens to many men with infants. If you live a certain lifestyle your body will change, but has nothing at all to do with your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a choice because you can not be sexuality attracted to someone at the ages of 2,3,4,5 ect like gay people claim. rather you accept this fact that it is 100% biotechnology coded in humans to reproduce or not is your choice.

Look at it this way...... gay woman and men who were married to straight men or women without knowing there partner was gay were obviously intimate with each other during there marriage. most of those couples had kids (reproduced ;-). In order for the gay male to get a woman pregnant, he has to obviously be sexually aroused. It was his choice see? For woman arousal greatly increases fertility by over 20%. Again that is choice.

You cant get aroused if your not sexually attracted to someone, and as it is proven rather you admit it or not every man or woman can be sexually aroused by someone of the same sex if you allow it. that is your choice my friends.

Goddamn dude, you are seriously full of shit.

Seriously. It's gotten to the point where he makes no coherent sense.

Like I said, Your choice.

#114 Posted by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

As a straight man, I personally feel that I could make the choice to become gay if I really wanted to. I think there's a little gay in everyone, and it's your choice to give into those desires if you want to. Just look at countless people who do claim that they chose to be gay. It seems a bit insulting to them to insist that they were born that way.

#115 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

#116 Posted by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

Honestly I do, it's an idea I've struggled with for some time.

#117 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

Honestly I do, it's an idea I've struggled with for some time.

If you can make the decision about what you're attracted to then why struggle? Just make up your mind.

#118 Posted by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

Honestly I do, it's an idea I've struggled with for some time.

If you can make the decision about what you're attracted to then why struggle? Just make up your mind.

I probably wouldn't "change". I guess what I'm saying, for example, is if I ever experienced a bad end to a relationship and it really scarred me... I could make a choice to experiment with the same sex. There are many stories of people who change sexual preference due to a traumatic experience. I'm not saying I could easily flip a switch or anything.

#119 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

Honestly I do, it's an idea I've struggled with for some time.

If you can make the decision about what you're attracted to then why struggle? Just make up your mind.

I probably wouldn't "change". I guess what I'm saying, for example, is if I ever experienced a bad end to a relationship and it really scarred me... I could make a choice to experiment with the same sex. There are many stories of people who change sexual preference due to a traumatic experience. I'm not saying I could easily flip a switch or anything.

"I could make a choice to experiment with the same sex."

That's not what we're talking about. Choosing to partake in a sexual act is not the same as choosing to change ones sexual orientation.

#120 Edited by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: You honestly feel that you could make yourself be attracted to men if you wanted?

Honestly I do, it's an idea I've struggled with for some time.

If you can make the decision about what you're attracted to then why struggle? Just make up your mind.

I probably wouldn't "change". I guess what I'm saying, for example, is if I ever experienced a bad end to a relationship and it really scarred me... I could make a choice to experiment with the same sex. There are many stories of people who change sexual preference due to a traumatic experience. I'm not saying I could easily flip a switch or anything.

"I could make a choice to experiment with the same sex."

That's not what we're talking about. Choosing to partake in a sexual act is not the same as choosing to change ones sexual orientation.

Fair enough, that's why I stated I struggle with the idea because I'm not sure what true "change" is, simply because I have always been straight. I believe we are initially born one way or the other. However, I'm willing to respect the testimonies of people who claim to have changed sexual preference midway through their life. There is a matter of choice involved for some people.

#121 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

#122 Posted by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

#123 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

#124 Posted by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

#125 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

#126 Edited by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

#127 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

"I don't have any evidence"

Then why do you feel comfortable claiming that they made a choice to change their sexuality?

If you have noting to support your opinion that they made a choice about their sexuality other than you opinion then you really should realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

#128 Edited by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

"I don't have any evidence"

Then why do you feel comfortable claiming that they made a choice to change their sexuality?

If you have noting to support your opinion that they made a choice about their sexuality other than you opinion then you really should realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. Because of this, it's really no big deal to me if someone says they are born one way or if someone says they made a choice. It doesn't matter. And I don't have evidence to support or deny either position. I'm not going to tell someone that they didn't make a choice, and that they were "born this way", because I have no experience or evidence to deny that claim.

#129 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

"I don't have any evidence"

Then why do you feel comfortable claiming that they made a choice to change their sexuality?

If you have noting to support your opinion that they made a choice about their sexuality other than you opinion then you really should realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. Because of this, it's really no big deal to me if someone says they are born one way or if someone says they made a choice. It doesn't matter. And I don't have evidence to support or deny either position. I'm not going to tell someone that they didn't make a choice, and that they were "born this way", because I have no experience or evidence to deny that claim.

"I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. "

I haven't found any evidence that you have not raped numerous underage orphans to death. Does that mean that it's reasonable to believe that you have?

See, that's how evidence works. Simply because there is no evidence that you HAVE NOT done something doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that you HAVE done something.

#130 Edited by Mario2007 (2520 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

"I don't have any evidence"

Then why do you feel comfortable claiming that they made a choice to change their sexuality?

If you have noting to support your opinion that they made a choice about their sexuality other than you opinion then you really should realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. Because of this, it's really no big deal to me if someone says they are born one way or if someone says they made a choice. It doesn't matter. And I don't have evidence to support or deny either position. I'm not going to tell someone that they didn't make a choice, and that they were "born this way", because I have no experience or evidence to deny that claim.

"I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. "

I haven't found any evidence that you have not raped numerous underage orphans to death. Does that mean that it's reasonable to believe that you have?

See, that's how evidence works. Simply because there is no evidence that you HAVE NOT done something doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that you HAVE done something.

I never made a claim to rape underage orphans, however. Obviously, some people claim to make a choice of sexual preference. If my friend tells me that he played chess yesterday, great. I have no evidence to believe that he did or didn't play chess yesterday, and he has no reason to lie. So why shouldn't I believe him?

#131 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

Do you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

" I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?""

I'm willing to look at different views as well. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm willing to make decisions about the choices people have made with no evidence that their sexuality is a result of a choice.

Are you saying that they were gay the whole time and just "discovered their true sexuality" as some people would phrase it?

I'm not making any claims. I'm (again) simply asking you if you have any evidence that Cynthia Nixon or your teacher made a decision to change their sexuality?

Anyway, here's what Nixon has said about her relationship with a woman after being married to a man (emphasis mine): "I don't really feel I've changed. I'd been with men all my life, and I'd never fallen in love with a woman. But when I did, it didn't seem so strange. I'm just a woman in love with another woman."

No I don't have any evidence, it's their experience and not mine. But I also don't have any evidence to deny their claims, so how can I reject their view?

"I don't have any evidence"

Then why do you feel comfortable claiming that they made a choice to change their sexuality?

If you have noting to support your opinion that they made a choice about their sexuality other than you opinion then you really should realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. Because of this, it's really no big deal to me if someone says they are born one way or if someone says they made a choice. It doesn't matter. And I don't have evidence to support or deny either position. I'm not going to tell someone that they didn't make a choice, and that they were "born this way", because I have no experience or evidence to deny that claim.

"I haven't found any evidence to suggest it can't be a choice, so your logic would hold true if I felt oppositely. "

I haven't found any evidence that you have not raped numerous underage orphans to death. Does that mean that it's reasonable to believe that you have?

See, that's how evidence works. Simply because there is no evidence that you HAVE NOT done something doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that you HAVE done something.

I never made a claim to rape underage orphans, however. Obviously, some people claim to make a choice of sexual preference. If my friend tells me that he played chess yesterday, great. I have no evidence to believe that he did or didn't play chess yesterday, and he has no reason to lie. So why shouldn't I believe him?

" I have no evidence to believe that he did or didn't play chess yesterday"

Testimony is evidence. You really have no clue what you're talking about, huh?

"I never made a claim to rape underage orphans, however."

Do you have legitimate evidence of people claiming to choose to change their sexuality?

#132 Posted by Serraph105 (27840 posts) -

Don't conservatives usually argue that corporations absolutely have the right to do exactly what A&E just did to this guy?

#133 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

Don't conservatives usually argue that corporations absolutely have the right to do exactly what A&E just did to this guy?

Some do.

#134 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

There is no biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

#135 Posted by lostrib (35068 posts) -

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

#136 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

Youll be aight, prove me wrong. Show me actual DNAevidencethat shows otherwise.

#137 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

There is no biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

There is no evidence that being gay but not being born gay is a disease. You're jumping to conclusions.

#138 Posted by lostrib (35068 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

Youll be aight, prove me wrong. Show me actual DNAevidencethat shows otherwise.

There's been linkage to markers on the X chromosome. As well as in mice where researchers were able to alter sexual behavior by alteration of one gene. But most likely it is a number of factors combined

#139 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17174 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

Fixed*

#140 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

Youll be aight, prove me wrong. Show me actual DNAevidencethat shows otherwise.

That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that something is a disease YOU need to prove that it IS a disease.

#141 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@mrxboxone said:

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

There is so biological evidence to prove people are born gay. If that were true being gay would be a disease which its not.

You are an idiot

Youll be aight, prove me wrong. Show me actual DNAevidencethat shows otherwise.

That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that something is a disease YOU need to prove that it IS a disease.

I never said homosexuality is a disease. I simply stated there is no biological evidence to prove someone is porn gay.

#142 Edited by bigfootpart2 (94 posts) -

It depresses me that this was actually a popular show with a large following. Also, why is it surprising to anyone that an elderly southerner is a homophobic bigot? It's a show that follows a white trash family from the deep south. It was really just a matter of time before something racist or homophobic slipped out. People from the south aren't exactly known for their open minds or tolerance.

#143 Edited by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

Shouldn't he be able to say what he believes without getting suspended from his job? After all, the country is founded upon free speech.

#144 Edited by bigfootpart2 (94 posts) -

@EagleEyedOne said:

Shouldn't he be able to say what he believes without getting suspended from his job? After all, the country is founded upon free speech.

The guy works for a corporation and corporations aren't democracies. This is something right wingers are quick to point out when for instance the owners of Chick Fil A go on a homophobic rant. It's A&E's show, and if they decide they don't want him, it's up to them. Good for them really. Homophobia is shameful and disgusting.

#145 Edited by bigfootpart2 (94 posts) -

@Mario2007 said:

@thegerg said:

@Mario2007: Can you provide any legitimate evidence of people choosing to change their sexual preference?

If by "legitimate evidence", you mean scientific findings, then no. I am by no means an expert. However, I look at the viewpoints and experiences from people like Cynthia Nixon and think that for some people, it is a choice. My old teacher was married for many years before changing his preferences after he divorced. I'm just willing to look at different views and say to myself, "Who am I to say that they didn't make a choice?" Or the other way around. I totally understand if you disagree with me, that's just the way I look at it.

More likely your teacher was gay all along and was married because he thought that's what society and everyone around him wanted. Rampant homophobia pushes people deep into the closet.

#146 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

A nation founded by pilgrims who came here to worship the God of the Bible freely without interference and persecution from ruling elites and those opposed to Christianity's influence on the culture, has now come to the proverbial fork in the road. After years of attempting to balance traditional Americana with political correctness, those pushing the new "my way or the highway" definition of "tolerance" have decided accommodating our differences of opinion is defeat.

Irrefutable history documents that the Bible and its teachings were the biggest influence on those that founded the freest and most prosperous nation in human history. Yet nowadays if you believe that same Bible is true you will either silence your beliefs, or you will be silenced. Just ask Phil Robertson, one of the stars of Duck Dynasty, among the most successful shows on TV.

In an interview with GQ, Robertson plainly repeated simple truths that are fundamental to western civilization — the Bible calls all sexual activity outside of holy matrimony sin and immoral, and it's natural for a man to be attracted to a woman. You know, the birds and the bees.

For that, the tolerance mob demanded his head on a platter, and the wannabe King Herods that work at A&E, the network that made untold millions off of Robertson's enormous popularity, gladly obliged. When we have now come to the point that pop culture would rather bow at the altar of rabid political correctness than make a profit, then we have reached a point of no return as a people.

Especially in an era when government believes it has the power to compel a Christian baker to make wedding cakes for homosexuals, compel a Christian photographer to photograph a homosexual union in a state that doesn't even recognize them, and tell a Christian company it has to provide birth control to its employees in violation of its owners moral conscience. We have reached the point where government believes it gets to play God.

Let the record show which side of this debate is pushing their agenda on everyone else, and using the coercive force of government and bullying tactics in the media and pop culture to do so. It is not the Christians. The sad truth is most American Christians would prefer to leave people in their sin provided Christians are left alone in turn.

For Christians, that is total disobedience to the Gospel. That's why the culture is at this point in the first place. The American Church has too often been plagued by scandal, or has scandalously pursued money and fame more than the healing of a lost and broken world.

However, the message of Christmas is that God was not content to leave the world drowning in its sins, so He gave us His Son born humbly in a manger to become "God with us." And that "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that through him the world may be saved."

Yet those preaching the new tolerance of unconditional surrender and nothing less are dragging Christians who don't have the courage of Phil Robertson kicking and screaming into the debate. They're also demanding those of a more libertarian or "live and let live" mindset choose a side when they would rather abstain, for neutrality is no longer an option. This is a movement that would like to change our national motto from "in God we trust" to "you will be made to care."

Back to that proverbial fork in the road. One sign says "liberty." The other sign says "political correctness." Every individual American and every American institution will have to choose one or the other. We can no longer have both, and the truth is we really never could. It was always going to end this way, we just didn't want to believe it

#147 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

@EagleEyedOne said:

Shouldn't he be able to say what he believes without getting suspended from his job? After all, the country is founded upon free speech.

The guy works for a corporation and corporations aren't democracies. This is something right wingers are quick to point out when for instance the owners of Chick Fil A go on a homophobic rant. It's A&E's show, and if they decide they don't want him, it's up to them. Good for them really. Homophobia is shameful and disgusting.

Its different when you consider the fact that Chick Fil A does not cater to a particular audience. A&E knows very well that the audience Duck Dynasty appeals to is the ones who identify with white backwoods characters from the South. It is not like Robertson's comments alienated a majority, or even close to a majority of the audience which watches the show.

#148 Posted by thegerg (14917 posts) -

Shouldn't he be able to say what he believes without getting suspended from his job?

As long as he and his employer both agree on the terms of his employment, yes. No one is disallowing that.

"After all, the country is founded upon free speech."

And this issue has nothing to do with free speech.

#149 Edited by HuggyBear1020 (456 posts) -

A&E is going to get in big trouble for this. He stated his religious beliefs and got fired for it. EEOC act of 1964 states that a person can not be fired based on their age, gender, race, RELIGIOON, etc. I don't agree with his views, and I don't watch his show. But I wouldn't want to take the right to watch it away from other people. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT.

#150 Edited by thegerg (14917 posts) -

@huggybear1020 said:

A&E is going to get in big trouble for this. He stated his religious beliefs and got fired for it. EEOC act of 1964 states that a person can not be fired based on their age, gender, race, RELIGIOON, etc. I don't agree with his views, and I don't watch his show. But I wouldn't want to take the right to watch it away from other people. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT.

First off, he was NOT fired. Do a little research before posting.

Secondly, this is not about his religion. This is about him publicly making disparaging remarks about people.