Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

[CensoredAlso]

I'm not a big fan of HuffPo in general. It does raise an interesting hypothetical, but it is and only ever will likely be a hypothetical. Leaving that bit of info out makes the editorial incomplete. C-. LOL!

No offence but you're avoiding the point with nitpicking. No, not being confrontational, just saying.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Sexuality and human attraction are more complicated than genetics and include many components.

I don't even get where you're going with that. You're saying homosexuality isn't entirely something you're born with (which is something evangelicals like to claim), just so it doesn't have to be involved in the abortion debate?

 

[jvcarroll]

No offence but you're avoiding the point with nitpicking. No, not being confrontational, just saying.

That's not a nitpick, that's important information that a lot of people, including LGBT people who haven't been keeping up with this particular topic over the past two decades, get wrong. Attraction has many components. That's a very important fact to state, but has little to do with your point. I agree. The rest, I've already addressed several times in posts in the past, including ones with you when you've brought up this particular point. Those should be searchable so someone else will have to step to the plate for commentary on this.

 

[CensoredAlso]

That's not a nitpick, that's important information

It is nitpicking. There are indeed people in the world who would seek to eradicate homosexuality. Whether you think that's possible or not is not the question. The sentiment and desire is there. If that bothers you, it should bother you if any group is targeted that way.

 

[jvcarroll]

I don't even get where you're going with that. You're saying homosexuality isn't entirely something you're born with (which is something evangelicals like to claim), just so it doesn't have to be involved in the abortion debate?

There are so many uncontrollable factors. Genetics alone is not a predictor of attraction. Evangelicals like to put things into simplistic boxes, but nothing fits perfectly into a box. It used to be their claim that there were no genetic factors. Well, there are, but they're not the only ones. Some LGBTQ people could have or not have those genetic factors and some straight people could. Human attraction and sexuality is very complicated and messing with it, in any way, only serves to create shame and fetishes. I have no concern over what radically anti-gay evangelicals say because no matter what they do, they're going to create some excuse. For example, when all heck broke loose in Katrina, people like Tony Perkins of anti-gay group Focus on the Family made claims that God was punishing New Orleans for their sinful nature. When his own home was destroyed by extreme weather several years later, it was God's will and a test. It's like that old War Games movie. The only way to win is not to play. But I don't see it as playing. I see it as living. While zealots plot to contradict my life, I'm too busy living it and leaving most people I meet in that life with a smile.

 

[jvcarroll]

It is nitpicking. There are indeed people in the world who would seek to eradicate homosexuality. Whether you think that's possible or not is not the question. The sentiment and desire is there. If that bothers you, it should bother you if any group is targeted that way.

That's extremely true and it's a fool's errand to attempt to do genetically, as I've already noted. If you'd like to discuss how LGBTQ people are being tortured, abused and killed in the United States and abroad, we could.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I have no concern over what radically anti-gay evangelicals say because no matter what they do, they're going to create some excuse.

I think you'd have more concern if it wasn't connected to another topic.

 

[CensoredAlso]

That's extremely true and it's a fool's errand to attempt to do genetically, as I've already noted. If you'd like to discuss how LGBTQ people are being tortured, abused and killed in the United States and abroad, we could.

I'll discuss it when it's not a way to avoid another topic.

 

[jvcarroll]

I think you'd have more concern if it wasn't connected to another topic.

I've already said that I'm not discussing abortion issues. Why I responded was due to incomplete information about LGBTQ people and genetics. I have no issue with you or anyone discussing that article or even treating that hypothetical as being true. My intent was to interject a supplemental correction. Feel free to disregard it and to continue speaking about abortion with other members. There's nothing more that I could add that I haven't already added before.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I've already said that I'm not discussing abortion issues.

Again, not being confrontational, but you didn't have to respond to my original post. It's for everyone here. In fact I doubt it would have lasted another page if you didn't respond.

Why I responded was due to incomplete information about LGBTQ people and genetics.

::yes and no gesture::

I have no issue with you or anyone discussing that article or even treating that hypothetical as being true.

I have no issue with you either. But again, you are being hyper technical. Another member did point that out as well last time.

There's nothing more that I could add that I haven't already added before.

But there's a lot of topics we discuss over and over here, with the same points over and over. This is no different.