Niners CB: "Openly GAY Players Would Not Be Welcomed On The Team"

[Dreamliner]

Actually, there is a hell of a lot more evidence that obesity is hereditable than is homosexuality. Yet, it is not okay to make judgements of homosexuals, but it is okay to make judgements of fat people. Indeed, the government and healthcare industry is essentially launching a full-scale war against fat people.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I'll sneak one more in for the night...

I believe sexuality is a much slower developing process than what most make of it. You won't find many 3 or 4 year old boys that would state a preference for girls over boys. Either way, I've never thought of the underlying desires as a choice as much as they are a development (much more influenced by environment than by genetics). But the more "born with it you are" the easier it would be to modify with technological advances...for those who wish to modify it, of course. Some would say "why does it need to be modified?" Yet we live in a society where it's acceptable to mutilate, pierce, stuff, and stain various parts of your body...surely being able to modify or perhaps solidify one's sexual behavior would be another welcome modification.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I suggest that you expand your knowledge of fetal development. It is more complex than you currently believe. Also your suggestion to modify sexuality has it own set of moral questions.
1, if you are born with female gentility but a male brain which part of you gets modify. This scenario can be switch to male gentility and female brain.
2, Who decides for you?
3, what if you do not want to change?

Organizational Aspects of Prenatal Hormones
Fetal gonads develop primarily based on the presence or absence of androgens; production of testosterone and conversion into dihydrotestosterone during weeks 6 to 12 of pregnancy are key factors in the production of a male fetus’ penis, scrotum and prostate.[4] In a female, however, absence of these levels of androgens results in development of typically female genitals.[4] Following this, sexual differentiation of the brain occurs; sex hormones exert organizational effects on the brain that will be activated in puberty.[4] As a result of these two processes occurring separately, the degree of genital masculinization does not necessarily relate to the masculinization of the brain.[4][11] Sex differences in the brain have been found in many structures, most notably the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Hamman et al. (2003) conducted a study to investigate the role of the amygdala in human sexual behavior. Participants were shown a combination of sexual photos (a heterosexual couple engaging in sexual activity and opposite-sex nudes) and non-sexual photos (a man and woman engaging in non-sexual activity and a fixation cross). Hamman et al. found that males showed an increased level of amygdala activity in response to visually sexual stimuli while females reported a greater level of sexual arousal. Findings suggest that the amygdala may play an important role in mediating sex differences, especially in males, through the neural pathways responsible for emotionally-positive, desirable stimuli.[12] Further studies on the sex differences such as this focused on many different brain structures could provide more solid answers into the masculinization or feminization of the brain.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prena...n#mw-mf-search

[CockyInSeattle]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Actually, there is a hell of a lot more evidence that obesity is hereditable than is homosexuality. Yet, it is not okay to make judgements of homosexuals, but it is okay to make judgements of fat people. Indeed, the government and healthcare industry is essentially launching a full-scale war against fat people.

I don't think the argument is about 'judgments' but about an individual's rights. The obese are not prevented from marrying.

Certainly there will always those who pass judgement on others. And that is within the bounds of their rights, as long as it doesn't turn into some action that infringes upon the rights of the judged.

"Live, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" has always resounded pretty deeply with me. However, if you feel lying in bed at night upset about what the two consenting adults next door might being doing in the privacy of their bedroom somehow denies your right to those three things, it's going to be hard for me to take you seriously.

[JerseyGator01]

Now Culliver has agreed to go to sensitivity training (led by his old coach Steve Spurrier?). If he said, "All pro-lifers are terrorists and aren't welcome in the locker room," there would be crickets from the media.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by CockyInSeattle

I don't think the argument is about 'judgments' but about an individual's rights. The obese are not prevented from marrying.

Certainly there will always those who pass judgement on others. And that is within the bounds of their rights, as long as it doesn't turn into some action that infringes upon the rights of the judged.

"Live, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" has always resounded pretty deeply with me. However, if you feel lying in bed at night upset about what the two consenting adults next door might being doing in the privacy of their bedroom somehow denies your right to those three things, it's going to be hard for me to take you seriously.

I think we're very close - and getting closer - to outlawing tolerance. Tolerance, remember, conveys judgement. It's original meaning: "Though I believe what you are doing is wrong, nevertheless I will live with you peaceably."

[magnafides]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

If he said, "All pro-lifers are terrorists and aren't welcome in the locker room," there would be crickets from the media.

[citation needed]

[CockyInSeattle]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I think we're very close - and getting closer - to outlawing tolerance. Tolerance, remember, conveys judgement. It's original meaning: "Though I believe what you are doing is wrong, nevertheless I will live with you peaceably."

Honestly, tolerance might be the most important trait that made America, the true melting pot of cultures, great.

We're former Englishmen, Scotts, Cajuns, Creoles, Asians, Puritans, Asians, Italians, Irish, and so many more just looking for a better life for their family. Looking for an opportunity to work hard, and build a better life for their kids than they had.

I've never met an immigrant that came to America looking for a handout. They came for the "land of opportunity," the land where hard work paid off, the land where the class you were born in didn't limit you. And I can give some recent examples for those interested.

Somehow I feel when we lose that, we've betrayed our brilliant founders and all they strove to achieve.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by CockyInSeattle

Honestly, tolerance might be the most important trait that made America, the true melting pot of cultures, great.

We're former Englishmen, Scotts, Cajuns, Creoles, Asians, Puritans, Asians, Italians, Irish, and so many more just looking for a better life for their family. Looking for an opportunity to work hard, and build a better life for their kids than they had.

I've never met an immigrant that came to America looking for a handout. They came for the "land of opportunity," the land where hard work paid off, the land where the class you were born in didn't limit you. And I can give some recent examples for those interested.

Somehow I feel when we lose that, we've betrayed our brilliant founders and all they strove to achieve.

Funny how all those handouts manage to find them.

[Dreamliner]

I'm moving to California, have been keeping up with its political developments, and can confirm that immigrants are eagerly availing themselves to handouts.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I'm moving to California, have been keeping up with its political developments, and can confirm that immigrants are eagerly availing themselves to handouts.

Is that a self-disclosure ?

And hey, that's a joke.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Is that a self-disclosure ?

And hey, that's a joke.

Damn right I'm taking my handout. As of Jan 2014, Gringos like myself are expected to be a minority.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by northgagator

I suggest that you expand your knowledge of fetal development. It is more complex than you currently believe.

I believe it is complex. I think the division is more along the lines of masculinity and femininity (and not explicitly binary). Take Prince for example....

Originally Posted by northgagator

Also your suggestion to modify sexuality has it own set of moral questions.
1, if you are born with female gentility but a male brain which part of you gets modify. This scenario can be switch to male gentility and female brain.
2, Who decides for you?
3, what if you do not want to change?

(1) I've always found it odd that the encouragement to mutilate one's own body was considered morally superior by society than the encouragement to revise one's mental composition. That said, I think men should be encouraged to be men and women should be encouraged to be women. I won't dislike you or violate your rights if you disagree with me, but I don't want to be disparaged for having such beliefs either.

(2) I don't support government intervention if that's what you're asking, but I also am appalled by any government efforts to prevent mental adjustments (as opposed to physical adjustments). Let people be free to receive ALL the information and make their own choices.

(3) No problem, freedom is great! As long as people are happy with themselves, they will have nothing to complain about. I just don't support teaching that happiness should be based on the opinions of others.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I believe it is complex. I think the division is more along the lines of masculinity and femininity (and not explicitly binary). Take Prince for example....

Who defines what is masculine and what is feminine? What is Masculine/Feminine in one culture can be Feminine/Masculine in another culture.

(1) I've always found it odd that the encouragement to mutilate one's own body was considered morally superior by society than the encouragement to revise one's mental composition. That said, I think men should be encouraged to be men and women should be encouraged to be women. I won't dislike you or violate your rights if you disagree with me, but I don't want to be disparaged for having such beliefs either.

Who does the encouraging, to who, and what encouragement do the offer?

(2) I don't support government intervention if that's what you're asking, but I also am appalled by any government efforts to prevent mental adjustments (as opposed to physical adjustments). Let people be free to receive ALL the information and make their own choices.

What mental adjustments do you propose that people be allowed to do to another person?
Gee if you can do this to correct homosexuality then the door is open to correct political thought.

(3) No problem, freedom is great! As long as people are happy with themselves, they will have nothing to complain about. I just don't support teaching that happiness should be based on the opinions of others.

In the prior question you stated "I am appalled by any government efforts to prevent mental adjustments". Now on this question you say you promote freedom. Also your discrimination of non heterosexuals prevents people in being happy with them selfs. And that they should be happy on someone else's terms. That dies not sound free to me.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Who defines what is masculine and what is feminine? What is Masculine/Feminine in one culture can be Feminine/Masculine in another culture.

They've already been defined, should they be redefined? Can you give me an example of that which is masculine in one culture but feminine in another culture?

Originally Posted by northgagator

Who does the encouraging, to who, and what encouragement do the offer?

It's not government-mandated if that's what you're wondering. I'll encourage my family, friends, and neighbors, and you encourage yours. Just like we do with other moral issues. Everybody's happy, right?

Originally Posted by northgagator

What mental adjustments do you propose that people be allowed to do to another person?

The concept was presented more in the abstract than with respect to any specifics. The bottom line being that some people don't truly feel that they have an answer with being declared "homosexual" and an alternative possibility may in fact be a more logical result for them. Why restrict the possibility?

Originally Posted by northgagator

Gee if you can do this to correct homosexuality then the door is open to correct political thought.

The brain is very powerful and it can be shaped and re-shaped more than most of us typically understand.

Originally Posted by northgagator

In the prior question you stated "I am appalled by any government efforts to prevent mental adjustments". Now on this question you say you promote freedom.

Is there a contradiction?

Originally Posted by northgagator

Also your discrimination of non heterosexuals prevents people in being happy with them selfs. And that they should be happy on someone else's terms. That dies not sound free to me.

I don't follow you here. What discrimination? Who said anybody should be happy on someone else's terms?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Dreamliner]

Ironically, homosexuals are treated with kid gloves these days. And the more we treat them with kid gloves (immediately set upon people who say mean things about them), the more they complain about societal cruelty.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Ironically, homosexuals are treated with kid gloves these days. And the more we treat them with kid gloves (immediately set upon people who say mean things about them), the more they complain about societal cruelty.

They wont be happy until they can make-out in the streets knowing they can sue your a$$ for any unkind remarks about them doing it.

[g8trjax]

Another example of homosexual intolerance. http://www.frontlines.tv/oregon-bake...-theblaze-com/ Amazing they would attempt to shut the man's bakery down, rather than take their business elsewhere.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Another example of homosexual intolerance. http://www.frontlines.tv/oregon-bake...-theblaze-com/ Amazing they would attempt to shut the man's bakery down, rather than take their business elsewhere.

They don't want equality. They want revenge.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Another example of homosexual intolerance. http://www.frontlines.tv/oregon-bake...-theblaze-com/ Amazing they would attempt to shut the man's bakery down, rather than take their business elsewhere.

The problem with that is that if you let discrimination slide, pretty soon there isn't an "elsewhere" to go to.
On its face, it seems like a logical argument, let people serve who they want and the market will rectify their actions through boycotts, publicity etc if warranted. But what if it were a gas station and it were the only one for 30 miles? Or what if it's a small town providing a needed service and the owner has enough friends that he/she isn't going to get hurt by it, even if they don't agree with him/her? Even in this case, what if there wasn't another cake maker locally? That's why it can't be legal, beyond the obvious of the insult of being told you aren't worthy of being served, people's lives depend on the services private business provide. He doesn't have a right to discriminate per Oregon law. He admits as much in the article, if you don't like that law, don't live in one of the most liberal states in the country, or work to get it changed.

[WESGATORS]

With the cake thing, all he had to say was "we don't do same-sex designs." Then there would be no problem. The suit should get dropped on a matter of semantics unless they are not willing to provide straight cakes to gay people.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS