The last game between the Chiefs and the Bills kept me on the edge of my seat but luckily the Chiefs we're able to turn the game around with a 23-13 victory at Buffalo with a 9-0 record. Looks like Kansas City will finally face off against Denver to see who will make it to the Playoffs this season.
NFL Discussion Topic - Favorite Teams and How They are Doing
- Thread starter MountainDrew
- Start date
I can't believe that the Bucs couldn't hold off the Seahawks.
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
I can't speak for anyone but myself. I did NOT chose my sexuality. I was raised going to catholic school until 5th grade, I helped my cousin who is a Baptist minister teach vacation bible school when I was young..yet, I still ended up being bisexual. I CANNOT help who I am attracted to. I believe in the theory that it is genetic, at least somewhat. My Grandmother, mother, sister, and now, son..are ALL bisexual. My grandmother was not open about it, I had no clue my mother was until I told her I was. My son did not know I was until he came to me confused about his own attractions. There where many many many times when I struggled with how I felt about my sexuality, I tried to "force" myself straight but it doesn't work. I have only ever had serious relationships with men, most likely because where I live, and due to my family, it's just easier...but it's never stopped me from finding other women attractive. That is a part of me that just is. I'm okay with that.
Hold up..no church can be FORCED to marry anyone. I have discussed this at length with several different heads of several different churches,and other religious communities other than churches(Ie-Synagogues,pagan groups, ect.) ..they can choose to say no if they do not want to officiate over a wedding.That is in a religious setting and they have that right. So that is indeed wrong. Sorry.
Second, not everyone who is gay and wants to get married wants to go get married in a church, some are thrilled to go to the justice of the peace, which makes it a non-religious ceremony...that is completely separate from church as the US mandates that church and state should be separate when then should anyone who wants to get married outside of a religious ceremony be denied that right?
I can't speak for anyone but myself. I did NOT chose my sexuality. I was raised going to catholic school until 5th grade, I helped my cousin who is a Baptist minister teach vacation bible school when I was young..yet, I still ended up being bisexual. I CANNOT help who I am attracted to. I believe in the theory that it is genetic, at least somewhat. My Grandmother, mother, sister, and now, son..are ALL bisexual. My grandmother was not open about it, I had no clue my mother was until I told her I was. My son did not know I was until he came to me confused about his own attractions. There where many many many times when I struggled with how I felt about my sexuality, I tried to "force" myself straight but it doesn't work. I have only ever had serious relationships with men, most likely because where I live, and due to my family, it's just easier...but it's never stopped me from finding other women attractive. That is a part of me that just is. I'm okay with that.
SoulWind said:
Hold up..no church can be FORCED to marry anyone. I have discussed this at length with several different heads of several different churches,and other religious communities other than churches(Ie-Synagogues,pagan groups, ect.) ..they can choose to say no if they do not want to officiate over a wedding.That is in a religious setting and they have that right. So that is indeed wrong. Sorry.
Second, not everyone who is gay and wants to get married wants to go get married in a church, some are thrilled to go to the justice of the peace, which makes it a non-religious ceremony...that is completely separate from church as the US mandates that church and state should be separate when then should anyone who wants to get married outside of a religious ceremony be denied that right?
They could win 2 more these next two games though. The Raiders are a seemingly easy matchup, and the Packers will lose Aaron Rodgers (Still tough, but bearable). After that, hopefully momentum will stick.
I don't really care if they make it to the playoffs at this point, cause they PROBABLY won't buuuuuut I'm looking for a nice comeback.
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
So, I have wanted to post on here for quite awhile now, but haven't seen a good opportunity and I have been trying to come at this topic in a contributory way while also stating opinions. So this could be interesting. First I want to say that despite Fee being a little misguided on some of the points he made regarding science and whether it can prove anything, he did make some could points and also said some things that I would like to touch on. So! Here goes. I like that he made the point about being close-minded, because I have seen a couple of posts on here that hinted at (at the very least) intolerance of religion and "following the words of an "outdated" book." Yes, because the majority of people in the United States are Christian or at the very least religious, there are many people who are close-minded about homosexuality, and that can't be ignored, because they greatly outweigh the number of people who are intolerant of religion. Despite this, intolerance against religion does exist, has come up more than once in this thread, and should not, ironically enough, be tolerated here. Anyway, ignore that previous section if you want, I been up for more than 24 hours and it is definitely possible that I am misreading some things. In regards to another of Fee's points, when he brings up the Meowth quote from the spoiler. I believe that this is definitely a valid point, as long as you don't read it quite as literally as Fee did. It states that, basically, everyone should focus on what they share in common with other people, and not so much on what is different. Fee says that to do this you would have to remove everyone's brain, so that they couldn't do anything, and states that it is impossible to not see homosexuals as different. While this may be true, I think that the point that is being made is mainly about the focus being on the things that are different, while still recognizing and respecting the things that are different because of what is the same.
As far as my opinion on this goes, I think that it is pretty obvious that it is not a choice for people to be homosexual. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it is like asking someone whether they chose to fall in love with someone else, straight or otherwise. Also, something else that has been brought up, it doesn't matter. We should respect everyone and their rights regardless.
So, I have wanted to post on here for quite awhile now, but haven't seen a good opportunity and I have been trying to come at this topic in a contributory way while also stating opinions. So this could be interesting. First I want to say that despite Fee being a little misguided on some of the points he made regarding science and whether it can prove anything, he did make some could points and also said some things that I would like to touch on. So! Here goes. I like that he made the point about being close-minded, because I have seen a couple of posts on here that hinted at (at the very least) intolerance of religion and "following the words of an "outdated" book." Yes, because the majority of people in the United States are Christian or at the very least religious, there are many people who are close-minded about homosexuality, and that can't be ignored, because they greatly outweigh the number of people who are intolerant of religion. Despite this, intolerance against religion does exist, has come up more than once in this thread, and should not, ironically enough, be tolerated here. Anyway, ignore that previous section if you want, I been up for more than 24 hours and it is definitely possible that I am misreading some things. In regards to another of Fee's points, when he brings up the Meowth quote from the spoiler. I believe that this is definitely a valid point, as long as you don't read it quite as literally as Fee did. It states that, basically, everyone should focus on what they share in common with other people, and not so much on what is different. Fee says that to do this you would have to remove everyone's brain, so that they couldn't do anything, and states that it is impossible to not see homosexuals as different. While this may be true, I think that the point that is being made is mainly about the focus being on the things that are different, while still recognizing and respecting the things that are different because of what is the same.
As far as my opinion on this goes, I think that it is pretty obvious that it is not a choice for people to be homosexual. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it is like asking someone whether they chose to fall in love with someone else, straight or otherwise. Also, something else that has been brought up, it doesn't matter. We should respect everyone and their rights regardless.
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
I don't like the topic title, largely because the word "choice" is not nearly as well defined as people would assume. As far as soft and loamy terms go, it's right up there with "free will" and "spirituality". If one wants to argue for homosexual rights (more power to you), then one should avoid fuzzy terminology wherever possible. It injures the discussion as people quarrel over what "choice" even is in this context, when it's clear that it has no relevance as to whether or not homosexuality is a bad thing in the first place.
I am in full support of homosexual equality. But if one proposes the question "Is Homosexuality a Choice?", that signals to the opposing side that a) Choice is relevant here and b) Choice can be defined in logically absolute terms for the purpose of the discussion. Neither of these is true. If the purpose of the thread is to advocate homosexual rights (I'm assuming it is), it is more productive to operate on more demonstrable terms (e.g. That homosexuality has no negative affect on society, showing that it cannot be "cured", enlightening the audience about both past and present atrocities enacted in the name of anti-homosexuality, etc).
This post is mainly for the OP's benefit. I appreciate that he feels strongly about homosexual rights, and that's commendable. But for the purposes of encouraging reasonable debate, the popular talking point of "choice" should be snuffed out before it burns intelligent discourse away.
I don't like the topic title, largely because the word "choice" is not nearly as well defined as people would assume. As far as soft and loamy terms go, it's right up there with "free will" and "spirituality". If one wants to argue for homosexual rights (more power to you), then one should avoid fuzzy terminology wherever possible. It injures the discussion as people quarrel over what "choice" even is in this context, when it's clear that it has no relevance as to whether or not homosexuality is a bad thing in the first place.
I am in full support of homosexual equality. But if one proposes the question "Is Homosexuality a Choice?", that signals to the opposing side that a) Choice is relevant here and b) Choice can be defined in logically absolute terms for the purpose of the discussion. Neither of these is true. If the purpose of the thread is to advocate homosexual rights (I'm assuming it is), it is more productive to operate on more demonstrable terms (e.g. That homosexuality has no negative affect on society, showing that it cannot be "cured", enlightening the audience about both past and present atrocities enacted in the name of anti-homosexuality, etc).
This post is mainly for the OP's benefit. I appreciate that he feels strongly about homosexual rights, and that's commendable. But for the purposes of encouraging reasonable debate, the popular talking point of "choice" should be snuffed out before it burns intelligent discourse away.
J
Juliacoolo
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
It definitely is a biased diction. My main thing with homosexuality is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Just as irrelevant is whether or not homosexuality is "good" or "bad". The only valid argument regarding the subject of homosexuality is the political aspect. When you bring feelings into a discussion like this, things become abstract and very subjective. Speaking on strictly political terms allows for a more intellectual discussion that has more practical implications.
It definitely is a biased diction. My main thing with homosexuality is that it's completely irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Just as irrelevant is whether or not homosexuality is "good" or "bad". The only valid argument regarding the subject of homosexuality is the political aspect. When you bring feelings into a discussion like this, things become abstract and very subjective. Speaking on strictly political terms allows for a more intellectual discussion that has more practical implications.
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
Being homosexual obviously isn't something bad, and as Jay and bacon said choice is not really relevant. What matters is the way homosexuals are treated by the law and the public.
So yes, homosexuals are still people and everything that does apply to everyone else also does to them; nothing more, nothing less. As to their marriage rights, if we're talking for a non-religious wedding, then personally I have no objections. For a religious wedding, however, it's harder to say. A religion has some certain beliefs and ideas, thus if the idea is that a man and a woman symbolize the power of birth and creation, it can't be helped; a religious wedding between homosexuals would be refused in most cases. This isn't a matter of open-mindedness, it's a matter of respect. As long as homosexuals are being respected for their choices, they must also respect the symbolisms behind religious weddings and go on without one.
This applies to other aspects as well. I do not mean to insult homosexuals or say that every homosexual is like that, but there are cases where homosexuals ask for privileges, or even demand them. For me, something like that is preposterous. Sure, they are not lesser beings, they obviously have rights. But they are also not superior. As I mentioned before, what applies to the rest of the people applies to them as well.
Being homosexual obviously isn't something bad, and as Jay and bacon said choice is not really relevant. What matters is the way homosexuals are treated by the law and the public.
So yes, homosexuals are still people and everything that does apply to everyone else also does to them; nothing more, nothing less. As to their marriage rights, if we're talking for a non-religious wedding, then personally I have no objections. For a religious wedding, however, it's harder to say. A religion has some certain beliefs and ideas, thus if the idea is that a man and a woman symbolize the power of birth and creation, it can't be helped; a religious wedding between homosexuals would be refused in most cases. This isn't a matter of open-mindedness, it's a matter of respect. As long as homosexuals are being respected for their choices, they must also respect the symbolisms behind religious weddings and go on without one.
This applies to other aspects as well. I do not mean to insult homosexuals or say that every homosexual is like that, but there are cases where homosexuals ask for privileges, or even demand them. For me, something like that is preposterous. Sure, they are not lesser beings, they obviously have rights. But they are also not superior. As I mentioned before, what applies to the rest of the people applies to them as well.
Well it's official, the Chiefs are 9-1 as expected since their offense didn't make as much of an impact as their defense did since apparently the Chiefs play better when they have home field advantage which has been their Achilles heel for quite some time now. They focused too much on putting pressure against Peyton Manning on defense while not leaving any room for offense.
The Chiefs are still a wild card pick for the NFL Playoffs so they might have a chance to make a comeback although as much as I hate to say it those odds seem to favor the Broncos and the Patriots more on that end. If the Chiefs don't get their rhythm back by the time they play against the Chargers this season then their only loss against the Broncos won't have much meaning at all.
The Chiefs are still a wild card pick for the NFL Playoffs so they might have a chance to make a comeback although as much as I hate to say it those odds seem to favor the Broncos and the Patriots more on that end. If the Chiefs don't get their rhythm back by the time they play against the Chargers this season then their only loss against the Broncos won't have much meaning at all.
The Saints had a nice win over the 49ers. 8-2!
The show goes on for the Giants! Next victim: Cowboys.
RE: Is Homosexuality a Choice?
Bacon has a great point here, people; talking about choice is irrelevant to the matter; the important part is that homosexuality is something that exists, and should be treated as anything else, without privileges nor punishments.
Say it is a choice; why exactly does it matter? religion is a choice, and religious people cry and bitch every single day about "freedom of religion", "don't attack our god", etc. why should someone who decides to believe in a omnipotent, universe-spanning entity should be granted more rights and be less persecuted than someone who just decides to date people who happen to be of their same gender?
Now le'ts see it the other way around, let's say it's not a choice, that people really are, genetically, by nurture or other causes outside of their control, homosexuals and that they are completely sincere about it (because, as someone said before, why would anyone choose to be gay? in the best case you are quirky, in the worst case you are persecuted, beaten up and end up in the bottom of a ditch); Now, if their sexuality really is outside of their control, shouldn't they be granted rights stemming from that inability to control it? you know, like we do with other people who can't control their situation? (the disabled) Speaking strictly (triple emphasis before someone accuses me of either homophobia or hating the disabled) in terms of inevitable biological difference, a quardriplegic and a gay person are not so different, both have no control over what they are, are harmless, and should be as protected against people who intend to harm them as any other person, of any belief and race.
Ahhhh, I do love a good argument in the morning... or night... whatever.
Oh, almost forgot; jackal, this might be of your interest (and the rest of you too, of course, the more you know and all that shit):
Number 2, in particular
But yeah, anyone who demands privileges above what they should get is a horrible person, though I'd like to know what are those privileges exactly, I don't really know too many gay people.
Bacon has a great point here, people; talking about choice is irrelevant to the matter; the important part is that homosexuality is something that exists, and should be treated as anything else, without privileges nor punishments.
Say it is a choice; why exactly does it matter? religion is a choice, and religious people cry and bitch every single day about "freedom of religion", "don't attack our god", etc. why should someone who decides to believe in a omnipotent, universe-spanning entity should be granted more rights and be less persecuted than someone who just decides to date people who happen to be of their same gender?
Now le'ts see it the other way around, let's say it's not a choice, that people really are, genetically, by nurture or other causes outside of their control, homosexuals and that they are completely sincere about it (because, as someone said before, why would anyone choose to be gay? in the best case you are quirky, in the worst case you are persecuted, beaten up and end up in the bottom of a ditch); Now, if their sexuality really is outside of their control, shouldn't they be granted rights stemming from that inability to control it? you know, like we do with other people who can't control their situation? (the disabled) Speaking strictly (triple emphasis before someone accuses me of either homophobia or hating the disabled) in terms of inevitable biological difference, a quardriplegic and a gay person are not so different, both have no control over what they are, are harmless, and should be as protected against people who intend to harm them as any other person, of any belief and race.
Ahhhh, I do love a good argument in the morning... or night... whatever.
Oh, almost forgot; jackal, this might be of your interest (and the rest of you too, of course, the more you know and all that shit):
Number 2, in particular
But yeah, anyone who demands privileges above what they should get is a horrible person, though I'd like to know what are those privileges exactly, I don't really know too many gay people.
RE: Homosexuality Debate Topic
Professorlight,
I'm not sure if I missed something here, but I don't understand the point you are making in your first paragraph in regards to homosexuality being a choice. You compare it to people that have a religion "bitching" every single day, but you don't make a point about it. You just say that they shouldn't be given more rights than people who don't, and this seems unnecessary to me because religious people don't receive any extra rights as it is (and they shouldn't). So my question is, what did you mean by this comparison? It just seems unnecessary.
Professorlight,
I'm not sure if I missed something here, but I don't understand the point you are making in your first paragraph in regards to homosexuality being a choice. You compare it to people that have a religion "bitching" every single day, but you don't make a point about it. You just say that they shouldn't be given more rights than people who don't, and this seems unnecessary to me because religious people don't receive any extra rights as it is (and they shouldn't). So my question is, what did you mean by this comparison? It just seems unnecessary.
RE: Homosexuality Debate Topic
Well, my point was that condemning homosexuality and claiming it is a choice, therefore "curable" or that someone is just faking it is a big hypocrisy. If you chose to believe in a god, and you say you and your chosen religion should be protected from attacks; how is that different from someone who chose to be gay?
To put it in another way: if I bash the WBC guy (phelps is it?) for bashing on gay people; is he justified on claiming I'm being intolerant towards his religion (which bashes homosexuals), but that the gays can't claim intolerance against him because he's protected by freedom of religion? doesn't that sound hypocritical?
I was backing what bacon said, trying to prove that if anyone pulls the choice argument, they are only hurting their own argument.
Hope that clears it up.
MtheW said:
Well, my point was that condemning homosexuality and claiming it is a choice, therefore "curable" or that someone is just faking it is a big hypocrisy. If you chose to believe in a god, and you say you and your chosen religion should be protected from attacks; how is that different from someone who chose to be gay?
To put it in another way: if I bash the WBC guy (phelps is it?) for bashing on gay people; is he justified on claiming I'm being intolerant towards his religion (which bashes homosexuals), but that the gays can't claim intolerance against him because he's protected by freedom of religion? doesn't that sound hypocritical?
I was backing what bacon said, trying to prove that if anyone pulls the choice argument, they are only hurting their own argument.
Hope that clears it up.
RE: Homosexuality Debate Topic
Yes that is very hypocritical, thanks for clearing that up. Your point makes a lot more sense to me now, because honestly I thought you were just trying to throw in some religion-bashing there, and it is good to know that that wasn't the point. No one should be intolerant of anyone else, regardless of beliefs, and it makes me very sad that more christians can't recognize that this is exactly how we are supposed to act based on the bible's teachings. Oh well I guess.
Yes that is very hypocritical, thanks for clearing that up. Your point makes a lot more sense to me now, because honestly I thought you were just trying to throw in some religion-bashing there, and it is good to know that that wasn't the point. No one should be intolerant of anyone else, regardless of beliefs, and it makes me very sad that more christians can't recognize that this is exactly how we are supposed to act based on the bible's teachings. Oh well I guess.
RE: Homosexuality Discussion/Debate Topic
Just a notice: Members can post relevant topics in this thread to open up discussion a bit more. I think most of the discussion about choice has been played out quite a bit, so feel free to introduce a new idea, news, or another LGBT topic you would like to bring up.
Just a notice: Members can post relevant topics in this thread to open up discussion a bit more. I think most of the discussion about choice has been played out quite a bit, so feel free to introduce a new idea, news, or another LGBT topic you would like to bring up.
Over the course of the Giants' winning streak they did not play a QB with a winning record as a starter.
The NFC East will probably come down to Dallas and Philadelphia, because I think Dallas will put enough of a clamp down on the Giants to keep pace in the NFC East.
The NFC East will probably come down to Dallas and Philadelphia, because I think Dallas will put enough of a clamp down on the Giants to keep pace in the NFC East.
The Chiefs seem to have gotten their rhythm back against the Chargers but it wasn't enough to end up going 9-2 for their current NFL Season which unfortunately will be 9-3 after they play against the Broncos again at home which by that time they'll probably be done for the season. I guess I'll stick with my current avatar until December 2nd depending on what the results are.
At least they did better than last season where they went 2-14 and the last time the Chiefs managed to make it to the NFL Playoffs was back in 2010 although everyone else thought it was back in 1993 with Joe Montana as their QB. What was weird was that 3 years ago the Chiefs had a better offense than defense but instead of both they have a stronger defense than offense.
At least they did better than last season where they went 2-14 and the last time the Chiefs managed to make it to the NFL Playoffs was back in 2010 although everyone else thought it was back in 1993 with Joe Montana as their QB. What was weird was that 3 years ago the Chiefs had a better offense than defense but instead of both they have a stronger defense than offense.