Michelle Bachmann pulls out of race

ilwrath said:
One could argue the same things when talking about homosexuality as genetic vs. choice. No one has proven a "homo gene" and I think it would be rather insulting to consider it could possibly be that easy. In both cases, there appears to be a very complex combination of biology, upbringing, and rational free will. I just don't see how you can claim one is free to choose the god they're attracted to, but not person they're attracted to. Catch my drift?
Click to expand...

I catch your drift but think there's a bit more to it than that.

The particular God a person is attracted to is demonstrably a product of culture.
 
The particular God a person is attracted to is demonstrably a product of culture.
Click to expand...

And you'd say the type of person they're attracted to isn't??
 
faethor said:
But seriously I'm with Fluffy. Sexuality is an innate characteristic, like the color of one's skin. Which Sky Daddy to accept and reject appears to be based moreso on cultural norms, such as choice of political party is.
Click to expand...
Ya, Fluffy got it right here. An old comedian once said (can't remember who) that it's fair game to make fun of things people can control. However, making fun of things they can't control is poor taste. So making fun of bad decisions is ok, but making fun of a person's face or skin color or illness is in poor taste. You can argue that religion is kinda decided for you by your parents, so at best it might be a grey area kind of thing, but I'd argue that enough people have grown up in religious households and broken away from it which suggests you certainly have lots of control over your own beliefs. Sorry for the run off sentence but I'm too lazy to fix it. :D
 
ilwrath said:
And you'd say the type of person they're attracted to isn't??
Click to expand...
A year or two ago I read that they found a gene that explains homosexuality in men. The gene isn't a "homo" gene, but an "attracted to men" gene. There is an evolutionary benefit to this gene, as women with this gene were more promiscuous. The benefit here is that in times of extreme hardship, where many other women were too concerned with their own (or future child's) safety, these women would still continue reproducing. The interesting thing about that gene was that men who had it were gay. This doesn't explain lesbians or bisexuals however.
 
I'd argue that enough people have grown up in religious households and broken away from it which suggests you certainly have lots of control over your own beliefs.
Click to expand...

...And no one has ever grown up in a non-religious household but later felt "called to God" and joined a church. Maybe joined and left several before finding the right one. No Catholics have ever "broken away" only to join Judaism or vice versa, either.

The stories of introspection from people who have gained or converted religions sound a lot like the stories of people who have realized they fit a different sexuality. Who are you to judge which conversion is biological vs free will? Is the Atheist born to a Christian family really any different from an Asexual born from parents of normal sex drive?
 
...And no one has ever grown up in a non-religious household but later felt "called to God" and joined a church. Maybe joined and left several before finding the right one. No Catholics have ever "broken away" only to join Judaism or vice versa, either.
Click to expand...
Of course it works both ways, but the evidence that supports the cause of religious beliefs is biologically predetermined are far weaker than the evidence that homosexuality is biologically predetermined. We know that genes don't explain everything, but neither does upbringing. They've discovered that even identical twins may be slightly different because genes and chromosomes get "damaged" quite soon once the cells start to multiply in the womb. This probably explains why if one twin is gay, so is the other in ALMOST all cases.

And oh ya, like you said earlier that there is no "gay" gene, which may be correct, there's probably no "religion" gene either. It's probably something more along the lines of "over-active imagination" gene, or a "not-well-grounded-to-reality" gene.
 
Looks like this question was just answered by some Republicans...
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins-bachmann-pledges-ban-porn-same-sex-214900881.html
Santorum signed a 'Marriage Vow' that.. "asks candidates to affirm a pro-marriage stance, oppose same-sex unions, defines homosexuality as a "choice" (stating there is no empirical scientific proof that being gay is genetic), and notes that marriage is undermined by adulterous factors like quickie divorces and pornography."

Rick Santorum demanding empircal proof is the definition of ludicrous.
 
cecilia said:
at least theonestonecutter got my joke

it cracked me up ALL day................First Lady................. hahahahahahahahahahah
Click to expand...

the joke has more to do with people trying to hide the obvious, more than whatever is obvious. its always the cover up. nobody is laughing that hes gay, but rather that he seems unwilling to admit it in spite of the avalanche of obvious evidence to the contrary... he believes you can pray gay away after all... is that some height of stupidity reserved for others not on this website? id think so. does it beg to be mocked when hes buying sunglasses for his dog? hell yes! at some point you know he was telling himself this pair or that would look better or maybe make the dog feel better about his insecurities with his color patches or something... if i did that crap i would demand that you laugh at me... pray away the gay... really? the guy is a buffoon....
 
theonestonecutter said:
the joke has more to do with people trying to hide the obvious, more than whatever is obvious. its always the cover up. nobody is laughing that hes gay, but rather that he seems unwilling to admit it in spite of the avalanche of obvious evidence to the contrary... he believes you can pray gay away after all... is that some height of stupidity reserved for others not on this website? id think so. does it beg to be mocked when hes buying sunglasses for his dog? hell yes! at some point you know he was telling himself this pair or that would look better or maybe make the dog feel better about his insecurities with his color patches or something... if i did that crap i would demand that you laugh at me... pray away the gay... really? the guy is a buffoon....
Click to expand...
absolutely, on every point.

I certainly don't mind a bit that Marcus is gay. Generally, I like gay people. I have met many over the course of my career. I often don't even realize they are gay until long after I have gotten to know them as creative, interesting wonderful people.
It's not as if gay people walk around with a neon sign flashing over their heads.

There are exceptions and apparently Marcus is one of them :D


And the ONLY reason one is forced to feel that Marcus IS gay is just because he is in the business of denying it. Millions of people around the world are going, ...."Wha?" at the sight and sound of good old Marcus.

Now, I am willing to concede that he and his wife have a nice marriage. Maybe they are the best of friends. Maybe they are very happy together. It's not for me to say. That is their personal life.
The ONLY thing I ask is that she and he give the SAME kind of respect to others who just happen to be (both) gay and wish to live a married life together.

Call me crazy but I think that's just reasonable. :D
 
cecilia said:
Call me crazy . :D
Click to expand...

why thats just crazy lady... where do you get off? hahahahaha! are u onna them selfdenierhomophobics? (folks who have hard time bearing others denial about being gay)... and i think thats a new word so i get four points... lol

:D
 
and P.S. foster care = foster cash... they got like a whole herd right?... but "against" government welfare... are they against the healthcare their children are given by the state? i guess they pay the what 8 to 12 hundred a month for each child for blue cross... right? wouldnt want that socialized medicine... you know this whole thread could take a righteous turn on republican presidential candidate hypocrisy just by listing health care providers... wonder what Newt would say... he got his ends too...
 
Eligible foster parents can earn $22,000 a year plus medical benefits for caring for a developmentally disabled child through the program. In some cases, a family taking an additional such child may be paid a total of $35,000 a year.
One Detroit foster parent had just applied for public assistance when her sister suggested the Life Program. Seeing it as a chance to avoid dependency on the welfare program, she ended up adopting her first foster child. She admits she was drawn to the program by the money.[3]
Hers is counted as a successful story--she ended up adopting her first foster child. But how might the natural mother have fared had she had the benefit of a even a fraction of this income to stay at home to care for her own child?

very nicely written maybe give it a read... ive kind of wondered myself about many of the points she raises... nobody wants a welfare society... ready or not ... here its been, for like twenty years now...

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster07.htm
 
plus they get food stamps, in some cases social security checks and a myriad of other state and federal resources...
 
theonestonecutter said:
and P.S. foster care = foster cash... they got like a whole herd right?... but "against" government welfare... are they against the healthcare their children are given by the state? i guess they pay the what 8 to 12 hundred a month for each child for blue cross... right? wouldnt want that socialized medicine... you know this whole thread could take a righteous turn on republican presidential candidate hypocrisy just by listing health care providers... wonder what Newt would say... he got his ends too...
Click to expand...
Michelle Bachmann and family has clearly benefited from the government.

You bring up the issue of Foster Care. While it's typically a net cost to the family the government does indeed provide for many Foster Care families ensuring the loss is less.

The Bachmann's own a Treatment Clinic which takes State funding for patients and takes training dollars from the State. The Bachmann's tried to claimed training their employees isn't a benefit. Serieously! In what business does a better trained employee not improve the business.

And the Bachmann's claim a family farm which gets money from the State too. They claim only their parents benefit and they carry it on their taxes. The farm gets some government aid, as in crop subsidies. It probably benefits the parents by making them look poorer and thus better qualified for government aid programs. For example, if you're elderly in Minnesota and have a low fixed income you get free winter heating for your home. Seems to me the IRS might want to look into Michelle and her Mom to see if this isn't an unfair tax dodge.
 
yes yes, on all counts.
I love it when 'rich' people (who are sucking on the government teat) bitch about poor people sucking off the same teat.

talk about Hypocrisy! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top