A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Topic: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance (Read 22725 times)

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #25 – 2014-07-13, 03:16:49

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-12, 18:15:48

All the research points to one conclusion regarding sexual orientation, be [it] heterosexual, gay/lesbian or bisexual, people are born into it and it can't be changed.

And if that's not really the case, you'll argue — what? Of course, it doesn't matter; your proclivities (politically, Sang… Let's not get distracted!) are set in stone (tablets): Only those who disagree with you should be discriminated against.
Does that discrimination legitimately get elevated to a criminal (or civil, actionable) offense? I know your answer… I disagree.

BTW: The "research" has shown no such conclusion, except by hysterically gesticulating… (Is that what you mean, by "points"?

) The research is equivocal, at best. And you surely know it.
Of course, if you mean questionnaires filled out by self-selected respondents, etc.: There's a reason most sociology research is considered bunk…
——————————————————
@Howie: Do you not know the difference between "care" and "cry"…? Your knuckles on the keyboard give you away!

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #26 – 2014-07-13, 14:55:26

It's not "research." It's research. I suppose you think the research amounts to question such as "Were you born gay?" Far from it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Quote

A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.
In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.

Do you get it? It's not questionnaires filled out by self-selected respondents. It's not even sociology. It's biology and neurology. Now all science is somewhat equivocal. There's alway, always some perceived flaw in the research. However, the preponderance of evidence leads to a biological cause of homosexuality and not just from this one study I pointed out.

As I said before the marketplace will, in the fullness of time, weed out businesses that discriminate against the LGBT community. Let's put it this way, do you think businesses that discriminated against racial minorities in the past would have survived? The legislation against that discrimination reflected the changes in society's attitude. Likewise, the legislation against discrimination based sexual orientation is a mirror of society's evolution into one in which all people possess what Thomas Jefferson called "inalienable rights." I don't regret to inform you that equal protection under the law, as required by the constitution, is gradually becoming reality.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #27 – 2014-07-13, 16:07:57

Sang, it would do good to link to the original http://ki.se/en/news/societys-attitudes-have-little-impact-on-choice-of-sexual-partner

Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out. The heading (which is meant to reflect the conclusion of course) says "Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner", whereas in the text it says that "the unique environment" is responsible for 61-66% of the impact. The unique environment means the direct growth environment, the family (distinguished from broader attitudes, law and media) which still by extension means the society, so the conclusion is actually the opposite of what the heading says!

Genetics, which Sang is emphasising, is said to have 18-39% of the impact. The upper margin of it would be significant, but what really catches my attention is the oddly wide range of this aspect found in the study. Can genetics really be called an important and reliable guide here? Not to mention the fact that every favourable commentator conflates correlation (which is what the research studied) with causation...

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #28 – 2014-07-13, 17:43:32

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-13, 16:07:57

Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out.

You mean these flaws?

(Yes, the university's own PR department is just as bad. You'd still have to at the very least check the actual abstract and even that might be trying to draw too much attention to itself. A quick scan of the actual introduction and conclusion is the most useful if you're pressed for time.)

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #29 – 2014-07-13, 20:10:08

It seems the man wanting to promote queer marriage went to another baker shop and they accepted the order (!) so a lot of ballyhoo about something that is hardly earth quaking. A point is still raised however. If you can be forced to publish a view you disagree with on a cake then presumably you can now be forced to do so in a book a newspaper or a tv programme?! Damn stupid nonsense from the cake campaign bloke. And apart from this matter of the wider implications on being forced into something is the half-wit going to take court action against the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the list I give here? He got his cake so that should be it. Belfast has enough to contend with withur some individual wanting to hog the limelight.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #30 – 2014-07-13, 21:10:12

An homosexual cake is against the public mental health.
The baker can't do it by law.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #31 – 2014-07-13, 23:45:41

I came across a blog-- and accompanying video, I strongly suggest you look over the whole thing-- that raises an interesting point that seems to be slipping from some of the more militant minds here. That point is "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".

It's something that, strangely enough, a 2nd Amendment Rights advocate gets as he's arguing that some of the more radical elements in the pro-gun camp are doing more harm than good. By openly carrying AR-15s into Wal-Marts, Chipotles, Taco Bells and so on, all they do is alienate the public and eventually create the very calls for more gun control these activists fear.

So-- I have to ask what, exactly, is gained by LGBT activists going into a bakery owned by a Christian family and DEMANDING a cake that has pro-LGBT propaganda on it, violating the Christian family's beliefs? Were there no other bakeries in Northern Belfast that would do it? Or, as I strongly suspect, was it more important to make an example out of this bakery so nobody else would dare to say anything against the LGBT community? Could it be that the right of free speech is one way only? Better believe it. I stand for your right to speak unless I disagree with what you say, then I'll sue you into oblivion. If you don't kowtow to my every demand, I'l drive you so far out of business that it's not funny. Yep-- that's sure what it looks like.

Take a look at the link below, and pay special attention to the video at the bottom of the blog piece. It's about gun rights/open carry, but the principles apply to this to where rights are concerned.

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop-defending-my-rights/

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #32 – 2014-07-13, 23:48:41

Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #33 – 2014-07-14, 00:03:55

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-07-13, 23:48:41

Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.

It doesn't end just at the bakery. Here in the States we've had some issues where some pressure-group or another decides to make an example of somebody who doesn't instantly jump to the pressure-group's demands, and the concept that people other than the pressure-group might have rights too seems to escape them. I will say that some of our TV preachers have been notorious for demanding that a business respond favorably to their demands "or else" so it isn't just one sided by any means.

Racing off to court and screaming "discrimination" seems to be something that certain people are more likely to do than others though. Funny thing, we have a group that wants the government to keep its hands off of "our bodies" but wants to compel businesses by law to pay for birth control. So-- it never ends.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #34 – 2014-07-14, 00:33:18

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-07-13, 23:48:41

Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #35 – 2014-07-14, 00:59:50

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-07-13, 23:45:41

So-- I have to ask what, exactly, is gained by LGBT activists going into a bakery owned by a Christian family and DEMANDING a cake that has pro-LGBT propaganda on it, violating the Christian family's beliefs? Were there no other bakeries in Northern Belfast that would do it? Or, as I strongly suspect, was it more important to make an example out of this bakery so nobody else would dare to say anything against the LGBT community? Could it be that the right of free speech is one way only? Better believe it. I stand for your right to speak unless I disagree with what you say, then I'll sue you into oblivion. If you don't kowtow to my every demand, I'l drive you so far out of business that it's not funny. Yep-- that's sure what it looks like.

I agree for the most part. The point of a disagreement is that you seem to assume they deliberately choose a bakery that would deny them service. I don't think they did.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-07-14, 00:03:55

I will say that some of our TV preachers have been notorious for demanding that a business respond favorably to their demands "or else" so it isn't just one sided by any means.

Few, if any, pressure groups have the power to enforce the "or else." Did some radical Christian groups really think they could force General Mills not offer same-sex benefits? Did some gay groups really think they could bring down Chick-A-Fila? If so, both sides were completely delusional.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #36 – 2014-07-14, 01:28:26

Every impotent boycott is also a great chance to coax money out of supporters. Suddenly both sides of every issue have a chance raise money when one firm or whatever is allegedly denying some group their rights and the pressure group "needs" money to support the boycott, the fact that it actually cost very little to send out a mass emails telling people not to buy from General Mills or Chick-A-Fila not withstanding. You could even go Katsung and accuse the leaders of the gays and Christians of being in collusion to rake in the money for the leaders of the pressure groups.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #37 – 2014-07-14, 01:54:48

/Entered into thread expecting no less than 8 paragraphs of Mr. Howie's grousing.

/Left thread having had expectations met

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #38 – 2014-07-14, 04:14:14

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-07-13, 17:43:32

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-13, 16:07:57
Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out.

You mean these flaws?

(Yes, the university's own PR department is just as bad. You'd still have to at the very least check the actual abstract and even that might be trying to draw too much attention to itself. A quick scan of the actual introduction and conclusion is the most useful if you're pressed for time.)

It all goes to illustrate the fairly modest and moderate (but obvious) point that anything anyone wants to justify with this kind of science - including the scientists themselves - is flawed. For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #39 – 2014-07-14, 14:52:03

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 04:14:14

For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.

Hardly. Tell us why the brains of pure homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. Your article doesn't seem to address that issue. I say "pure" because there's a wide spectrum human human sexual orientation. Many claiming to be gay are actually bisexual to a degree and likewise with "straight" people. Further, genetic factors are not the only variable. It's not as simple as genes or environment. I was emphasizing brain size and structure, not genetics. That's far from the same thing. Of course I brought up neurology, but never said anyone's neurology was strictly the result of genetics. To explore this a little further, let's look at the conclusions brought up the article you offered.

Quote

Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences.

The first sentence is the one you're drawing your conclusions from, but you ignore the second one. Note "circumstances during pregnancy." One those circumstance is Epigenetics. In a nutshell, these are temporary switches that impact the genes and influence, among many other things, sexual orientation.

There's likely not one single cause of sexual orientation. For Bill, it might "run the family." For Tom, there epigenetic switch might have triggered it. In any case, the research points to a prenatal origin.

BTW, nearly all science is flawed, regardless of the field. There's always some factor the researcher didn't consider, but that doesn't automatically mean his conclusions are wrong. If it did, we'd still be back in the dark ages as far as our understanding of the universe goes.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #40 – 2014-07-14, 15:50:47

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-14, 14:52:03

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 04:14:14
For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.
Hardly. Tell us why the brains of pure homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. Your article doesn't seem to address that issue.

Sorry, I dug up the wrong study. The right one must be this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559854 The date matches, the numbers match. The thing is that the only number in the abstract is the size of the sample. Now, if it would state the correlation figures, I would give it a thought. What I linked to earlier, stated correlation figures. It was a better study, with much larger sample too, so it cannot be ignored. Yours is ignorable.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-14, 14:52:03

There's likely not one single cause of sexual orientation.

Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist. There is just cultural-instinctual accommodation/deviation. There's absolute sexual liberalism on one extreme, strict celibacy on the other, and a certain range of normalcy in between. You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #41 – 2014-07-14, 22:55:20

What a daft comment you made there tt92 about why it was brought up.It is all about the fuss the man made and all he had to do was go to another baker but no, he had to create a hoo-ha, go the equalities Commission and consider legal action. I have already pointed out that if you cannot have your own view denied over a damn cake the same applies to teleivision, newspapers and so on You simply ignore the definitive and go for ignoring things. It would be so easy for the baker to lose his 4 shops and the staff all get their books because of a difference in opinion over a campaign. Well no doubt it won't be long until there is a law against offending someone next. Even differences in opion on a qiet way such as this baker is a no-no. So much for democracy!

Nice dance there mjsmsprt40 but on a more serious note what you say has a ring of truth and the way some monorities create confrontations actually.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #42 – 2014-07-15, 00:00:05

I didn't ask why it was brought up.
I asked why YOU brought it up.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #43 – 2014-07-15, 01:31:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 15:50:47

Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist.

For that to be true, we would also have ignore the fact that the majority of men have no capacity to be sexually attracted to another man. The same thing goes for women. It's surprisingly easy to forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation. Like homosexuality, it's determined in the womb

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 15:50:47

You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.

Whose definition of decency? I find it indecent that people are denied equal protection under the law. A majority of Americans now support equal marriage, so a same-sex couple would appear to be perfectly workable definition of a family.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #44 – 2014-07-15, 03:54:16

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-15, 01:31:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 15:50:47
Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist.

For that to be true, we would also have ignore the fact that the majority of men have no capacity to be sexually attracted to another man. The same thing goes for women. It's surprisingly easy to forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation.

It's surprisingly easy to forget that when there's just one sexual orientation, then there's absolutely no sexual orientation at all. When there's just one species, the concept of species does not make sense. When there's just one colour, the concept of colour does not make sense. Same with gender or sex. "Sexually attracted to the same sex" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. a self-contradiction, because for attraction to be sexual, it has to be gender-based, because sex and gender are the same thing.

Heterosexuality can be a concept only in contrast with homosexuality. When you admit homosexuality, heterosexuality also becomes a concept. Dig up some history of the concept of heterosexuality to see how astonishingly modern it is. Is it because people throughout history forgot that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation? No, it's because the concept of sexual orientation the way you are putting it does not even make sense.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-15, 01:31:23

Like homosexuality, it's determined in the womb

Let's just ignore for now that, even after citing research, you did not establish the womb theory of sexual orientation at all.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-15, 01:31:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 15:50:47
You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.

Whose definition of decency?

That's the point. When you have no idea of a universal definition of decency, then you have no claim on it. At best you can dismiss the relevance of decency, but this only makes you look worse, not better.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-15, 01:31:23

I find it indecent that people are denied equal protection under the law. A majority of Americans now support equal marriage, so a same-sex couple would appear to be perfectly workable definition of a family.

And how about the people with squarely opposite definition marriage and family (which happens to be the definition that applied for all history and is being undermined and overturned only in the last few decades)? How about their sense of decency? And not just decency, but the actual content of what marriage is about, namely raising the next generation of humans who should produce and raise yet another generation on their own. How about some modicum of respect for the actual content of these legally, socially, and biologically central functions? How is it decent to make a mockery of all this? I am not at all disputing decency here, but your way of citing it to promote indecency and irrationality.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #45 – 2014-07-15, 06:02:26

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-07-13, 06:55:26

A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.

Surely -even in your educational experience- you've heard of post hoc, ergo propter hoc? But — Science!
—————————————————
Forgive me, ersi, for I mostly agree with your post just prior to mine… (That's an abrogation of "the laws of nature," no?

)
I don't "hate" gays. I don't think many others do, either. But I do think some gays (but much more so, some busy-body-biddies who resent the fact that they, their clique, isn't recognized for the "geniuses" they obviously are, aren't given absolute power over "us plebes"…) think the only way they can be "happy" is to secure the political ability to make others miserable!
No need to determine what is really going on, if you can use whatever results to spin it your way… It's the "your way" that you don't recognize, Sang.
But, then, your degree is in Sociology, isn't it?

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #46 – 2014-07-15, 08:29:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 03:54:16

It's surprisingly easy to forget that when there's just one sexual orientation, then there's absolutely no sexual orientation at all. When there's just one species, the concept of species does not make sense. When there's just one colour, the concept of colour does not make sense. Same with gender or sex. "Sexually attracted to the same sex" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. a self-contradiction, because for attraction to be sexual, it has to be gender-based, because sex and gender are the same thing.

And yet homosexuality (or whatever you prefer to call it) exists. Deviation being it's nature, practice and classification.

How societies should deal with it depends, but specially there's a million more important things to societies to solve first.
What some people likes to do in bed it's not exactly a priority and the imposition of such agenda inadmissible. Disguise it as "rights" is an insult to people's real rights.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #47 – 2014-07-15, 13:26:10

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 06:02:26

(That's an abrogation of "the laws of nature," no? )

You and your Hilarious Words.

I am just doing a little bit of natural philosophy a.k.a. philosophy of nature here. Anyone sensible cannot deny the sensibleness of that.

I don't hate queers either. It's just that the aspect of human nature that they have chosen to advertise is disastrous for youth and that's quite unfortunate. They don't stop at advertising their own perversion, but are forcing the entire society - everybody, regardless of "orientation" - to cater to the queer sector specifically. They were tolerable as long as they were a subculture, but now they demand to be acknowledged as mainstream. Whoever does not join them gets labelled intolerant, and this is enough to sway the insecure. Properly Orwellian divisive propaganda tactic. In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family. The wedding cake incidents illustrate this clearly.

There is a modest and moderate way to be decadent, but the LGBT folks of our era won't have it this way.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #48 – 2014-07-15, 14:19:38

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 13:26:10

In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family. The wedding cake incidents illustrate this clearly.

Longer? Here, the words "father" and "mother" are not that "politically correct" already.

Re: A Belfast cake and queers care arrogance

Reply #49 – 2014-07-15, 15:13:13

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-15, 08:29:23

What some people likes to do in bed it's not exactly a priority and the imposition of such agenda inadmissible. Disguise it as "rights" is an insult to people's real rights.

The problem is when one of the two major national political parties in fact makes it a top priority for them. They proceed to pass laws and constitutional amendments aimed specifically at LGBT community. Now they're upset because increasingly their efforts are found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution, which trumps state and local laws via the "Supremacy Clause." All they had to was leave the queers alone and gay marriage most likely would not be the law of the land in 19 states and growing.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 13:26:10

Properly Orwellian divisive propaganda tactic. In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family.

And yet it doesn't occur to that they're affirming the institution of marriage and family? Marriage and family were in trouble long before this even became an issue. You say "There is a modest and moderate way to be decadent, but the LGBT folks of our era won't have it this way." However, it apparently doesn't even register to you that married is a move away from decadence.