<p>thesloc, people aren't born geniuses, but that doesnt mean that they choose to be. It's something that develops, and no one knows what aspect of a child's development will cause this. Gay couples have raised straight kids, many striaght couples raise gay children. There's nothing we can do about it.</p>
<p>In answer to your questions
1. Absolutely I would let my gay children marry
2. A gay priest came to our school to give us a lecture, probly one of the best speakers we've ever had.</p>
<p>And I'm not gay, since you asked how many gay marriage supporters are actually gay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
WOuld you allow the gay marriage of your own children if they choose to be gay? (assuming you will/have children)</p>
<p>What do you think about a gay priest? Or gay president? Hmm.
[/quote]
why do people ask questions like this...obviously if I'm advocating gay marriage and defending gays in my posts then I would allow my children to marry regardless of their sexuality. (see above post by i<em>wanna</em>be_Brown as to why homosexuality is not a choice)</p>
<p>what do I think about a gay priest? umm....that further proves that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. People can't use religion to stop them from being gay - and in my opinion it doesn't make them any less pious.</p>
<p>gay president?
there have been gay leaders before - notably King Edward II of England and Alexander the Great (who, I would venture to say, did a rather good job)
not to mention some of the greatest minds in history were/are gay-
Walt Whitman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault, Jane Addams...</p>
<p>Gay marriage- for
abortion- against
birth control- for
affirmative action- against
capital punishment- for
gun control- for
stem cell research- for
war in iraq- against</p>
<p>
[quote]
4) for things that are good, against things that suck
<p>also, let private businesses fire and hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. no such thing as wrongful termination, your lucky you got the job in the first place. </p>
<p>let private businesses serve whoever they want, and if they want to say no blacks sit here, why not? am i allowed to say no blacks in my house? private business, private home.</p>
<p>
[quote]
let private businesses serve whoever they want, and if they want to say no blacks sit here, why not? am i allowed to say no blacks in my house? private business, private home.
[/quote]
You want to argue huh?
There are at least two reasons why your argument is flawed:
1.A significant democratic ideal is the concept of self-determination. I think it's evident from our foundation in capitalism, from our reliance on public participation and even from Wilson's 14 points (for which the ideals embedded in the relevant points can easily be applied to the individual) that (at least the opportunity for) self-determination is indeed a >right<. Though it's not explicitly granted in the Constitution, it forms the very basis of our society.
It easily follows therefore, that every individual has a right to some form of employment, which is directly linked not only to standard of living, but also to one's direction in life. The business owners also have a right: to run their companies as they please. (you could argue that this too is essential to self-determination and hence we'd be analyzing two competing rights of equal weight - to which I would say:in the case of rejecting a candidate based on race, self-determination would not at all be affected because theoretically the owner would use race as the deciding factor when all other factors remain constant. That means, the black candidate has equal qualifications as the white candidate -except for race - so the job would be completed in the same way regardless) So when two rights conflict, they need to weighed in order to find resolution: I argue that opportunity for employment (because it is directly linked to self-determination and subsistence for that matter were all businesses to close there doors to a specific race) significantly outweighs the business owner's right to run his company based on personal prejudices.
2. stemming from the above analysis - your "private business, private home" idea is flawed as well. While people have a right to employment, they do not have a right to enter anyone and everyone's home - in fact, they only have a RIGHT to enter their own home. Because a private business is linked inextricably to other people's rights, it simply can't be treated the same way as a home.</p>
<p>i still disagree with both your arguments because they both stem from your idea that everybody is born deserving a job, where i believe you're privileged to have one.</p>
<p>if i own a home and a private business, they are both my private property and i should be able to treat them as such. once you own a little nugget of my business, like your public bus system, then you can start complaining about who i let in.</p>
<p>if i had a private business, i would not hire/fire/serve based on race, but i believe a private business owner should have the right to.</p>
<p>"not to mention some of the greatest minds in history were/are gay-
Walt Whitman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault, Jane Addams..."</p>
i still disagree with both your arguments because they both stem from your idea that everybody is born deserving a job, where i believe you're privileged to have one.
<p>why what? why do we disagree? because you believe everybody deserves a job... idono what makes you think anybody deserves anything from an employer.</p>
<p>i believe : start your own business, and run your business as you want. if you run it badly and in a way people dont approve of, your business will not succeed.</p>
<p>you believe : start your own business, be told how to run it by others, blahhh.</p>
<p>why do you believe that employment is a privilege versus a right?</p>
<p>I said employment is a right because it is directly linked to self-determination...and self-determination is >fundamentally< and >inextricably< connected to a democracy.</p>
<p>so I was wondering why you believe employment in general is a privilege...I'm just curious...</p>
<p>affirmative action- hmmm. not really for or against. i see the
reasoning behind it, but its hard to generalize that every single person from a single race has had a more difficult time getting oppurtunities in life than every single person from another race. in some cases its true, but in others its not. i guess aa's ok to a very small degree. it definitely shoudnt the overall, or one of the overall, factors in any job or college decision.</p>
<p>capital punishment- for when there's no doubt the dude or dudette did it.</p>
<p>gun control- for. emphasis on the "control". seriously, those crazy hicks think if you're for gun control it means you're for taking their guns away. and i was only kiding about the hicks.
stem cell research- for</p>
<p>war in iraq- against. as a military brat, i was surrounded by talk of the war since 9/11. i went to school on a military base and i remember we couldnt leave school that day. the base i was on also is a huge training site and was on high alert for a long time. it took 5 hours to get on base for a month with all the security checks and all. my mom went qatar for a year in 03. honestly, i'm not that type thats like "bush killed all out soldiers...we need to pull out right now..." but i understand that there was no legitimate reason for going to iraq. there were no weapons and bush is such a dumba ss thathe just attacked hussein cuz god forbid the us send the message "we cant kill anyone we dont like". and yeah hundreds of soldiers have died for a war started for a stupid reason and thats really sad. but we have to finish the job now. i'm agains t the war in that i dont think its right. but i realize that we have to stick with it now and help iraq rebuild itself.</p>
<p>weed legalization- for it. not cuz i'm some hippie. i really wouldn't smoke weed if it was legal. but i think if alcohol and tabacco are legal, then why shouldnt a natural herb be. the worst it does is inhibit your senses, but alcohol does that. if anything tabacco should be illegal since it contains more than just natural tabacco. it has arsenic and other deadly chemicals. it cuases cancer. and alcohol increases the chances of getting cancer. marijuana however helps people with cancer to some degree. so why not just legalize it. </p>
<p>my main point about legalizing marijuana is that its one more thing that the government can tax to lower other taxes like state tax, property tax, income tax... if you see people buying alcohol or tabacco products, you should be thanking them for paying such high taxes for those things. because if alcohol and tabacco was illegal, the trust me, every other type of tax would skyrocket.</p>
<p>haha on my STAR CSU English placement essay, i wrote a few pages on how tobacco is good for america.</p>
<p>LadyinRed, if i am paying monthly for internet access, and then comcast appoints a black president, and in response i decide to cancel my comcast... should i be able to do that? in a way, i am employing comcast and paying them for their service, and they are lucky i chose to hire them in the first place :)</p>