Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie
But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.
>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.
Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.
> That ability to change indicates a choice
No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.
Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...
Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.
Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.
And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.
The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?
>But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
Do you also think they have a right to refuse to serve you if you are black ? How about if you're Native American ? Maybe if you're Irish ?
No, your freedom ends where other's freedom begins - and your right to hate gays ENDS where their right to shop at any business they choose to begins.
Wait, who were you responding to ?
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or being a butthurt libertarian ?
Sorry, maybe it's the lack of tone in text but I honestly can't tell which side of this you are on...
Possibly because Roddenberry was dead ?
> I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy.
One down... only all the rest to go...
Which is about as logical as saying "fire can burn firemen too so we better ban firefighting".
You're right of course, but the jury is still out on warp drives. NASA has an entire team researching them now. Ever since Alcubierre showed it was theoretically possible (and later physicists significantly refined the theory) it moved from pure science fiction into bona-fide science. Whether or when it can move to ENGINEERING is uncertain -but clearly at least some good scientists and engineers are willing to bet quite a significant budget on sooner over later.
And there is no doubt it was Star Trek that inspired the actual science here. Alcubierre wrote William Shatner an e-mail to thank him for Star Trek and openly stated that he it was seeing the idea in Star Trek that inspired him to do the research and work out if it could be done for real.
And for the record - I never even claimed Obama WAS somebody who wished to build a brand rather than appease a donor - the GP claimed that, I never did.
>You've stated opinion as fact
I did absolutely nothing of the kind. I stated only a generic probability. That somebody who wishes to build a brand will likely not fuck you over as badly as somebody who wishes to appease a donor.
I stated no facts nor even an opinion - I merely told you which outcome is more likely. Even if you DO prove that Obama didn't follow that pattern it wouldn't prove me wrong even a little because I never said "that is what happens" - I said "that is what is more likely to happen".
On holed dice it is more likely to roll a 6 than any other number because the 6-side has the most holes and is thus slightly lighter than the other sides, but people throw other sides all the time - even on dice with holes.
An increased probability is not a guarantee, showing an instance where it didn't happen doesn't disprove the probability.
I'm not the one who claimed Obama was only interested in Hollywood branding, I merely responded generically to the guy who did.
Now as for what you're saying - I don't actually think you're right. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the ACA - single-payer universal healthcare is the one I would have wanted but you have to be a completely ignorant head-in-a-bucket fox-news-only viewer to not realize it's still orders of magnitude better than the craphole the US healthcare system was before this.
That however is not the really interesting part of your post. You're suggesting that Obama went with that plan to appease insurance companies and expects payback. You may be right, time will tell - but I strongly suspect you're very wrong. We know Obama also favoured single-payer, it was during the healthcare reform negotiation period that the plan changed to Romneycare... why ? Well the official story is that it was an attempt be non-partisan, to push healthcare reform in a way the republicans would actually go for, a solid compromise between hell and single-payer, which was actually conceived BY a republican (and the very same republican who ran against him in the next election).
Now it's perfectly possible that you're right and the official account is wrong - that even the very minutes of sessions in congress are nothing but elaborate fakery designed to maintain the ruse (though it seems odd if that was the case that teh republicans were so extremely partisan to this day about something THEY invented !) but I wouldn't hold my breath about it.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.
It's worth noting, for how it may impact those hypothetical historians that Obama even now in the position of lame-duck president has the highest approval rating of any president in the second half of his second term for a hundred years - more than twice what Bush 2 had at the same time.