NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Blasveck]

Considering your source ONLY used outdated material, it's not surprising.

please bring me up to date then, you seem to know where to look.

Ahem

2.http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

[HappyShark]

please bring me up to date then, you seem to know where to look.

Ahem

2.http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice (free will) - Marie Tremblay

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

[Lithosano]

Ahem

2.http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice (free will) - Marie Tremblay

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

NOT GENETIC DOES NOT MEAN A CHOICE

NARTH is not a valid source. NARTH is pretty much the definition of an invalid source. Try again.

[Blasveck]

Ahem

2.http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice (free will) - Marie Tremblay

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

Do w have to keep fucking repeating this?

Just because it is (or isn't) genetic, does not automatically mean that it is a choice.

Environmental and hormonal factors also come into play.

However, if that's not the point you're trying to make with this post, then I have no fucking clue why you said it in the first place.

[HappyShark]

A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice (free will) - Marie Tremblay

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

Do w have to keep fucking repeating this?

Just because it is (or isn't) genetic, does not automatically mean that it is a choice.

Environmental and hormonal factors also come into play.

However, if that's not the point you're trying to make with this post, then I have no fucking clue why you said it in the first place.

Again predisposition is not predetermination:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062608.php

[Mavorpen]

Do w have to keep fucking repeating this?

Just because it is (or isn't) genetic, does not automatically mean that it is a choice.

Environmental and hormonal factors also come into play.

However, if that's not the point you're trying to make with this post, then I have no fucking clue why you said it in the first place.

Again predisposition is not predetermination:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062608.php

Do...do you even know what's being argued?

[HappyShark]

I will also add that such a predisposition is fluid, and many external factors including psychological ones determine this choice. Fluid in the sense that a gay male or female may revert back and forth between sexual orientations. It is not hard wired, persay. There are other factors in chemistry which can carry or influence this choice. Factors like a high level of estrogen or testosterone in the person's environment. There was also a study done in regards to overpopulation in rats where a higher percentage of rats became homosexual in overcrowded conditions. I'm not going to go hunting for the study of the rats, it is a study I read many years ago. It had to do with sexual competition and male rats went gay due to a lack of females in the immediate overcrowded population. Biologically it made sense at least to me.

[HappyShark]

Again predisposition is not predetermination:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062608.php

Do...do you even know what's being argued?

well it seems pretty well sidetracked now don't ya think

[HappyShark]

For what it is worth, if a person chooses to be gay it should be respected. There are very few choices people make which technically should be shot down, being gay is not one of those choices. Just like politics or religion are a personal choice which should be respected. I may not agree with all choices but unless it is causing me harm there is no reason for me to invalidate another persons path.

There is also a major difference between wanting something and needing something. We all need food, water, shelter. From a pragmatic stand point in my book it is more of a live and let live scenario. forcing others to conform to our own personal desires just does not feel right. The photography shoot was a personal desire, a want. Who are we to say the photographer's beliefs were not such that they fear their soul would burn in hell if they willing partook in fulfilling this couples desires? Just because I do not agree with their morals ethics I have a right to violate their rights? What gives the gay couple the right to enforce their wants and desires upon another ... the law? give me a break people break the law all day long for one reason or another. It's like the government declaring war on drugs, pretty much futile. Great for headlines, great for lawyers and the judicial system but pretty much useless at a street level.

ooooo they made an example out of some photgrapher in New Mexico... I'm sorry I'm booked solid that week, and FU and the gay horse you rode in on.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

A business should not have the right to discriminate against its customers. /thread

That's a gross oversimplification. Business should be allowed to and do discriminate against customers on a regular basis; problems only arise when the grounds for discrimination are illegitimate (i.e. on protected grounds). Even in such cases, if other businesses are willing to offer that service, there is no need to compel that business to offer it as well.

[Dyakovo]

Considering your source ONLY used outdated material, it's not surprising.

please bring me up to date then, you seem to know where to look.

Peer-reviewed material.

[HappyShark]

please bring me up to date then, you seem to know where to look.

Peer-reviewed material.

where? I have linked a few myself, but they were shot down as either too old, unacceptable, or simply sidetracked. Why the fuck should I care? Big deal some business in New Mexico got their hands slapped. All it does is provide legal departments and smart business owners a clearer guideline on approaching this issue going forward.

lol, sensitivity training, now hun you can say this but whatever you do never say this. Sort of like teenagers telling parents what they want to hear so they can get fuck out of the room.

[Bottle]

lol, sensitivity training, now hun you can say this but whatever you do never say this. Sort of like teenagers telling parents what they want to hear so they can get fuck out of the room.

No, sort of like manners. You'll understand when you're older and less determined to define yourself by petty rebellions against authority. (Or maybe you won't ever understand, in which case you'll vote conservative.)

[HappyShark]

lol, sensitivity training, now hun you can say this but whatever you do never say this. Sort of like teenagers telling parents what they want to hear so they can get fuck out of the room.

No, sort of like manners. You'll understand when you're older and less determined to define yourself by petty rebellions against authority. (Or maybe you won't ever understand, in which case you'll vote conservative.)

No actually I have lots of manners, and for the most part am extroverted in RL, because of BS like this. I do however recognize that forcing people to do things against their will rarely if ever goes well over the long run. People will put up with it for a while, eventually those pulling the strings and demanding more and more will simply be seen as unreasonable. This power is based on the creation of problems not solutions, and therefore is destined to crash and burn around them. So long as the perception of a problem can be maintained they retain power, when this perception falters their power will dwindle to nothing a mere ghost of its former glory days. This is proven out time and time again throughout history. I might not get to see it but my kids definitely will.

If you want an example, then I give you Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who today continue the struggle of framing events as a civil rights issue for the African Americans. They primarily are seen as grasping at straws to create problems vs. providing solutions. The veneer of propaganda and the constant demand for more wears thin after a while., when events are constantly used as a basis to cry we are being victimized. Them glory days of the rallies of the 60s are long gone, and they are not coming back no matter how wildly they shake their fists at the unfairness of it all.

[Liuzzo]

There's also a difference between gender, race, and sexual orientation vs. skinhead and Nazi ideologies. Ideologies can be chosen; you can chose to be a Nazi or a Skinhead. You can't chose to be male or female (though you can change your body to match your gender); to be black, white, or Asian; or to be gay, straight, bi, pan, or anything else -sexual.

You can say no to someone protected by civil rights laws, just not based on their protected status. You can't refuse to serve a gay man a sandwich just because he's gay; you can refuse to serve him a sandwich because he's, for example, being a nuisance to other customers.

And before you try it, "being gay" does not count as being a nuisance.

From a genetic standpoint I can see non-discrimination, however they have proven Gay is a choice. It may have deep rooted psychological connections as to why such a choice was made. However it is proven to be a sexual preference choice. As to the choice itself and anti-discrimination laws I can see where from a legal standpoint, there remains many key issues which need to be addressed. Mainly this has to do with recognition of partner status in decision processes, in tax laws, and inheritance estate laws. It is much more about the government recognizing the partner status and proving equal standing under law than not being served some sandwich in some remote shop somewhere. When the federal government recognizes a gay couples rights to make decisions in a hospital room in the same way any other spouse can. When the the government recognizes that the will bequeathing an estate to a gay partner who has lived together for 30 plus years cannot be challenged by the deceased family. Wherein the surviving partner is treated just like any other spouse in regards to the estate. Then I might agree the gov has some kind of say in a business refusing to serve someone on ideological grounds. Even then I believe this should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Who is this "they" you speak of. The prevalent scientific opinion is that it is a biological trait both in animals and humans. Now you're just flat out lying.

[HappyShark]

From a genetic standpoint I can see non-discrimination, however they have proven Gay is a choice. It may have deep rooted psychological connections as to why such a choice was made. However it is proven to be a sexual preference choice. As to the choice itself and anti-discrimination laws I can see where from a legal standpoint, there remains many key issues which need to be addressed. Mainly this has to do with recognition of partner status in decision processes, in tax laws, and inheritance estate laws. It is much more about the government recognizing the partner status and proving equal standing under law than not being served some sandwich in some remote shop somewhere. When the federal government recognizes a gay couples rights to make decisions in a hospital room in the same way any other spouse can. When the the government recognizes that the will bequeathing an estate to a gay partner who has lived together for 30 plus years cannot be challenged by the deceased family. Wherein the surviving partner is treated just like any other spouse in regards to the estate. Then I might agree the gov has some kind of say in a business refusing to serve someone on ideological grounds. Even then I believe this should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Who is this "they" you speak of. The prevalent scientific opinion is that it is a biological trait both in animals and humans. Now you're just flat out lying.

look if you want to be be gay then be gay it is your choice, I am not here to stop you. Nor am I going to think of it as some abnormal deviation in nature. you are an adult, (hopefully) and know how to make your own decisions. Make the decision and screw anyone who thinks it is wrong, it is your life to live as you see fit. now if you try to force your point of view on me and have me live as you see fit the same rule applies screw you.

[Liuzzo]

Are you going to source your bullshit, or just keep on spouting it?

All this talk of "government recognition" when in many places I can't even get a damn sandwich.

I think you should go back and read that article again. You may have missed a little bit of it. Maybe 75% of it or so. Happy reading.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... eview.html

[HappyShark]

I think you should go back and read that article again. You may have missed a little bit of it. Maybe 75% of it or so. Happy reading.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... eview.html

why do you think i sourced it?

[Liuzzo]

why do you think i sourced it?

To disprove yourself? There is more evidence that supports there being a biological guiding component to homosexuality than there is to support your position. And screw me? Fing homo! Listen, I'm not gay either but I do recognize that people are people and a business that serves the public cannot choose what part of the public it wants to serve based upon protected classes. Especially when there are laws specific in that state that say so that have been deemed constitutional by the supreme law of the land of that state. If you don't like the law petition your legislature to change it. Otherwise, follow the law or face consequences. As for your predisposed vs. predetermined argument it's rather much bunk. Of course you can make a choice as a gay man to live as a hetero man with a wife and even kids. I've known friends whose fathers have seemed a little (hey how you doin?) and it turns out years later they leave the mother for another man. Essentially they are gay men and society has told them that it is not ok to be that. So they try to conform against their nature and do what the "right" thing is. Are they not gay simply because they are in this situation. For a simplified explanation such as the one you are trying to push they are not. After all they are with women and have even fathered children. But they are not living as they truly want to live. Or moreso, they are not living as they were biologically predisposed to do. Your position seems to be that it's a choice and if you feel that way you should ignore and fight (Marcus Bachman) it and just be normal. All of this is not only utter bullshit as people should not have to simply conform to what makes you comfortable, but it still doesn't change the fact that when you are open to the public and deny services based upon sexual orientation or other protected class you will face the brunt of the law. Done and done.

[Farnhamia]

why do you think i sourced it?

The article is a 1995 review of the research on the basis of homosexuality from the NY Review of Books. It is in no way a peer-reviewed article proving that homosexuality is a choice. And 18 years is a long time in medical and psychological research.

[Uieurnthlaal]

To simplify the entire discussion, why not just replace "gay" with "interracial". Prepare for some serious deja vu.

[HappyShark]

why do you think i sourced it?

To disprove yourself? There is more evidence that supports there being a biological guiding component to homosexuality than there is to support your position. And screw me? Fing homo! Listen, I'm not gay either but I do recognize that people are people and a business that serves the public cannot choose what part of the public it wants to serve based upon protected classes. Especially when there are laws specific in that state that say so that have been deemed constitutional by the supreme law of the land of that state. If you don't like the law petition your legislature to change it. Otherwise, follow the law or face consequences. As for your predisposed vs. predetermined argument it's rather much bunk. Of course you can make a choice as a gay man to live as a hetero man with a wife and even kids. I've known friends whose fathers have seemed a little (hey how you doin?) and it turns out years later they leave the mother for another man. Essentially they are gay men and society has told them that it is not ok to be that. So they try to conform against their nature and do what the "right" thing is. Are they not gay simply because they are in this situation. For a simplified explanation such as the one you are trying to push they are not. After all they are with women and have even fathered children. But they are not living as they truly want to live. Or moreso, they are not living as they were biologically predisposed to do. Your position seems to be that it's a choice and if you feel that way you should ignore and fight (Marcus Bachman) it and just be normal. All of this is not only utter bullshit as people should not have to simply conform to what makes you comfortable, but it still doesn't change the fact that when you are open to the public and deny services based upon sexual orientation or other protected class you will face the brunt of the law. Done and done.

No actually if you read it carefully you will notice the author points to specific directions while providing a very good and quite balanced layout of where the science is with this issue. it may be an old article, as some have pointed out without reading it, but I have not seen much which swings the argument in either direction since, basically a rehash of all the same points covered by this article. Which is why I asked for ...show me something new.

The article specifically points to the default scientific position which swings away from predetermined and lays squarely in the arena of predisposition. It points to the need of scientists to take on this challenge and actually stop using the easy exit of predisposition and settle the question once and for all. What it comes down to is that the proof simply is not there to make a claim for biological predetermination. There are markers, but these do not equate proof in making a claim that gay is not a choice just like skin color is not a choice. The gay fight has been lynch pinned upon this we do not have a choice argument and biological determinism for quite some time. I suspect after 40 some odd years of looking at this issue from every possible angle, in the hope to find a cause within biology, most scientist recognize there is no definitive predictable marker as to whether or not someone is gay.

In a sense choice is also protected when it comes to religion and political leanings. Should we begin to look for biological markers as to why someone politically leans left right or centrist? Are political decisions biologically predetermined too? At what point do we simply respect another person's decision? in my book this respect needs to go both ways I respect you and you respect me. I will give you the respect you deserve, but if you prove to me it is not deserved on a case by case basis I simply exercise my right to not associate. As for laws how many people smoke marijuana? I do not but from my point of view laws against it are fairly futile. Ditto on forcing business to perform an action they do not want to do. Hell Obamacare was "supposed" to mandate corporations like Walmart and McDonalds to provide health care. Businesses simply reshape to fit the law and continue on like they are not even there. Oh you will get the oddball mom and pop shop because they are easy targets. Make the headlines and claim your victory, what people fail to ask is why is so much money is being poured into setting those precedences. It sure as hell is not for some altruistic purpose, call me cynical if you wish, but this kind of money has ulterior motives. The cards are definitely not what is being shown and they are not bluffing with their poker hand. I see this kind of money and I begin to ask what are the motivating factors. Those funding say I feel gay people should be treated fairly and you believe it? These are the same people who use child labor in Indonesia, you seriously think human rights is at the top of their list of priorities. Walmart and McDonalds just cut hours back so they do not have to provide healthcare, but they are concerned about gay rights?

Jim Hansen cares about human rights?

China, currently the People's Republic of China, is a nation state in East Asia, and the most populous country in the world. It has also been a popular location for Sesame Street productions, as well as a leading manufacturer and exporter of plush Muppet merchandise.
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/China

I think Apple and Foxconn deep down in their hearts really care about gays too. I heard they would pull manufacturing if China does not recognize LGBT rights. The Jim Hansen executives were especially adamant with these demands.

[HappyShark]

why do you think i sourced it?

The article is a 1995 review of the research on the basis of homosexuality from the NY Review of Books. It is in no way a peer-reviewed article proving that homosexuality is a choice. And 18 years is a long time in medical and psychological research.

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

[Australasia]

The article is a 1995 review of the research on the basis of homosexuality from the NY Review of Books. It is in no way a peer-reviewed article proving that homosexuality is a choice. And 18 years is a long time in medical and psychological research.

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

What rehashing? The world's scientific community has already concluded that homosexuality is normal, natural, innate, and immutable.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

End of story. Period.

[Lithosano]

The article is a 1995 review of the research on the basis of homosexuality from the NY Review of Books. It is in no way a peer-reviewed article proving that homosexuality is a choice. And 18 years is a long time in medical and psychological research.

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

A policy statement by the APA is going to carry a hell of a lot more weight than a collection of articles published 18 years ago. One represents the current consensus of the scientific community, the other is hopelessly out of date and was compiled by one mane (who may have just been really good at hiding his biases) and represents his opinion alone.