Calif. considers repealing law to study, cure gays (death, Brown, education system)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Le Lune

Spare me your conservative doctrines. Equating lack of commonality to abnormality is a hoot.

That's like saying the whole entire human species is abnormal because there are billions and billions of insects out there compared to the measly population of humans.

Actually, it is a simple fact of literacy.

Your example is flawed. You are doing cross species comparison. You can evaluate what is common in insects and what is common in humans, but to apply cross analysis is not the same as a commonality within the species. That is, unless you are stating that homosexuals are not human?

[dcsldcd]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Color, e ye color. Also, africans are more susceptible to certain diseases like sickle cell and glaucoma.

Did you know that african americans are 10x more likely to get glaucoma than other americans?

No differences, eh?

Why does the left always try to compare things like this to behavior?

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by seattlerain

Why are conservatives so afraid of accepting those that are different from them?

proof? Having words be accurate is not "accepting" it seems more of a description issue.

Gotta love how liberals are so tolerant of opinions that differ from their own. not.

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

I know it's hard for liberals to understand logic, but it's called an ANOLOGY.

Someone brought up "Sexuality" I bring up an examp,e, and suddenly it's "off topic" becuase I humiliated you by disproving the argument just made.

Humiliated me...not at all.

I stand by my words...

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

I know it's hard for liberals to understand logic, but it's called an ANOLOGY.

Someone brought up "Sexuality" I bring up an examp,e, and suddenly it's "off topic" becuase I humiliated you by disproving the argument just made.

Because if they accept your analogy, they then have to question the legitimacy of their own position. Easier to dismiss than to deal with which is why they react so.

[Le Lune]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Color, e ye color. Also, africans are more susceptible to certain diseases like sickle cell and glaucoma.

Did you know that african americans are 10x more likely to get glaucoma than other americans?

No differences, eh?

Are we trying to be racist now?

Eye color = genetics. It's not a social construct, the last time I've checked. Also, natural physical differences are not a social construct as well.

And disease rates are based on incidences, which again, has nothing to do with social construct.

I would recommend taking a sociology course

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by Le Lune

Are we trying to be racist now?

Eye color = genetics. It's not a social construct, the last time I've checked. Also, natural physical differences are not a social construct as well.

And disease rates are based on incidences, which again, has nothing to do with social construct.

I would recommend taking a sociology course

you said there's absolutely no difference physically between people, as race is only a social construct.

Why are blacks more likely to get glaucoma if they are exactly the same other than skin color like you claim?

I don't know, maybe because races are different?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

proof? Having words be accurate is not "accepting" it seems more of a description issue.

Gotta love how liberals are so tolerant of opinions that differ from their own. not.

Being held to a definition again puts pressure on their position. Much easier to change the definition as needed to fit ones position.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Gotta love how liberals are so tolerant of opinions that differ from their own. not.

So, if a conservative disagrees with you, then what? Is he just a liberal in disguise? Only you know the truth and only those who agree with you are right?

[Le Lune]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Actually, it is a simple fact of literacy.

Your example is flawed. You are doing cross species comparison. You can evaluate what is common in insects and what is common in humans, but to apply cross analysis is not the same as a commonality within the species. That is, unless you are stating that homosexuals are not human?

I accept the fact that my example is flawed. But so is yours.

If you use the US as an example, the minorities would be "abnormal" as the white population is the greatest, by your logic.