[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
What is more fake, politics or professional wrestling? I was never so crushed as a kid when I saw two wrestlers, “sworn enemies”, two that beat each other up so often and with such viciousness, having dinner together.
Have to wonder, does this pale in comparison to all-star professional politics?
I thought you were going to say having gay sex together.[/quote]
not being hypocritical, but I’d watch if it were two hot broads.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
What is more fake, politics or professional wrestling? I was never so crushed as a kid when I saw two wrestlers, “sworn enemies”, two that beat each other up so often and with such viciousness, having dinner together.
Have to wonder, does this pale in comparison to all-star professional politics?
I thought you were going to say having gay sex together.
not being hypocritical, but I’d watch if it were two hot broads. [/quote]
I hope you would share pics too.
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Will America have it’s first gay president soon?
I still dont understand the reasons why the US is the only country in the western world where no gay people or atheists can get elected for anything. Anyone in the mood to enlight me?[/quote]
http://www.samharris.org/site/book_reading_list/
Sam Harris is your man.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
With all the power the politicians in DC have, why don’t they devote some of it to curing homosexuality? Since it prevents people from having children (if the gays are 100% gay), its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
These things deserve a committee…[/quote]
What reason do you have for suspecting a pathogen?
Are you in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt?
Are you in favor of aborting gay fetuses?
I suppose the real question is why you would want to “cure” homosexuality. Your concept of morality seems profoundly disconnected from the alleviation of suffering.
This is a study I saw presented some time ago somewhere. I spent several minutes by the computer before I found the right combination of searchwords to unearth it for your reading pleasure. You are welcome.
An article about the study:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_Gayfriendly_cities_enjoy_more_economic_0623.html
The study:
The article:
Study: ‘Gay-friendly’ cities enjoy more economic prosperity
David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Saturday June 23, 2007
Richard Florida, a professor from George Mason University and author of the book The Rise of the Creative Class argued that the more “gay-friendly” a city is, the more economically prosperous it will be.
In his March 2007 paper “There Goes the Neighborhood,” Florida uses something he calls the “Bohemian-Gay Index” to demonstrate that “artistic, bohemian, and gay populations” have a “substantial effects on housing values across all permutations of the model and across all region sizes.” He also found that more open and “gay-friendly” areas generally support higher income levels.
(A PDF of the paper can be read at this link.)
This morning on CNN’s In the Money, Florida argued that educated kids are generally moving to the most “gay-friendly” cities after graduating from college because those cities tend to have the best job markets.
After realizing that the top 5 “gay-friendly” cities in the US – San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Portland (Oregon), and Tampa – are also prosperous centers of technological innovation, Florida decided to do a more thorough study. The results, he said, held up for other cities as well.
“Places that were open to gay and lesbian people were also the kind of places that could attract not only smart young people, but also Indian and Chinese immigrants who come here and start a lot of high tech companies,” he said. “They were attracting people across the board, building up a talent base, and then innovating and starting these new enterprises.”
Florida said he thinks it is the open mindedness of these cities that has allowed economically successful communities to emerge, rather than prior economic success attracting open minded people.
“Places that a large gay and lesbian community gravitated to, a large group of musicians and other open minded people gravitated to. When these kind of geeky entrepreneurs became important economic growth, those were the places that accepted them, too,” he told CNN.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
This is a study I saw presented some time ago somewhere. I spent several minutes by the computer before I found the right combination of searchwords to unearth it for your reading pleasure. You are welcome.
An article about the study:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_Gayfriendly_cities_enjoy_more_economic_0623.html
The study:
The article:
Study: ‘Gay-friendly’ cities enjoy more economic prosperity
David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Saturday June 23, 2007
Richard Florida, a professor from George Mason University and author of the book The Rise of the Creative Class argued that the more “gay-friendly” a city is, the more economically prosperous it will be.
In his March 2007 paper “There Goes the Neighborhood,” Florida uses something he calls the “Bohemian-Gay Index” to demonstrate that “artistic, bohemian, and gay populations” have a “substantial effects on housing values across all permutations of the model and across all region sizes.” He also found that more open and “gay-friendly” areas generally support higher income levels.
(A PDF of the paper can be read at this link.)
This morning on CNN’s In the Money, Florida argued that educated kids are generally moving to the most “gay-friendly” cities after graduating from college because those cities tend to have the best job markets.
After realizing that the top 5 “gay-friendly” cities in the US – San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Portland (Oregon), and Tampa – are also prosperous centers of technological innovation, Florida decided to do a more thorough study. The results, he said, held up for other cities as well.
“Places that were open to gay and lesbian people were also the kind of places that could attract not only smart young people, but also Indian and Chinese immigrants who come here and start a lot of high tech companies,” he said. “They were attracting people across the board, building up a talent base, and then innovating and starting these new enterprises.”
Florida said he thinks it is the open mindedness of these cities that has allowed economically successful communities to emerge, rather than prior economic success attracting open minded people.
“Places that a large gay and lesbian community gravitated to, a large group of musicians and other open minded people gravitated to. When these kind of geeky entrepreneurs became important economic growth, those were the places that accepted them, too,” he told CNN.
[/quote]
Is it a prosperous city that attracts a gay population of does a gay population make the city prosperous?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Is it a prosperous city that attracts a gay population of does a gay population make the city prosperous?
[/quote]
I don’t think a gay population can ever be big enough to single-handedly make a city prosperous, but it can certainly do it’s share. If a man has no children, what are the two most important things in his life?
That article is a bit misleading. The study is about artistic, bohemian, and gay populations, not gay populations alone.
[quote]KE10 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
With all the power the politicians in DC have, why don’t they devote some of it to curing homosexuality? Since it prevents people from having children (if the gays are 100% gay), its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
These things deserve a committee…
What reason do you have for suspecting a pathogen?
Are you in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt?
Are you in favor of aborting gay fetuses?
I suppose the real question is why you would want to “cure” homosexuality. Your concept of morality seems profoundly disconnected from the alleviation of suffering.
[/quote]
Morality is rooted in life. Since 100% gay people produce no off-spring, it therefore follows that homosexuality is contrary to life. (Note: this is a Modus Ponens argument. To refute it, you must show that one of the premises is false. That’d be a cool thread! 
)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Morality is rooted in life.
[/quote]
Where else could it be rooted?
That is the way it currently is but doesn’t mean it will be that way always. Asexual reproduction is present in other organisms.
Homosexuality doesn’t result in life but it isn’t contrary to it because there will always be other humans to carry out reproduction.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Morality is rooted in life. Since 100% gay people produce no off-spring, it therefore follows that homosexuality is contrary to life. (Note: this is a Modus Ponens argument. To refute it, you must show that one of the premises is false. That’d be a cool thread! [/quote]
Both premises are false.
Morality is not rooted in life per se; it’s rooted in human social structures. There is tons of life on the planet who has no use for morality; and some moral decision can involve terminating lives for the greater good (defined by the social structures, not the simple fact of “life” itself.)
“100% gay” people could produce offsprings through artificial insemination, donor eggs/sperm and a rent-a-womb carrying mom (in the case of men). Anyway, “gay people” are made up of a lot more than just “100% gay” members (by which I guess you mean members who will never have heterosexual relations during their lives…)
Note that straight couple give birth to gay children, so while it might not be ideal from the procreation aspect; homosexuality is certainly natural.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Asexual reproduction is present in other organisms.
[/quote]
He specified people. Besides, people masturbate all the time. Wouldn’t it be odd if you got yourself pregnant every time?
Aren’t some frogs known to change sex for reproduction? Imagine if people did that. I guess that would the epitome of being emasculated.