Oddly, the science seems to suggest that on that point, he'd be right. The studies I've seen seem to suggest that while sexuality is influenced from birth, right around the ages of 4-5 years old is when it is solidified.
The point, of course, is that at 4-5 years old, very little is choice, and most actions are the result of a combination of instinct and environment. Homosexuality is naturally occurring. It is no more choice than heterosexuality.
Even more striking, chances are sexuality is on a spectrum, not a fork in the road. It's quite likely that all of us are some gay, some straight, with the degrees on either side defining our love lives. I rather enjoy this thought, since I enjoy inclusion, and that would make us all members of the same variable spectrum, rather than opposite sides of some non-existent sexual coin....
Pedophilia, to which I'm sure you're referring, and homosexuality, are not even remotely the same thing. One is a psychiatric disorder while the other is a non-disorder occurring predictably by percentage in certain species.
""Your world" as you call it... is THE world thatGod created. Therefore... He owns it."
What God creates, he owns. Thank you for exemplifying for me why I dislike theism so much. I'll take a deistic or atheistic viewpoint over one in which I must never-endingly praise the dear leader who owns me, as if he were some celestial Kim Jong Un.
"You twist His word to work the way you want it to."
Says the guy with a book claiming to be the word of God, yet it was hand-picked by a bunch of dudes in dresses.
"You will suffer the penalty because all who deny Him will burn in hell forever."
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, on display for anyone on the fence, my friends....
"So anyone who doesn't blindly accept gay marriage is on 'the wrong side of history,' according to you?"
Of course. The progression of logic is quite simple. If you believe that homosexuality occurs in nature (and it does, in multiple species) and you believe that beings who are the way they were created who don't harm others should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, the conclusion is quite simple: if straights can marry, gays can marry. Bringing religion into it muddies an otherwise simple issue.
To be clear, people are allowed to have whatever religious belief they like. That's their right. What they cannot LOGICALLY do is use a bigoted religion to justify bigotry, then claim they aren't bigoted. It's really just that simple.
"Nintendo doesn't care about the homosexual aspect. That probably didn't even come to mind."
Then they must be the only company their size without a PR department. The concept above is, flatly, nonsense. This caused a significant stir and a fair amount of coverage in Japan. The company no longer has a choice in whether or not to take a stance. They're forced into it.
Patching the bug in a way that disallows gay relationships is taking a stance against giving gay gamers the same choices as straight gamers. If the bug was such that the only way to fix any part of it was to fix ALL of it, they could have released a statement along with the patch that promised to re-allow gay relationships. They didn't. They ARE taking a stance, and they're on the wrong side of history.
Just so I'm clear, part of the fix disallows men being allowed to have relationships with men, and you're siding with Nintendo on this one?
I don't give a rat's ass about cultural differences when it comes to basic human rights and the recognition that homosexuals are every bit as human as anyone else IS a basic human right. Just as I won't excuse some theocratic nations for the abhorrent way they treat their women, nor will I excuse Japan or Nintendo for this....
"It's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that has no basis or grounding whatsoever in the reality on the ground. Understand this: the majority of the citizens of the countries in the MidEast DO NOT WANT democracy."
All of what should be the nation of Kurdistan vehemently disagrees w/you....
Meh, believe it or not, I generally hate all things that fall in the "fantasy" genre. The first episode was decent all the way up to the end. I can't remember the details, but there was some magical element or something that pissed me off and I vowed never to watch the show again....
"depends. there ARE good reasons for keeping information secret"
I can't imagine anyone who could POSSIBLY disagree w/this. The issue isn't some black and white stance on whether all or nothing should be secret. The point of the article, and the one Hitchens made quite well, is that the reins on State Secrets has to be EXTREMELY tight, or else you end up with the London Post Office being a classified location that nobody is allowed to refer to in court....
"Are we going to be boing boing soon by taking various jabs at people not on the liberal love list?
That is about as annoying as what I call "in words", examples include "job creators", or "copyright maximalists". I try an ignore the maximalist comments on tech dirt, but I always view things like "science be praised" as an people knocking the beliefs of others. I just think it is childish and short sighted and I have always thought this site was mostly above such things. Not offended, not upset, just mentioning."
Perhaps if I explain why I specifically chose that phrase, you'll think differently of it. Religions vary among people. Some are one, some are another, some have none at all. Science, on the other hand, is universal. Therefore, I was specifically trying NOT to call out anyone's beliefs by going w/a phrase that is universal instead.
"This is slimy, but there is no reason to be in favor of tax simplification."
Really? I attach a value to money outlaid for things like tax prep and software. I also attach value to hours spent self-prepping taxes. It seems that, unless the fear is that somehow the government info used to simplify the filing process is going to be manipulated by the government, streamlining the tax FILING process poses no threat to anyone.
"Meaningful tax reform is not simplification or changing from one type of tax to another."