A lot of the Buddhists in the west are Vietnamese that came over after the fall of South Vietnam in 1975 so most of them have been here for more than 30 years. The percentage of Jewish people was probably higher 30 years ago because of intermarriage between Jews and non-jews the amount of people identifying as Jewish has gone down. Certainly the amount of Muslim and Hindu people has increased greatly in the last 30 years (a lot of people fleeing MidEast violence and a lot of tech people coming over for jobs).
No choice involved, you just are what you are. I can attest that there is absolutely no choice in me being heterosexual. That's why it's so funny the headline says ex-gay.
@BlindMule. Don't be so blind as to not see, you choose to be heterosexual when you choose not to be homosexual.
No you were gay all the time.
And surpressed it.
If a girl walks by me in a miniskirt, I will more than likely look without thinking, when I notice that she is 16 years old, I will CHOOSE not to look again. It would be hard to argue that someone is born gay and not turn around and say child molesters are born attracted to children or Mr Hands (dont look him up) was born attractive to Horses. I think if we all were honest, we would admit we have all had some sort of gay sexual feeling at some point in our lives, but its those who choose to act on those feelings are are gay, those who just ignore them turn into homophobes who hate their inner gayness and project it on other gays. Those who recognize it, accept it and deal with it and make their minds up one way or the other will more than likely no longer have those feelings and would never consider their sexual desires for women to be a "choice" -
If you expect me to believe your anecdotal "evidence" on what basis do you deny McClurkin's?
Sorry folks, you are dealing with genetics, you just are what you are. If your sexuality is fluid enough to move back and forth between sexes, then you are bisexual, or at least good at trying to cover your genetic disposition of homosexuality.
ROFL! So NOW you not only presume to dictate what someone else's experience MUST be, AND discount their own perception of it, NOW you presume to know, better than themselves, what their subconscious is doing.
Some might call that being an "Arrogant little 'p'" though we are talking being a receptor on that, aren't we?
And a hypocrite. The whole beef of the Prhomos* is that the 98% "Normative" should NOT be and doesn't apply to them. But then they turn around and not only DICTATE their OWN version of Normative for their Sexual Deviancy, they DEMAND all the REST of us REDEFINE our "normative" according to THEIR dictates.
I guess it you are Homosexual you are such a Demi-God NOBODY has any say but YOU!
*etymology else where on the thread
ya got the Q gene, trot er out. Otherwise you are "talking through your hat" as the Mule Skinners used to say.
God changes the desire of ones heart ... don't you learn that in your "church"( ha ) that Jefferson went to?
Might have been the church he went but it ain't what it was when He went to it ...
@4truth....yes, but he doesn't change your genetics. Additionally, you obviously know little, if anything, about Jefferson. You may be well served to study up on Jefferson and his views, especially his famous "Jefferson Bible" and his writings on religious freedom, before you pursue a dialogue. Good luck!
Blindmule - Your side has NO genetic evidence for homosexuality being born this way and your side has the burden of proof. Your anecdotal story doesn't count as scientific evidence.
@Big Mick and etc. :
Of course the burden of proof falls on both views, not just one, and there seems to be adequate information to know that this is not just a choice. It is much more complicated than that.
Even though the identified Xq28 marker seems to play a role in a large percentage of gay men, perhaps we are asking the wrong question when we set out to find whether there is a single gene for sexual orientation. We know that genes are responsible for the development of our lungs, larynx, mouth, and the speech areas of our brain. And we understand that this complexity cannot be collapsed into the notion of a gene for "talking." Similarly, what possible basis can there be for concluding that there is a single gene for sexuality, even though we accept that there are genes that direct the development of our penises, vaginas, and brains? This analogy is not to deny the importance of genes, but merely to recast their role in a different conceptual setting, one that also considers a complexity beyond a simple choice.
June 27, 2013 at 4:49pm
Potomac Fever has taken another……………….God Help us. Please Ted and Rand do NOT drink the water that Rubio drank……….remember. Rubio has crossed over to the dark side with McCain, Graham and Chuck U Schumer………………..
It is.... if a shirt with "abstinence" is. The parents of children in that school should be there in force to shout-down the infringement of the young lady's belief.
What Americans don't get, unfortunately, is the fact that you don't have to agree with a persons' belief in a particular issue, but we need to agree with the right to express YOUR BELIEF in an issue.
The Constitution is supposed to protect the right of the 1% to express their belief that the other 99% do not agree with.
Therefore, what the administrator did was, really, un-Constitutional. I would agree that a t-shirt showing a vulgar sex-act, saying all people of a particular race are bad,or expressing a belief in killing someone because of their race would cross the line.
This girl took away no one's right to engage in pre-marital sex by simply wearing that abstinence shirt. She simply expressed her view.
Pot is ILLEGAL, so no. Nor do I think kids should go to school wearing shirts that advertise alcohol being that they are underage and the act of them drinking is also illegal. This shirt spoke of her values and a moral code. There was nothing illegal. Damn, this used to be common sense.
February 7, 2013 at 8:35am
Never trust the Communist News Network(CNN)
February 5, 2013 at 3:00pm
If their so hell bent on this, why don’t they start their own scouting organization and let straight people join, if they want.
February 5, 2013 at 2:54pm
As soon as they renounce Sharia, wife beatings, face and body covering, Islamic countries taxing and killing Christians among a host of other topics that keep their religion in the dark ages, maybe juts maybe I’ll take them seriously.