Schol-R-LEA;2 wrote:In other words, you are arguing against his assertions, not mine, and with essentially the same arguments I was using.
Ah. Well. He deserves it.

Circular logic, possibly for the sake of being argumentative doesn't surprise me from the small amount of experience I've had of him. I tend to like him, but he can be (and possibly
because he can be such) a rascal...
Schol-R-LEA;2 wrote:Oh, and as for homosexuality, I generally fall into the social constructionist camp, though I do consider both genetics and prenatal hormonal balance (which can be influenced by a number of factors) to be predisposing aspects for some individuals; just because attraction is involuntary does not mean it is physically inherent. IMHO, a theory of genetic causation for sexuality would need to explain attraction in general, not just certain forms of attraction; sexual orientation is only one aspect of attraction, and the attention given it is mostly because of this society's negative view of it, not because it is intrinsically more important than other factors.
Hm
mmmmmm... I
think that puts us in a pretty high level of agreement.
I find "It's genetics." to be a fairly sloppy and over-used catch-all in common conversation for a lot of different and incompletely understood factors. Pre-natal hormonal balance obviously has a great deal to do with sex, gender, and gender expression, and
could effect sexuality as well... But just as obviously, outside of the possibility of hormones kicking on or off genetic switches, it couldn't alter the genetic structure of the individual in question.
And what about "instinct" or non-learned behaviour? There's a lot of stuff that humans and other animals are simply
born knowing, or knowing to do and how to do... Some of it can express almost immediately, and other bits seem to come later. The idea of passing "knowledge" or skills via genetics is really hard to swallow, but before there are nerves or a brain, if that information
isn't hidden in the genes somewhere, where is it?
I think all the myriad situations we lump together as "homosexuality" come from a just as diverse set of causes. I think there are aspects of attraction that are obviously environmental, but I think it's just as obvious that other aspects are inborn.
So yes... I think
some people who identify as homosexual are absolutely hard-wired that way... Meaning not that they are physically incapable of attraction to the opposite sex or gender, or someone of ambiguous sex or gender, but that the same sex or gender is where their
instinctive drive will lead them.
I don't read your paragraph as asserting that it's all learned behavior, but the idea is worth refuting to complete my thought... If it
were all learned, we wouldn't see it so much in less sentient animals. It's safe to say field mice don't go queer because of overbearing mothers, absent fathers, or out of a sense of rebellion.
I do however consider casual bisexuality to be the 'natural' state of human beings, and only uncommon due to social constraint and learned behaviour.
The dichotomous reality that continually tortures the sense of right and wrong of my soul's greater angels is this:
On the one hand, I believe - just short of saying "I know" - that it
should be legally and socially OK for sex, gender, sexuality, and attraction to be fully and wholly a matter of consenting choice on a moment by moment basis. If a boy wants a pretty dress or a vagina or a male partner, it should be a question of "do you want to?" and not a question of "do you
have to?" that gets him the freedom to do what he's asking for.
On the other hand, I have to begrudgingly agree that the laws to give him that freedom will come a lot sooner if the common voter believes he "has" to.
...and it hardly seems right to jump now from that topic to this... But:
swordsman3003 wrote:I am having a hard time understanding some of your arguments, Honor. Are you trying to say that the FairTax unduly taxes the poor?
Not exactly. I'm saying that it unduly taxes the middle classes and insufficiently taxes the rich. Were it not for a "pre-bate" system that I think will end up at least as unwieldy and abused as the current system, it would certainly unduly tax the poor, though.
swordsman3003 wrote:Also, there are many reasons why many on capital hill would oppose the fairtax plan, the cheif of which I have already mentioned is the fact that they manipulate taxation in order to earn votes.
No... Not really. Not much at all. They manipulate the
budget to earn votes, but the tax code is fairly hard to change on a whim. It takes a great deal of the one thing in shortest supply in Washington... Consensus. The only administration to manage what you're talking about in recent history is the current one.
Don't get me wrong... The tax system does get a fairly substantial and regular working over, but it's not as simple as you're making it. Republicans win votes by making small cuts in taxes and spending money on big business. Democrats win votes by improving social services and taxing big business.
IOW, Democrats don't raise taxes because we're stupid... We do it because our society needs more and better social services... The kinds of things that, not coincidentally, win
us votes... And the Republicans aren't going to let go of the wasteful portions of the budget that earn
them votes. So everyone agrees the system is broken, and nobody agrees how or why, and the system only gets small, incremental changes that don't do enough to put either side over the top.
swordsman3003 wrote:If you are so concerned about the poor, you should be adamant in support of the FairTax....
I'm an adamant supporter of a theory that bears a strong resemblance to "FairTax", but "FairTax" isn't it. The more I read about it, the more it looks like this plan was
specifically designed to bear that intentionally strong surface resemblance to what is needed, but not only leave the advantages for the rich and big business, but actually increase those advantages manifold.
It's another product of the same Republican marketing strategy that brought us "Clear Skies" and "Death Tax" and "Pro Life" and "war on Terror". Give it a nice surface coat of paint, and slap the right sound-bite name on it, and people will gobble it up. How could anyone be against it...? It's so scrupulously fair that it's even called "Fair Tax"!!
In order for any tax system to be "fair" it's going to have to address earnings and capital gains and offshore banking and the inheritance of vast estates. It's going to have to address corporate profit and offshore investment and corporate spending. It's going to have to address a whole pile of things that this plan ignores, and it's going to have to actually be workable while it's at it... In which respect this plan also appears to have some serious flaws.
Hell, to be really fair, it should stop subsidizing having children. Children use tax resources... To be truely fair, people who have children should pay higher taxes, not lower... Try getting
that passed in America.
swordsman3003 wrote:The rich know all kinds of ways to manipulate their money to avoid paying taxes.
Too true. And this plan not only keeps them all in place, it adds a buch of easy new ones.
swordsman3003 wrote:Churches are exempt completely!
Well, that's basically constitutional. Maybe they
should pay taxes... But secular non-profit organizations are offered the same exemptions. And yes, there are undoubtably abuses in both groups, but in all I think both groups should keep those expemtions, with perhaps a tad more oversight. People who work for either type of organization, at least, do pay taxes on their income... Although religious leaders are far more adept at hiding "income" of this sort.