OT: Gay History in California Public Schools

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]I don’t think you’re been around many gay men. Gay men that I know love to party, have friends over, especially if they have places to host. That means somone has to clean and repair the house.[/quote]
No, just different gay men than the ones you seem to run into. Maybe the ones your are running to are more bi than gay?

[quote briansd1]Anal-retentive is derogatory. I like fastidious better.[/quote]
fastidious would fit better with ‘neat’. How then would you describe always being on time with payments, notifying you promptly if there are problems with the property, and not abusing energy/water usage in a shared environment? -as a personality trait.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I guess if the person was white and overweight and conservative, you wouldn’t have rented to the person, even if he/she could have afforded the rent and had stellar credit….

Besides the irony of the difference between your perceived open-mindedness and your actions…..
So much for fair housing/equal opportunity act there, Brian…[/quote]

Not to be “sticking up” for brian, in particular, here … but brian, when interviewing potential roommates to live WITH him (when he’s there) CAN choose exactly what he wants! Call it “discrimination” if you will but brian put out an ad for a ROOMMATE, NOT a TENANT. The two should not be compared. brian or me or you or any Pigg would be legally within our rights to pick and choose whatever traits we want in a ROOMMATE that will LIVE WITH US, either full or part time, up to and including having a preference for sex, religion, race, marital status, entertainment preferences, cleanliness, preference for or against children, etc. He is within his rights to choose a “lipstick lesbian” roommate donning whatever shade of lipstick he would prefer to see her in, that is, if he is ultra-particular, lol.

Fair housing laws do not apply to persons looking for roommates to share their own living quarters with.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I guess if the person was white and overweight and conservative, you wouldn’t have rented to the person, even if he/she could have afforded the rent and had stellar credit….

Besides the irony of the difference between your perceived open-mindedness and your actions…..
So much for fair housing/equal opportunity act there, Brian…[/quote]

Not to be “sticking up” for brian, in particular, here … but brian, when interviewing potential roommates to live WITH him (when he’s there) CAN choose exactly what he wants! Call it “discrimination” if you will but brian put out an ad for a ROOMMATE, NOT a TENANT. The two should not be compared. brian or me or you or any Pigg would be legally within our rights to pick and choose whatever traits we want in a ROOMMATE that will LIVE WITH US, either full or part time, up to and including having a preference for sex, religion, race, marital status, entertainment preferences, cleanliness, preference for or against children, etc. He is within his rights to choose a “lipstick lesbian” roommate donning whatever shade of lipstick he would prefer to see her in, that is, if he is ultra-particular, lol.

Fair housing laws do not apply to persons looking for roommates to share their own living quarters with.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I guess if the person was white and overweight and conservative, you wouldn’t have rented to the person, even if he/she could have afforded the rent and had stellar credit….

Besides the irony of the difference between your perceived open-mindedness and your actions…..
So much for fair housing/equal opportunity act there, Brian…[/quote]

Not to be “sticking up” for brian, in particular, here … but brian, when interviewing potential roommates to live WITH him (when he’s there) CAN choose exactly what he wants! Call it “discrimination” if you will but brian put out an ad for a ROOMMATE, NOT a TENANT. The two should not be compared. brian or me or you or any Pigg would be legally within our rights to pick and choose whatever traits we want in a ROOMMATE that will LIVE WITH US, either full or part time, up to and including having a preference for sex, religion, race, marital status, entertainment preferences, cleanliness, preference for or against children, etc. He is within his rights to choose a “lipstick lesbian” roommate donning whatever shade of lipstick he would prefer to see her in, that is, if he is ultra-particular, lol.

Fair housing laws do not apply to persons looking for roommates to share their own living quarters with.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I guess if the person was white and overweight and conservative, you wouldn’t have rented to the person, even if he/she could have afforded the rent and had stellar credit….

Besides the irony of the difference between your perceived open-mindedness and your actions…..
So much for fair housing/equal opportunity act there, Brian…[/quote]

Not to be “sticking up” for brian, in particular, here … but brian, when interviewing potential roommates to live WITH him (when he’s there) CAN choose exactly what he wants! Call it “discrimination” if you will but brian put out an ad for a ROOMMATE, NOT a TENANT. The two should not be compared. brian or me or you or any Pigg would be legally within our rights to pick and choose whatever traits we want in a ROOMMATE that will LIVE WITH US, either full or part time, up to and including having a preference for sex, religion, race, marital status, entertainment preferences, cleanliness, preference for or against children, etc. He is within his rights to choose a “lipstick lesbian” roommate donning whatever shade of lipstick he would prefer to see her in, that is, if he is ultra-particular, lol.

Fair housing laws do not apply to persons looking for roommates to share their own living quarters with.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I guess if the person was white and overweight and conservative, you wouldn’t have rented to the person, even if he/she could have afforded the rent and had stellar credit….

Besides the irony of the difference between your perceived open-mindedness and your actions…..
So much for fair housing/equal opportunity act there, Brian…[/quote]

Not to be “sticking up” for brian, in particular, here … but brian, when interviewing potential roommates to live WITH him (when he’s there) CAN choose exactly what he wants! Call it “discrimination” if you will but brian put out an ad for a ROOMMATE, NOT a TENANT. The two should not be compared. brian or me or you or any Pigg would be legally within our rights to pick and choose whatever traits we want in a ROOMMATE that will LIVE WITH US, either full or part time, up to and including having a preference for sex, religion, race, marital status, entertainment preferences, cleanliness, preference for or against children, etc. He is within his rights to choose a “lipstick lesbian” roommate donning whatever shade of lipstick he would prefer to see her in, that is, if he is ultra-particular, lol.

Fair housing laws do not apply to persons looking for roommates to share their own living quarters with.

[scaredyclassic]

What about gays and their effect on re values. In NYC I think they were a significant force in gentrifying and driving up prices. Less in sd? They used to not have kids so more money to bid up prices. Now that gays are coupling up and having rugrats just like runofthemill breeders I guess they’ll have less of an advantage as a group.

I recall growing up gay people in your bad neighborhood as a harbinger of good things to come.

[scaredyclassic]

What about gays and their effect on re values. In NYC I think they were a significant force in gentrifying and driving up prices. Less in sd? They used to not have kids so more money to bid up prices. Now that gays are coupling up and having rugrats just like runofthemill breeders I guess they’ll have less of an advantage as a group.

I recall growing up gay people in your bad neighborhood as a harbinger of good things to come.

[scaredyclassic]

What about gays and their effect on re values. In NYC I think they were a significant force in gentrifying and driving up prices. Less in sd? They used to not have kids so more money to bid up prices. Now that gays are coupling up and having rugrats just like runofthemill breeders I guess they’ll have less of an advantage as a group.

I recall growing up gay people in your bad neighborhood as a harbinger of good things to come.

[scaredyclassic]

What about gays and their effect on re values. In NYC I think they were a significant force in gentrifying and driving up prices. Less in sd? They used to not have kids so more money to bid up prices. Now that gays are coupling up and having rugrats just like runofthemill breeders I guess they’ll have less of an advantage as a group.

I recall growing up gay people in your bad neighborhood as a harbinger of good things to come.

[scaredyclassic]

What about gays and their effect on re values. In NYC I think they were a significant force in gentrifying and driving up prices. Less in sd? They used to not have kids so more money to bid up prices. Now that gays are coupling up and having rugrats just like runofthemill breeders I guess they’ll have less of an advantage as a group.

I recall growing up gay people in your bad neighborhood as a harbinger of good things to come.

[Arraya]

[quote=Rustico]

I am not saying anything of this pertains to your sister, just giving you background for why I don’t take “nuture” lightly.[/quote]

The nature verse nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Reality is dynamic, interconnected and symbiotic.

I briefly mentioned this in the “Alcoholism” thread. The idea that genes “program” behavior is wrong, for the most part, a product of our mechanistic worldview; evidence shows that the environment triggers and even alters DNA. It’s called “epigenetics” – that non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently. The younger an organism the more susceptible to environmental stresses that can trigger physiological changes. Prenatal and early childhood humans are very susceptible to genetic/biological altering environmental stresses which could cause a myriad of behavioral changes. This does not mean it is not “natural” because the changes were some sort of response to the stimuli.

I have not looked into the homosexuality scientifically, but I have spent some time reading about the most recent genetics and behavioral sciences. fwiw – intuitively I would not say homosexuality is analogous to having brown eyes. Maybe a genetic expression to an prenatal environmental stress in some. Maybe it goes “deeper” in others. I also met a women that entered a homosexual relationships after being severely abused in heterosexual relationships in her teens and admitted to having sexual attraction to men at one point – but something “switched off”. Though she did say she was attracted to women at a young age as well.

Bruce Lipton wrote a book recently called the “Biology of Belief” in which he showed compelling evidence that shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. But I digress…

The point is reducing things down to nature verse nurture is doomed from the start. I agree, humans are way more malleable than we like to admit – down to a cellular level. It is kind of a dynamic interdependence of influences that create a human’s behavior – rather than this or that

[Arraya]

[quote=Rustico]

I am not saying anything of this pertains to your sister, just giving you background for why I don’t take “nuture” lightly.[/quote]

The nature verse nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Reality is dynamic, interconnected and symbiotic.

I briefly mentioned this in the “Alcoholism” thread. The idea that genes “program” behavior is wrong, for the most part, a product of our mechanistic worldview; evidence shows that the environment triggers and even alters DNA. It’s called “epigenetics” – that non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently. The younger an organism the more susceptible to environmental stresses that can trigger physiological changes. Prenatal and early childhood humans are very susceptible to genetic/biological altering environmental stresses which could cause a myriad of behavioral changes. This does not mean it is not “natural” because the changes were some sort of response to the stimuli.

I have not looked into the homosexuality scientifically, but I have spent some time reading about the most recent genetics and behavioral sciences. fwiw – intuitively I would not say homosexuality is analogous to having brown eyes. Maybe a genetic expression to an prenatal environmental stress in some. Maybe it goes “deeper” in others. I also met a women that entered a homosexual relationships after being severely abused in heterosexual relationships in her teens and admitted to having sexual attraction to men at one point – but something “switched off”. Though she did say she was attracted to women at a young age as well.

Bruce Lipton wrote a book recently called the “Biology of Belief” in which he showed compelling evidence that shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. But I digress…

The point is reducing things down to nature verse nurture is doomed from the start. I agree, humans are way more malleable than we like to admit – down to a cellular level. It is kind of a dynamic interdependence of influences that create a human’s behavior – rather than this or that

[Arraya]

[quote=Rustico]

I am not saying anything of this pertains to your sister, just giving you background for why I don’t take “nuture” lightly.[/quote]

The nature verse nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Reality is dynamic, interconnected and symbiotic.

I briefly mentioned this in the “Alcoholism” thread. The idea that genes “program” behavior is wrong, for the most part, a product of our mechanistic worldview; evidence shows that the environment triggers and even alters DNA. It’s called “epigenetics” – that non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently. The younger an organism the more susceptible to environmental stresses that can trigger physiological changes. Prenatal and early childhood humans are very susceptible to genetic/biological altering environmental stresses which could cause a myriad of behavioral changes. This does not mean it is not “natural” because the changes were some sort of response to the stimuli.

I have not looked into the homosexuality scientifically, but I have spent some time reading about the most recent genetics and behavioral sciences. fwiw – intuitively I would not say homosexuality is analogous to having brown eyes. Maybe a genetic expression to an prenatal environmental stress in some. Maybe it goes “deeper” in others. I also met a women that entered a homosexual relationships after being severely abused in heterosexual relationships in her teens and admitted to having sexual attraction to men at one point – but something “switched off”. Though she did say she was attracted to women at a young age as well.

Bruce Lipton wrote a book recently called the “Biology of Belief” in which he showed compelling evidence that shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. But I digress…

The point is reducing things down to nature verse nurture is doomed from the start. I agree, humans are way more malleable than we like to admit – down to a cellular level. It is kind of a dynamic interdependence of influences that create a human’s behavior – rather than this or that

[Arraya]

[quote=Rustico]

I am not saying anything of this pertains to your sister, just giving you background for why I don’t take “nuture” lightly.[/quote]

The nature verse nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Reality is dynamic, interconnected and symbiotic.

I briefly mentioned this in the “Alcoholism” thread. The idea that genes “program” behavior is wrong, for the most part, a product of our mechanistic worldview; evidence shows that the environment triggers and even alters DNA. It’s called “epigenetics” – that non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently. The younger an organism the more susceptible to environmental stresses that can trigger physiological changes. Prenatal and early childhood humans are very susceptible to genetic/biological altering environmental stresses which could cause a myriad of behavioral changes. This does not mean it is not “natural” because the changes were some sort of response to the stimuli.

I have not looked into the homosexuality scientifically, but I have spent some time reading about the most recent genetics and behavioral sciences. fwiw – intuitively I would not say homosexuality is analogous to having brown eyes. Maybe a genetic expression to an prenatal environmental stress in some. Maybe it goes “deeper” in others. I also met a women that entered a homosexual relationships after being severely abused in heterosexual relationships in her teens and admitted to having sexual attraction to men at one point – but something “switched off”. Though she did say she was attracted to women at a young age as well.

Bruce Lipton wrote a book recently called the “Biology of Belief” in which he showed compelling evidence that shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. But I digress…

The point is reducing things down to nature verse nurture is doomed from the start. I agree, humans are way more malleable than we like to admit – down to a cellular level. It is kind of a dynamic interdependence of influences that create a human’s behavior – rather than this or that

[Author]

Posts