ADVERTISEMENT

Obama set to force affordable housing into affluent communities

Again, you obviously haven't actually read the proposed rule. It's not about housing subsidies. This is all a right wing slander.

And yes, for many of those on the right committing the slander, it's always been about race, unfortunately.

Edit for more:


This proposed rule doesn't change any of the methods available to local governments to combat housing discrimination. All it does is increase the information collected and command HUD to share more analysis and give more guidance to those governments. The rule makes it clear that it's still up to the local governments to craft the housing plans, and the same tools that have always been available to them are now available to them.

The right-wing consternation is really only fear that this new process might actually work. People are happy that the FHA hasn't ever been fully implemented.

I don't know what the right wing consternation is.

My primary concern is as I stated and I am correct about that. If you don't know how this type of housing is funded don't take it out on me. Housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades. As you noted this rule includes a new look at implementing the objective and subsidies are an unavoidable part of it. And don't tell me what I "meant" with my posts.
 
The more I've read up on this, the more I've come to the sad conclusion that this isn't about misinformation at all. Oh, they're lying, alright. But it's not to misinform. It's simply to cover their tracks. The truth is they know the Fair Housing Act isn't working the way it was supposed to, and they want to keep it that way, because they want to keep their neighborhoods safe and white.

That article comes complete with this disgusting photoshop, to better scare the masses:
50_Too_White-300x231.jpg


That's ultimately what this is about. The FHA threatened our neighborhoods with more black residents. Luckily, we've been able to hold it back with poor implementation. Now that Obama wants to properly enforce a law passed four and a half decades ago, it's time for war.

As I explained to some of my IRL friends, I don't agree with the Dems on every issue. There are a few big issues which I think the Republicans get right. But even so, I don't ever even consider voting for a Republican anymore. Why? Because of shit like this. This shit isn't just a sign of bad politics. It's a sign of bad human beings.

Once again you fail to distinguish between racism and other prejudicial reasoning. People want safety for their families. That doesn't mean they are going to move if a middle or upper class Black, Hispanic, or Arabic family moves in next door.

It does an they are likely to move if a family from the ghetto or trailer park moves in, regardless of race.
 
First of all, it's a proposed rule, not legislation.
Second of all, no, it doesn't clearly state that HUD can overrule zoning.
It's a large rule, but I've examined every reference to zoning in it, and there is nothing about giving HUD the authority to overrule local zoning decisions.
I linked it above, but here it is again.

Please give me a reference to the part of the proposed rule that "clearly states" that HUD will be able to "overrule" zoning decisions.

Get me a website that works on mobile and I will pull the paragraph.
 
If Google News is feeding you the Washington Times then you should be much more discriminating with Google News. As this thread illustrates, the WT (owned by the Moonies) is notoriously unreliable -- and as a result we get a pointless thread based on misinformation.

Perhaps you should complain to the Business Journals, The Hill and every other publication that also ran the story.
 
Perhaps you should complain to the Business Journals, The Hill and every other publication that also ran the story.
If other outlets misreported the story as badly as the WT did, then shame on them, but the WT is notoriously unreliable. If you discover that you're reading it, you should stop.
 
I don't know what the right wing consternation is.

My primary concern is as I stated and I am correct about that. If you don't know how this type of housing is funded don't take it out on me. Housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades. As you noted this rule includes a new look at implementing the objective and subsidies are an unavoidable part of it. And don't tell me what I "meant" with my posts.
What is "this type of housing?" The proposed rule isn't about any particular type of housing. It's about improved data collection.
 
Don't understand the turmoil.
I hear the Ministry of Plenty is set to announce that the chocolate ration is up again.
Perfected housing will ease the sharing burden.
Alldoubleplusgood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT
I don't know what the right wing consternation is.

My primary concern is as I stated and I am correct about that. If you don't know how this type of housing is funded don't take it out on me. Housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades. As you noted this rule includes a new look at implementing the objective and subsidies are an unavoidable part of it. And don't tell me what I "meant" with my posts.

I would estimate that half of the Indianapolis area multi-family units were built in the suburbs under the HUD Section 236 starting in the 1970's. Section 236 had a Section 8 component whereby the owners were obligated to extend Section 8 vouchers to low income renters. A minimum of 20% of the units had to occupied by low income tenants.

I participated in presenting petitions to zoning boards in order to gain zoning exceptions for these 236 projects. Public objections presented at the hearings from remonstrators usually included density and and property tax questions. I don't recall a single objection to this program involving low income certificates or quality of construction issues.

Judging from this thread, some of us these days seem to object to the notion of providing housing for low income folks who otherwise might not be able to afford living in more affluent neighborhoods. Their objections come in the form of the federal government forcing itself on communities. As COH points out, housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades.

Why has the notion of giving a few low income families the opportunity to live in better neighborhoods become so undesirable after decades of having successful programs to help these people? It appears goals about which we once had agreement. regardless of political ideology, are now subject to being challenged if the program involves the federal government.
 
My link goes to HUD's information website with links to the proposed RULE, summary, comments, etc.

Well, unsurprisingly, it does not work on mobile, along with the rest of the antiquated government websites.

Here:

"Under the proposed rule, program participants will use HUD data to evaluate patterns of integration and segregation, racial and ethnic concentration of poverty, and disparities in access to valuable community assets and disproportionate housing needs based on protected class and evaluate the primary determinants of these conditions. Program participants will also assess whether laws, policies, or practices limit fair housing choice, as well as the role of public investments in creating, perpetuating, or alleviating the segregation patterns revealed by the assessment. Examples of such laws, policies, or practices include, but are not limited to, zoning, land use, financing, infrastructure planning, and transportation."

"In doing so, it directs them to examine relevant factors, such as zoning and other land-use practices that are likely contributors to fair housing concerns, and take appropriate actions in response."

What I could not find was whether or not program participation was voluntary or optional and if there are benefits provided to those participants.beyond data availability.
 
Why has the notion of giving a few low income families the opportunity to live in better neighborhoods become so undesirable after decades of having successful programs to help these people? It appears goals about which we once had agreement. regardless of political ideology, are now subject to being challenged if the program involves the federal government.

Because my wife and I work and paid a premium for my house and I pay high property taxes in order to be in a safe area, with the lowest crime rates and the highest quality schools in the state.

We lived in an expensive apartment prior to this that opted to start supporting Section 8 housing b/c it was unable to fill all of its units after new luxury apartment units popped up nearby. My car was vandalized twice and there were several other incidents that were highly disturbing. So we moved. I don't view it as a coincidence and similar stories reinforce my thoughts.
 
I would estimate that half of the Indianapolis area multi-family units were built in the suburbs under the HUD Section 236 starting in the 1970's. Section 236 had a Section 8 component whereby the owners were obligated to extend Section 8 vouchers to low income renters. A minimum of 20% of the units had to occupied by low income tenants.

I participated in presenting petitions to zoning boards in order to gain zoning exceptions for these 236 projects. Public objections presented at the hearings from remonstrators usually included density and and property tax questions. I don't recall a single objection to this program involving low income certificates or quality of construction issues.

Judging from this thread, some of us these days seem to object to the notion of providing housing for low income folks who otherwise might not be able to afford living in more affluent neighborhoods. Their objections come in the form of the federal government forcing itself on communities. As COH points out, housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades.

Why has the notion of giving a few low income families the opportunity to live in better neighborhoods become so undesirable after decades of having successful programs to help these people? It appears goals about which we once had agreement. regardless of political ideology, are now subject to being challenged if the program involves the federal government.

Vouchers?

Is that like them vouchers all the rich ruling class progressive folks have been fighting for 3 decades, trying to keep poor kids outta the private schools where they send their own kids?

Reminds me of a song I heard once:

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
 
Because my wife and I work and paid a premium for my house and I pay high property taxes in order to be in a safe area, with the lowest crime rates and the highest quality schools in the state.

We lived in an expensive apartment prior to this that opted to start supporting Section 8 housing b/c it was unable to fill all of its units after new luxury apartment units popped up nearby. My car was vandalized twice and there were several other incidents that were highly disturbing. So we moved. I don't view it as a coincidence and similar stories reinforce my thoughts.

The president of my urban neighborhood association (who lives in an upscale expensive brick home complete with a tile roof and is among the highest property taxpayers in our neighborhood) tells me two rattan porch chairs were stolen from her front porch last night. Her home is on really busy street which overlooks a beautiful creek setting near a popular walking/biking trail. Chances are probable the thief came from another neighborhood.

I doubt that she will move back to one of our fastest growing and highly popular suburbs from which she came as she loves our neighborhood. A neighborhood which happens to be diversified in terms of income, age of residents, ethnicity, sexual preference, and just about every kind of diversity you can name.

We all look at events in our lives from a different perspective with some of us being able to pick and choose where we live. The less affluent don't have much latitude which touches on what this thread is all about.
 
Well, unsurprisingly, it does not work on mobile, along with the rest of the antiquated government websites.

Here:

"Under the proposed rule, program participants will use HUD data to evaluate patterns of integration and segregation, racial and ethnic concentration of poverty, and disparities in access to valuable community assets and disproportionate housing needs based on protected class and evaluate the primary determinants of these conditions. Program participants will also assess whether laws, policies, or practices limit fair housing choice, as well as the role of public investments in creating, perpetuating, or alleviating the segregation patterns revealed by the assessment. Examples of such laws, policies, or practices include, but are not limited to, zoning, land use, financing, infrastructure planning, and transportation."

"In doing so, it directs them to examine relevant factors, such as zoning and other land-use practices that are likely contributors to fair housing concerns, and take appropriate actions in response."

What I could not find was whether or not program participation was voluntary or optional and if there are benefits provided to those participants.beyond data availability.
In other words, you can't find what you earlier claimed to be there.

Why not just admit you accepted the false WT article as gospel? That's clearly what happened.

As with most federal programs, the only power HUD has over local governments is the ability to restrict access to certain grants. That ability is not expanded by this proposed rule.
 
I would estimate that half of the Indianapolis area multi-family units were built in the suburbs under the HUD Section 236 starting in the 1970's. Section 236 had a Section 8 component whereby the owners were obligated to extend Section 8 vouchers to low income renters. A minimum of 20% of the units had to occupied by low income tenants.

I participated in presenting petitions to zoning boards in order to gain zoning exceptions for these 236 projects. Public objections presented at the hearings from remonstrators usually included density and and property tax questions. I don't recall a single objection to this program involving low income certificates or quality of construction issues.

Judging from this thread, some of us these days seem to object to the notion of providing housing for low income folks who otherwise might not be able to afford living in more affluent neighborhoods. Their objections come in the form of the federal government forcing itself on communities. As COH points out, housing diversity has been on the front burner for decades.

Why has the notion of giving a few low income families the opportunity to live in better neighborhoods become so undesirable after decades of having successful programs to help these people? It appears goals about which we once had agreement. regardless of political ideology, are now subject to being challenged if the program involves the federal government.

There are two assumptions in this thread that are unwarranted

First is the assumption that low income is a permanent condition. It isn't. People have low income for a variety of reasons. Some are starting out in life. Others are going to school and living on student loans. Others have a temporary unemployment. Low income doesn't not in and of itself mean high crime, violence or other undesirable behavior.

Second is the assumption that low income means Black. Not true either. As I said, I live where there are several income qualified projects and while some of the residents are black, many others are not.

These assumptions run across all political spectrums. I see it in many of the horribles conservatives associate with low income housing, and I see it in the liberals' urge to "take care of 'these people'".

Well-managed low income housing is not a big deal. Nobody should be concerned with it.

Yeah, I understand the concern with the connections between poverty and crime. But I see housing diversity as an antidote to that problem. Yeah, there might be some side effects, but that's life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RerunStubs
The president of my urban neighborhood association (who lives in an upscale expensive brick home complete with a tile roof and is among the highest property taxpayers in our neighborhood) tells me two rattan porch chairs were stolen from her front porch last night. Her home is on really busy street which overlooks a beautiful creek setting near a popular walking/biking trail. Chances are probable the thief came from another neighborhood.

I doubt that she will move back to one of our fastest growing and highly popular suburbs from which she came as she loves our neighborhood. A neighborhood which happens to be diversified in terms of income, age of residents, ethnicity, sexual preference, and just about every kind of diversity you can name.

We all look at events in our lives from a different perspective with some of us being able to pick and choose where we live. The less affluent don't have much latitude which touches on what this thread is all about.

Shame on you hoot!

I got blasted on this board for saying "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation". Frankly, I don't see the big deal. I proudly "prefer" the opposite sex. If people want to call that an "orientation" I don't give a rip. But I am sure my choice of words reinforced our liberal stereotype that all conservatives are raging bigoted homophobes. I'm thinking you don't want to be seen as an old white male conservative homophobe.
 
Shame on you hoot!

I got blasted on this board for saying "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation". Frankly, I don't see the big deal. I proudly "prefer" the opposite sex. If people want to call that an "orientation" I don't give a rip. But I am sure my choice of words reinforced our liberal stereotype that all conservatives are raging bigoted homophobes. I'm thinking you don't want to be seen as an old white male conservative homophobe.

CoH, two good points.

(1) As to Section 8 certificates and having a low income being temporary, I completely agree.

Examples would include students, interns, temporarily unemployed or under employed, and those changing careers at a short term income disadvantage. The subsidized rents helped some tenants go back to college which without the program couldn't have done so.

The Section 236 program which I previously mentioned allowed apartment management to both issue its own Section 8 certificates and screen potential tenants with existing certificates. Bad tenants came about only with poor screening.

(2) As to my using sexual preference, again I agree as sexual orientation is more accurate to my thinking on this matter. Yep, I don't see becoming a homosexual as a choice or preference in most cases. I've had lots of conservative friends adjust their opinions on homosexuals in the past decades. The turning point being homosexuals coming out of the closet and revealing themselves as likeable and worthy of respect. There was a time when hardly anyone could say, "Some of my best friends are homosexuals".

Finally, CoH, had to laugh out loud with a big smile about my feelings on being "an old white male conservative homophobe." Good to have a smile here at the Cooler at least once in a while.
 
I got blasted on this board for saying "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation". Frankly, I don't see the big deal.
That's because you're an ignoramus.

Since you're the one making the point, let's focus on you. Do you just prefer to have sex with women? This suggests that in some circumstances you might be open to sex with men -- like you generally prefer chocolate ice cream but vanilla will do in a pinch.

Under what circumstances might your "preference" for women be overcome? You're on a fishing trip with a cute guy and you're drunk and horny? Is that how it works -- you prefer steak but you'd happily eat chicken?

When you were a little boy did you list the pros and cons of sex with men and women when you decided you'd generally "prefer" to have sex with women? And how did you do this before, as a little boy, you even knew what sex was?

You don't get blasted for using the wrong words, CO. You get blasted for having your head up your ass.
 
I will offer this once in an attempt to prevent this thread from turning into a sexual orientation debate:

Sexual orientation, sexual preference, and sexual behavior are different, but related things.

Sexual orientation refers to what you find yourself naturally attracted to. Classically, it's usually considered on a sliding scale between fully heterosexual and fully homosexual, but the existence of orientations that don't fit on the scale (such as asexuality) and certain fetishes (such as pedophilia) suggest it's more complicated (i.e., most pedophiles do not show discrimination between sexes, and are simply attracted to pre-pubescent children instead of adults).

Sexual preference is a loaded term in the public sphere, but it is also used in research, and generally refers to who you consciously prefer to have sex with. It usually matches up well with your orientation - gay men usually prefer to have sex with other men, for example. But the distinction can be important in certain situations (for example, people who identify as bisexual, but primarily prefer one sex over the other). I would suggest the simplest way to distinguish between them is that orientation identifies what genders and/or sexes one is attracted to, and sexual preference refers to the specific individuals that one harbors a sexual attraction for.

Sexual behavior refers to who you actually do choose to have sex with. In terms of homosexuality, for example, it's well known that there is (and always has been) consensual sexual activity between men who would otherwise identify as straight in certain situations, e.g., prison.

Usually, when we discuss sexual orientation in terms of civil rights, we're actually talking about sexual identity as a whole, encompassing all three. In other words, someone who is defending the rights of a gay person would actually be arguing:

1. It's okay to be gay.
2. It's okay to engage your own gay identity by showing attraction to specific same-sex individuals.
3. It's okay to act out this attraction by engaging in (otherwise licit) sexual activity.
 
That's because you're an ignoramus.

Since you're the one making the point, let's focus on you. Do you just prefer to have sex with women? This suggests that in some circumstances you might be open to sex with men -- like you generally prefer chocolate ice cream but vanilla will do in a pinch.

Under what circumstances might your "preference" for women be overcome? You're on a fishing trip with a cute guy and you're drunk and horny? Is that how it works -- you prefer steak but you'd happily eat chicken?

When you were a little boy did you list the pros and cons of sex with men and women when you decided you'd generally "prefer" to have sex with women? And how did you do this before, as a little boy, you even knew what sex was?

You don't get blasted for using the wrong words, CO. You get blasted for having your head up your ass.

You are such an idiot

One's orientation to surroundings or outside stimuli is no more immutable than ones preference to the same. Most likely the same regions of the brain produce both. Some are conscious and voluntary and some aren't. Or maybe you are stuck in the gay-gene 80's and believe that what sex we like is determined prenatally?

But in the final analysis use of the word orientation vs preference to describe sexual attractions is nothing but BS produced by the same industry that brings us micro-aggressions. The concept of orientation to one's surroundings isn't even a useful concept when talking about what might stimulate you to jerk off.
 
You don't get blasted for using the wrong words, CO. You get blasted for having your head up your ass.
My apologies for these sentences. In fairness to CO., who's entirely in charge of his own sexual preferences, all of which we should nonjudgmentally support, I should have written, "You get blasted for having your head up your ass unless you prefer to have other protuberances present there instead."

I think we should all agree that CO. Hoosier should be free to have whatever he prefers to have in his ass, just as he supports the preferences of everyone else.
I will offer this once in an attempt to prevent this thread from turning into a sexual orientation debate:

Sexual orientation, sexual preference, and sexual behavior are different, but related things.

Sexual orientation refers to what you find yourself naturally attracted to. Classically, it's usually considered on a sliding scale between fully heterosexual and fully homosexual, but the existence of orientations that don't fit on the scale (such as asexuality) and certain fetishes (such as pedophilia) suggest it's more complicated (i.e., most pedophiles do not show discrimination between sexes, and are simply attracted to pre-pubescent children instead of adults).

Sexual preference is a loaded term in the public sphere, but it is also used in research, and generally refers to who you consciously prefer to have sex with. It usually matches up well with your orientation - gay men usually prefer to have sex with other men, for example. But the distinction can be important in certain situations (for example, people who identify as bisexual, but primarily prefer one sex over the other). I would suggest the simplest way to distinguish between them is that orientation identifies what genders and/or sexes one is attracted to, and sexual preference refers to the specific individuals that one harbors a sexual attraction for.

Sexual behavior refers to who you actually do choose to have sex with. In terms of homosexuality, for example, it's well known that there is (and always has been) consensual sexual activity between men who would otherwise identify as straight in certain situations, e.g., prison.

Usually, when we discuss sexual orientation in terms of civil rights, we're actually talking about sexual identity as a whole, encompassing all three. In other words, someone who is defending the rights of a gay person would actually be arguing:

1. It's okay to be gay.
2. It's okay to engage your own gay identity by showing attraction to specific same-sex individuals.
3. It's okay to act out this attraction by engaging in (otherwise licit) sexual activity.
That's swell, Goat. It has little to do with Co. Hoosier's homophobic post or my acerbic response, but it somehow did dissuade me from piling on with another speculative post about CO.'s "preferences". Well done there. Because as everyone who's read his homophobic posts knows, CO. belives that sexual orientation is merely a behavior in which some inexplicably engage, despite the occasionally violent disapprobrium that follows them. The issue here is not the correct categorization of sexual being, but the ignorant hostility of people like CO. Hoosier to those they cannot comprehend.
 
You are such an idiot

One's orientation to surroundings or outside stimuli is no more immutable than ones preference to the same. Most likely the same regions of the brain produce both. Some are conscious and voluntary and some aren't. Or maybe you are stuck in the gay-gene 80's and believe that what sex we like is determined prenatally?

But in the final analysis use of the word orientation vs preference to describe sexual attractions is nothing but BS produced by the same industry that brings us micro-aggressions. The concept of orientation to one's surroundings isn't even a useful concept when talking about what might stimulate you to jerk off.
So when would you want to take that fishing trip, cutie pie? Are you persuadable, or are you just a bigot?
 
My apologies for these sentences. In fairness to CO., who's entirely in charge of his own sexual preferences, all of which we should nonjudgmentally support, I should have written, "You get blasted for having your head up your ass unless you prefer to have other protuberances present there instead."

I think we should all agree that CO. Hoosier should be free to have whatever he prefers to have in his ass, just as he supports the preferences of everyone else.

That's swell, Goat. It has little to do with Co. Hoosier's homophobic post or my acerbic response, but it somehow did dissuade me from piling on with another speculative post about CO.'s "preferences". Well done there. Because as everyone who's read his homophobic posts knows, CO. belives that sexual orientation is merely a behavior in which some inexplicably engage, despite the occasionally violent disapprobrium that follows them. The issue here is not the correct categorization of sexual being, but the ignorant hostility of people like CO. Hoosier to those they cannot comprehend.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to get in between you and COH. I just don't want people to seriously get hung up on whether or not "preference" is an okay term.

I would also point out that, while COH's comments do suggest he doesn't understand the biology of sexual orientation, I don't think it needs to be immutable to be protected. Even if being gay is a choice, I still think my gay friends have the right to make that choice.
 
I just don't want people to seriously get hung up on whether or not "preference" is an okay term.
I hear you. My point is that troglodytes like COH imagine that gay people could simply choose to be otherwise, which if they could they obviously would, which is why people who make COH's argument are troglodytes.
 
So when would you want to take that fishing trip, cutie pie? Are you persuadable, or are you just a bigot?

The 80's called and they want their brain back

For you sexual orientation is either an immunitable condition formed when the sperm meets the egg or it is a choice like deciding what beer you like. Why don't you wise up and enter the second decade of the 21st century.
 
I hear you. My point is that troglodytes like COH imagine that gay people could simply choose to be otherwise, which if they could they obviously would, which is why people who make COH's argument are troglodytes.
Your an idiot part II

You can't make an informed arguent so make stuff up. Nice post. Your CO.HDS is in working overtime.
 
Yeah, I wasn't trying to get in between you and COH. I just don't want people to seriously get hung up on whether or not "preference" is an okay term.

I would also point out that, while COH's comments do suggest he doesn't understand the biology of sexual orientation, I don't think it needs to be immutable to be protected. Even if being gay is a choice, I still think my gay friends have the right to make that choice.

Huh?

Where and when have I ever said that discrimination is OK? You have been imputing more crap to me lately that I never said. I think I live in your head and you make stuff up just to have something to say. Or mayby you say once again "I never said that." If so then write in separate sentences or better yet, separate paragraphs.

As far as the biology of sexual orientation is concerned, nobody understands that, or even if it IS biology if so how much. We don't know if orientation happens pre or post natal, we don't know how much is nature and how much is nurture, we don't know if it changes and if so how and why it changes and so on. There are thousands if not millions of variables. Probably anybody's sexual orientation is the product of many circumstances, some of which are obvious and some are not. Some of those circumstances might even be a product of choices. Most likely orientation is always a matter of degree and there is no either/or. If you think this is all settled, you'd be mistaken.
 
[QUOTE="CO. Hoosier, post: 434193, member: 524"
As far as the biology of sexual orientation is concerned, nobody understands that, or even if it IS biology if so how much. We don't know if orientation happens pre or post natal, we don't know how much is nature and how much is nurture, we don't know if it changes and if so how and why it changes and so on. There are thousands if not millions of variables. Probably anybody's sexual orientation is the product of many circumstances, some of which are obvious and some are not. Some of those circumstances might even be a product of choices. Most likely orientation is always a matter of degree and there is no either/or. If you think this is all settled, you'd be mistaken.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't need separate paragraphs if you weren't so dedicated to finding slight in everything I type.

The point is, I think you're understanding of the nature of sexual orientation is incorrect, but even if you are correct, I still think sexual orientation belongs on the list of things we shouldn't discriminate over, which is how it got brought up in this thread in the first place, by, I believe, hoot.

In short, get over yourself.
 
I dunno

I don't think there is a "correct" understanding of sexual orientation. Anything having to do with how the brain works is fascinating to me as well as well as it being mostly fluid and unknown. Who we like to have sex with and why is one of those. Hell even a brain surgeon, who you would think would have a great deal of knowledge about how the different areas of the brain work, stepped in it. The science is very fluid. More importantly, the issue is so laden with political, emotional, and religious baggage that what science we might know gets trumped by preconceptions, like the difference between a person being oriented to certain stimuli as compared to a person preferring certain stimuli. The Rockfish ably demonstrated the impossibility to discuss with his first butt-in post about my head up my ass--again based on his made-up views about what I said. I guess I live in his head too. I thought you were channeling his theme. If not I apologize and my offer for a beer during your next big trial in Denver still stands.
 
I dunno

I don't think there is a "correct" understanding of sexual orientation. Anything having to do with how the brain works is fascinating to me as well as well as it being mostly fluid and unknown. Who we like to have sex with and why is one of those. Hell even a brain surgeon, who you would think would have a great deal of knowledge about how the different areas of the brain work, stepped in it. The science is very fluid. More importantly, the issue is so laden with political, emotional, and religious baggage that what science we might know gets trumped by preconceptions, like the difference between a person being oriented to certain stimuli as compared to a person preferring certain stimuli. The Rockfish ably demonstrated the impossibility to discuss with his first butt-in post about my head up my ass--again based on his made-up views about what I said. I guess I live in his head too. I thought you were channeling his theme. If not I apologize and my offer for a beer during your next big trial in Denver still stands.
We don't have a perfect understanding, but based on what we do know, I can definitely say you were incorrect with at least this:

"As far as the biology of sexual orientation is concerned, nobody understands that, or even if it IS biology if so how much. We don't know if orientation happens pre or post natal, we don't know how much is nature and how much is nurture, we don't know if it changes and if so how and why it changes and so on."

We do know that some of it is biological, and that some of it is pre-natal. We also know that some of it is not only pre-natal, but genetic (EDIT: we are also fairly certain some of it is both pre-natal and non-genetic). We also know that it doesn't tell the whole story. Orientation is not like hair color. While genetically identical twins are likely to have the same sexual orientation, they are virtually guaranteed to have the same, say, hair color, and so forth. Sexual orientation is therefore not a unitary trait, but might more likely be described as the complex presentation of interrelated traits.

It's an area of research that's still undergoing a lot of research, just like all studies into the nature of behavior (sexual orientation and genetics is usually studied from the point of view of behavior rather than self-labelled identities, for obvious reasons). But it's absolutely wrong to suggest we don't know anything. We know a lot.
 
Explanation of Thread Deviation

In responding to mjvcaj's complaints about events which occurred while living in an apartment community with some tenants having Section 8 certificates, I mentioned some recent problems in my neighborhood. In describing my neighborhood I used the term sexual preference.

My good friend CoH poked fun at me for using this term. CoH knows me well enough to know I believe homosexuals are for the most part born predestined in the direction of preferring males as sexual partners. Thus I made myself vulnerable for some well intentioned kidding

Having seen this exchange, Goat warned us all about a potential thread hijacking. Then much to my amazement Goat became fully involved in a discussion about sexual orientation. In forums such as the Cooler these deviations can occur. Let us face it, anything remotely involved with race and sexual orientation always seems to rile up some of the posters at the Cooler.
 
Explanation of Thread Deviation

In responding to mjvcaj's complaints about events which occurred while living in an apartment community with some tenants having Section 8 certificates, I mentioned some recent problems in my neighborhood. In describing my neighborhood I used the term sexual preference.

My good friend CoH poked fun at me for using this term. CoH knows me well enough to know I believe homosexuals are for the most part born predestined in the direction of preferring males as sexual partners. Thus I made myself vulnerable for some well intentioned kidding

Having seen this exchange, Goat warned us all about a potential thread hijacking. Then much to my amazement Goat became fully involved in a discussion about sexual orientation. In forums such as the Cooler these deviations can occur. Let us face it, anything remotely involved with race and sexual orientation always seems to rile up some of the posters at the Cooler.
I don't believe for one second my failure to avoid the very pitfall I warned of would amaze you. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
I've never seen a problem with thread hijacks

Isn't that an element of . . . . . . ahem . . . . . . .free will?
 
Amazing to me that the same people who insist that there are no obstacles to success for poor people, that there is no discrimination against poor minorities, etc ... continue to insist on their right to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods where, by their own admission, the schools are better, the streets are safer, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Would you want any of those guys in your neighborhood? FWIW, I wouldn't be really interested in transporting the people that cause problems in Beech Grove up to Hamilton County either (and they don't look like the guys in that photo). Call it elitist or whatever but I made sacrifices to make sure we Iive in an area that has good schools and where I am less likely to face the types of issues that tend to come with lower income areas (no matter who the dominant race is in those lower class communities.) And the African Americans and Hispanics who live in my neighborhood are doing the same. Section 8 doesn't deal with the root causes of the issues in the poorer areas it instead transplants the disfunction to more functional communities in hopes that the poor will suddenly become better off by osmosis.

(1) So on the one hand, you want to live in an area that has good schools and does not have some undefined issues that are associated with living a in a poor neighborhood. On the other hand, you can't imagine that poor people could benefit from living in an area that has good schools and does not have the same issues that are associated with living in a poor neighborhood. How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction between what's good for you and what could not possibly be good for the people you are avoiding like the plague?

(2) The research on the effects on poor people of living in a poor neighborhood versus living in a mixed-income neighborhood are well-documented. Your derision about "osmosis" seems to have no basic in fact or evidence. Here is one paper from 2014 showing the impact of living in a neighborhood of concentrated poverty versus an economically integrated on the economic mobility of the poor. Here is another from just last month showing the positive long-term impact for poor children who live in a lower-poverty neighborhood. Presumably this should not come as a shock to you since you admit that you yourself do not want to live in a poor neighborhood.

This conversation would be less dishonest if people stopped trying to rationalize their own self-interest. At least admit that your desire to systematically exclude poor families from being able access the benefits of living in a middle class neighborhood and ensure that, instead, they remain rooted in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty may sucks for poor people, their kids, and their family, but you don't care because it's good for you, your kids, and your family. Of course, this concession might require confronting all kinds of other myths that people harbor about how much more virtuous and deserving they are than the poor, and it requires them to consciously embrace unequal opportunity in the name of their own self-interest ... so I suppose we won't be seeing this any time soon.
 
This conversation would be less dishonest if people stopped trying to rationalize their own self-interest. At least admit that your desire to systematically exclude poor families from being able access the benefits of living in a middle class neighborhood and ensure that, instead, they remain rooted in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty may sucks for poor people, their kids, and their family, but you don't care because it's good for you, your kids, and your family. Of course, this concession might require confronting all kinds of other myths that people harbor about how much more virtuous and deserving they are than the poor, and it requires them to consciously embrace unequal opportunity in the name of their own self-interest ... so I suppose we won't be seeing this any time soon.
I "Liked" this, but I really really like it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT