I'm sorry.
October 11, 2000 8:49 AM Subscribe
I'm sure she "deeply regrets the hurt this situation has caused" her career too!
Too bad she doesn't realize that you can avoid having to seek forgiveness altogether by simply not hurting people in the first place.
posted by jaz at 10:48 AM on October 11, 2000
Too bad she doesn't realize that you can avoid having to seek forgiveness altogether by simply not hurting people in the first place.
posted by jaz at 10:48 AM on October 11, 2000
Of course, she doesn't apologize for what she said- just how it was recieved.
posted by dogwelder at 11:14 AM on October 11, 2000
posted by dogwelder at 11:14 AM on October 11, 2000
1) I agree with skallas, a lot of people seem to think non-descriptive links are better the last few days. Let me remind you: They are not.
2) I've briefly read the article, and as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with what she said. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is a flaw. It's bad for the survival of the species to be gay. So? Big deal. That has nothing to do with wether it is ethically/morally right/wrong.
posted by fvw at 7:13 AM on October 12, 2000
2) I've briefly read the article, and as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with what she said. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is a flaw. It's bad for the survival of the species to be gay. So? Big deal. That has nothing to do with wether it is ethically/morally right/wrong.
posted by fvw at 7:13 AM on October 12, 2000
fvw:
Biologically speaking, homosexuality is a flaw. It's bad for the survival of the species to be gay.
This has not been proven. A simplistic reading of Darwinism might suggest it, but simplistic readings of Darwinism suggest a lot of things that don't turn out to be true.
Quite simply, nobody knows: why homosexuality exists, what determines someone's sexual orientation, whether homosexuality is good or bad in terms of reproductive success, how it affects long-term species survival.
That homosexuality is a genetic flaw that, for one reason or another, hasn't yet been bred out - as your comment suggests you believe - is just one explanation. There's also the "kind gay uncle" hypothesis, which postulates that gay family members may contribute to the success of their relatives' children. There's the idea that homosexuality is a natural form of birth control that kicks in when population densities get too high. There are many others.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:03 PM on October 13, 2000
Biologically speaking, homosexuality is a flaw. It's bad for the survival of the species to be gay.
This has not been proven. A simplistic reading of Darwinism might suggest it, but simplistic readings of Darwinism suggest a lot of things that don't turn out to be true.
Quite simply, nobody knows: why homosexuality exists, what determines someone's sexual orientation, whether homosexuality is good or bad in terms of reproductive success, how it affects long-term species survival.
That homosexuality is a genetic flaw that, for one reason or another, hasn't yet been bred out - as your comment suggests you believe - is just one explanation. There's also the "kind gay uncle" hypothesis, which postulates that gay family members may contribute to the success of their relatives' children. There's the idea that homosexuality is a natural form of birth control that kicks in when population densities get too high. There are many others.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:03 PM on October 13, 2000
There's also the "kind gay uncle" hypothesis, which postulates that gay family members may contribute to the success of their relatives' children. There's the idea that homosexuality is a natural form of birth control that kicks in when population densities get too high. There are many others.
Mars, enlighten me. I've always taken for granted that homosexuality is something that just is, without a need to find out why ('cause then, we can CURE it!). The population control theory at first blush cracks me up. It seems like a goofy way to explain why there are more gays in NYC than Podunk S.D.; )
posted by Avogadro at 12:34 PM on October 13, 2000
Mars, enlighten me. I've always taken for granted that homosexuality is something that just is, without a need to find out why ('cause then, we can CURE it!). The population control theory at first blush cracks me up. It seems like a goofy way to explain why there are more gays in NYC than Podunk S.D.; )
posted by Avogadro at 12:34 PM on October 13, 2000
Avogadro: I don't know anything about it. I was merely attempting to point out that there is almost certainly a more subtle explanation for the existence of homosexuality than simplistic Darwinism might suggest. I'm not a scientist, nor even a student; just a curious layperson.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:03 PM on October 13, 2000
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:03 PM on October 13, 2000
« Older Dear Blog.... | Duke 2000. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mr. skullhead at 9:53 AM on October 11, 2000