Mobile Adsense

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Baby Boomers: The Bomb That Went Boom and Blamed Us

I have had this conversation about the effectiveness of generations for a while now. I've talked about it with different demographics of age and race and ultimately I come back to the same conclusion. The baby boomer generation has generated the bulk majority of major issues that we currently face and when they have retired the world will be a better place.
I am actually really repulsed because a lot of Boomers I speak to blame their parents, and then when a finger is pointed they also blame their children. Obviously any generation that creates any kind of change will leave wakes of both positive and negative ends. It's inevitable. You cannot really please everyone in the country at the same time. What I'm aiming at here is a massive slide of negative waves versus positive ones, lending that the generation did more bad than it did good. It's not something I'm claiming about every individual. So you there, Mr. or Mrs. Boomer, I'm not specifically saying that you yourself had a direct hand in the downfall. I'm saying that the bulk of influence from your generation created a bad effect and those of you that didn't have a hand didn't stop it. 
I'm going to break this down into the typical claims that people make for and against them to make this easier, because when you talk to a boomer, they claim all kinds of outlandish things and likewise I have seen nonsensical rants from other millennials with absolutely no basis. Thus, here we go.
CLAIMS ABOUT SYSTEMS THAT BOOMERS HAVE BROKEN
  • 1. Climate Change Induced By Humans
Arguably the beginning to excessive use of chemicals that damage our environment was begun by the Boomer generation. Their use of such materials has eroded the use of the more safe alternatives and created dependency. As millennials, we are tasked with making sacrifices that they never made in order to help reverse the actions taken.
  • 2. Savings and Loans
DISCLAIMER: I know this is wiki, but there are about 40 sources at the bottom of the page
Ultimately the major underlying factor among all of the causes of this crisis is a boomer at the head of the banking that governs savings and loans. Giving predatory loans to people who could never afford them so that they could get a bonus was regular. All of the causes for the problems with the S&L industry were done by boomers in charge and supported by boomers in the senate.
  • 3. MASSIVE inflation resulting in stunted subsequent growth
Inflation as boomers graduated high school was around 1.5-2%. Ten years later they were hovering 11-12% inflation while having an increased ability to earn money and having the largest voting block of all time. Not only were they beginning to take power at this time, but they were enjoying the false fruits of epic inflation of gross proportions that led to recession in the 80's. This is actually a huge indicator of massive unemployment that began then and a huge trend in wild spending of money without concern for the future - as we can currently see.
  • 4. Sending Jobs Overseas
Several tax laws (Not NAFTA or other trade agreements - although the certainly didn't help) have caused problems with retaining domestic positions. Until these laws were enacted by Clinton (the first boomer president) and by a primarily boomer senate, the concept of trickle down was actually working pretty well. The problem with trickle down economics is greed, and these tax cuts enabled the wealthy to become wealthier without providing positions for the middle and lower class, leading me to my next point.
  • 5. Wealth Inequality
As a result of the points made in #4, you see in this graph a disparity that has origins in the 70's/80's, as boomers were taking the helm at corporate america.
  • 6. Inflating College Costs
Tuition fees drastically have expanded due to several problems in funding from the federal government that was enacted by Boomers. The loan system for banks is now hopelessly tied to these loans. It would actually be less expensive to forgive all college debt than it would be to bail out all of the banks again. Banks should not be too big to fail.
  • 7. Outrageous Oil Prices
So in the 1970's there was the Iran/Iraq war, which you could argue either way whether we could have helped or not as it's a non-domestic issue. Sure the boomers were taking the helm during that era and held the largest voting block, but I think that it might be fair to write that one off to foreign soil and/or the Silent Generation. Probably more the former than the latter. The second spike, however, is directly in time with us declaring war on an unspecified target (Terrorism?) and pursuing an agenda of military action in the middle east. Coincidentally this was approved in mass by the boomers in politics that were voted for by boomers in majority (roughly 50% of boomers vote as opposed to about 20-30% of other age groups). The more disturbing price is the "real" price and not the nominal one, which is at unparalleled heights in all of history - even since the massive spikes in the 1800's.
  • 8. Social Security Problems
Boomers have statistically paid less into social security and will cash out more from it than any other demographic in history. If it doesn't bankrupt the system, the burden of keeping the system alive will not only shift to the millennials but to the generations after them who will be paying higher tax rates with lower volumes of jobs and less opportunities. By 2032 the boomers will all be able to claim SSI and the system will begin to unravel or taxes will be ravaging everyone besides them.
  • 9. The Housing Bubble
Baby boomers routinely were valuing all of the homes that they had as higher and higher among one another while no actual changes were taking place to the home. A house I bought two years ago, despite having more problems that would exceed the added value to the home, increased in value out of simple principle for some reason. The thought to a lot of boomers was that the properties gained value, and they inherited this from the Silent Generation. That USED to be true when the bulk of properties were large sprawls of land and had very large homes. The reason those homes gained value is because many of them were gone when we started building more houses and started making them smaller. The problem is that boomers ignored this and just kept tacking on value to homes without regard for other trends and then the bubble burst because of other issues that they caused specifically in the Savings & Loans industry.
  • 10. One Of The Least Effective Congress' in History
Despite the boomers having a majority of 65 Senators (to 28 Silent Generation and 9 Xers) in the senate, having 33 states worth of governors, and a total of 276 voting members in the house of representatives (64.137931%). With all of this done and the members collecting their salaries they are among the least productive of all time and are doing the absolute least to impact change because they are so polarized in their factions and they all want to "fight the power" rather than realize that THEY ARE the power and unity is what they need rather than fighting.
  • 11. MASSIVE Government Debt
So debt isn't inherently evil if you are producing product to compensate or if you have investments that can counteract the debt by producing dividends. Unfortunately, the programs that the boomers have enacted for entitlement (specifically for the elderly and retired - convenient now that they are retiring) with no actual return far exceed the actual investment and cause a problem that can only be overcome with more product or more investment that must be sacrificed by the generations following them.
CLAIMS ABOUT SUPPOSED VICTORIES OF THE BOOMERS
  • 1. Civil Rights
The Civil Rights act was passed in 1964 - which was right when the oldest boomers were graduating high school. They likely remember it, but hardly did they have any impact on the legislation for it. Only one year worth of them were able to vote. Hardly an impact on Civil Rights.
  • 2. Musical Revolution
This is actually decidedly true. The Boomers decidedly changed the face of music. Peter Frampton, Journey, Michael Jackson, Queen (Freddie Mercury), and a host of others. Denying the boomers the musical revolution is asinine. They basically invented good music.
  • 3. Vietnam
While you can make an argument that protests were making change in America, we were profiting hand over fist from the war. The problem is that there was a balance between the cost of life and the profit that we were gaining. The deaths and people sent over to vietnam were increasing, but the profits held steady, which is a negative trend. The war seemed to be leaning that it would be coming to an end. The Tet Offensive by the Vietnamese drastically changed that outlook and made it appear as it truly would be - a stalemate - and decidedly marked the point where we changed our stance. The Vietnamese essentially ended our involvement in the war with the Tet Offensive.
Not to mention that Operation Northwoods decidedly left the boomer generation in the dark about what was really happening because they also didn't have the internet or access to information besides the news. (Let's not even get into the other proven true conspiracies about their time in power - like the heart attack gun)
It should be noted though that they did need to endure the draft, which was horrendous by any standards and they have my sympathies on that end especially given that the war was essentially for profit.
  • 4. Women's Rights
Theoretically this is ambiguous. A lot of monumental legislation like the CRA and other things were passed before they were even in the opportunity to vote for such legislation. There was also a massive movement of women's rights that were happening previous to their time pushing it. On the other side of that coin, they DID push that agenda for women dramatically and caused a lot more things to happen in the public spotlight than had previously. This one I would call a draw at best. The laws that enabled a lot of them to do what they did were passed before they did it, but their actions did spur a lot of further action.
  • 5. Sexual Revolution
This one I also call a draw, on several grounds. First, Alfred Kinsey decidedly started the revolution in the 50's with his controversial research and he was decidedly NOT a boomer. The Revolution actually started closer to the mid-1930's and 40's, but Kinsey publishing Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale set of a huge spark in the revolution. So the boomers didn't really "start" the revolution, but it did explode under their care.
On the other hand, the spread of HIV infections peaked in the 80's, as they matured but had minimal information on HIV and AIDS. Not to mention the wide spread of other STD's that still plague our nation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598671/bin/st26245.f6.gif)
So on the grounds that they didn't start it, and their expansion was so uninformed about it as to wide spread disease for several generations, I'm calling this one a draw. We have more liberties and understanding but at the cost of disease and death.
  • 6. Technology
So yes/no here also. A lot of the technology began in it's infancy long before the boomers got a hold of it, but they did take technologies very very far. They took computers from number crunching machines to what they are now (Thanks Gates and Jobs!). They created the wireless systems that we all now enjoy and updated the phones that we use. I wouldn't say they invented the ideas for a lot of technology, but they absolutely expanded that technology. Our generation, including Mark Zuckerberg, is currently using those technologies to revolutionize communication. This is a resounding YES for the boomers. They have given vast new ways to communicate and widely opened technology.
  • 7. The Cold War
Um...half of the cold war was over before the boomers reached 18 years old. Most of politics was run by the Silent Generation still. This is a resounding no. While there were contributions that happened to wrap things up toward the late 70's and 80's, most of it happened because of some very heavy lifting on the hands of the generation before the boomers and them doing things that we would never consider ethical.
  • 8. Fixed Polio
The Polio cases and vaccines happened while boomers were alive, but not when they were in power. It was again the Silent Generation who came up with most of the cures for these problems and consequently the cases drastically reduced in the 50's. This is like 3/4 no, but also 1/4 yes, because the Boomers did create more versions of it and standardize the use of it.
  • 9. Established better retirement
Boomers have done a ton to bolster social security and set up nursing homes. The problem is that since they have put their parents in these nursing homes there is a wild flurry for how horrible those places are. In addition, there were a lot of gaps in Social Security that caused problems for their parents. They have moved to fix those holes, but haven't chipped anything more into the pot while beginning to already cash out. So they fixed a system for themselves and are now depleting it while not likely to go into the said homes that they created for their parents. This is also a resounding failure.
CONCLUSION
Based on all of the observable problems that have been created by leaders from that generation (not during their generation, mind you, but BY MEMBERS OF their generation), the lackluster performance of a bulk of their important contributions, and the very self-absorbed nature of a lot of the mindsets I am currently of the opinion that they are actually (as a collective) the problem with progress. This doesn't mean there aren't great people in the generation who did great things. It means that the bad things they allowed their leaders to do and voted those leaders in for, drastically outweigh the benefits of the good things they did by marching and so on. I don't think the bulk of the generation had ill intentions or is that greedy, but undoubtedly the major influencing powers from the generation have left a generation of greed, selfishness, and personal ambition at the expense of anything else.
Feel free to show me wrong. I am more than happy to hear about all of the definitive evidence about how they did great things and did NOT cause most of the problems we have today.
Disclaimer: I might come off as smug but I just speak in a more matter-of-fact tone. I'm always open to other opinions as long as they are actually supported and not inane statements like, "I don't need a source because I was there."

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Blood Moons

I'm actually really super mega tired of hearing about people claiming that Jesus is going to come back during the blood moons or people coming up with silly theories about the blood moons.

Let's get a few things under the "reigns" here first so we are all under the same premises:

1 - What we call a "blood moon" is actually the name for a total lunar eclipse. There are two things that need to happen in order for this to take place. First, the moon has to been in the "full moon" phase in order for it to happen. Second, the moon needs to pass into the shadow of the earth. The earth has a partial and a full shadow. The blood moon only occurs in the full shadow of the earth.

2 - The current calendar that we use is the Gregorian Calendar. Prior to that (circa 1580's) we used the Julian calendar. These dates figure longer and shorter for given months.

3 - The Jewish calendar is based on typical lunar cycles and their holidays correspond.

4 - Jewish Holidays aren't singular days such as "Christmas" or "Easter" but they last for about a week for the major holidays.

5 - Blood Moons aren't something that everyone everywhere on earth can view at the same time. When we are having night and view the eclipse the other side of the earth is experiencing day and the eclipses only last a few hours.

6 - When four of these "Blood Moons" occur within two years it's called a "tetrad" because of the rarity. From the time of 1c.e. there will have been 62 Tetrads until 2100c.e.


So there is a lot of conjecture about when these fall because people are making a lot of buzz about them falling on Jewish Holidays. This actually will have happened 8 times:

1. 162-163 C.E. (Common Era)
2. 795-796 C.E.
3. 842-843 C.E.
4. 860-861 C.E.
5. 1493-1494 C.E.
6. 1949-1950 C.E.
7. 1967-1968 C.E.
8. 2014-2015 C.E.

I'm actually kind of tired of hearing about famous events as if they are some sort of crazy happening. For instance, in 1967 the 76ers won the NBA Championship on the same day of the April Blood moon. That doesn't mean anything. The game was on that day. If the other team won you could draw your own lines in that way too. Later that year, Disney's "Jungle Book" was released on the next one. The other two from 1968 have no significant events tied with them.

The fact is that what happens with people and the moon is a lot of times based on how we interact with things. I do know the biblical prophecies and I see a lot of people drawing conclusions about what happens with Israel and the blood moon. Here's the problem with that line of thinking. Those blood moons on those holidays would have happened whether anything happened with Israel or not. It was the way the moon was moving in relation to the sun and the earth. If Israel didn't declare independence from Brittain in 1948 the blood moons still would have happened and it would still have been on those holidays.

It's wildly erratic to pull conclusions from what people do in relation to a natural phenomenon that we could calculate into the foreseeable future. If you believe Jesus is coming back, great! Good! I'm just saying that these occurrences are not likely what the prophets were talking about as it is inevitable that some of those people too had seen a blood moon before the prophecies were ever made. Those prophecies also mention an earthquake right before them that "moves mountains and islands" and a ton of stars falling from the sky.

Sometimes having a little context is more important than being right. Sure the bible could be talking about these blood moons, but if they are the earthquake and big happenings with them aren't there. Instead maybe we stop focusing on "getting out of here" and remember that Jesus said this:

Jesus replied: “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Nobody is Born Gay

In recent media, it has become increasingly popular to talk about the LGBT community and it seems to be a very divided situation. There are conservatives who think that people choose to be gay and there are the liberals that think that you are born one way or another. The truth of the matter is actually much much more surface level than that and it has a lot of science to back it up.

Before I even start into the topic, I'm going to make a DISCLAIMER here: In this blog I will be talking about "private" parts and I intend to refer to them by their names. I don't be using slang for them but not using the actual names makes things even more confusing and given the nature of how confused people seem to be about it the argument is better suited with real terms.

Now that it's out of the way, I plan to discuss the variant types of sexuality by breaking them down into the following elements:

1. All People Are Sexual
2. Rules of Attraction
3. Conditioning
4. Pools of Availability
5. How Choice Works

Rather than discussing each type of sexuality I will make here a list of types that all conform to the same set of rules:

1. Non-Sexuality -uninterested in any sexual activity
2. Asexuality -only interested in sexual activity by ones self
3. Homosexuality -having interest solely in the same gender
4. Heterosexuality -having interest solely in the opposite gender
5. Bisexuality - having interest in both genders

In these categories, there really isn't any such thing as 3 or 4, but I will discuss this later. Instead, for right now, let's just use the logical argument that they are a possibility simply because they are options rather than considering the real world application of them being entirely unobserved. On to the point.

ALL PEOPLE ARE SEXUAL
In all of science and nature we observe things in relation to their capacity for reproduction. We generally refer to this as their sexuality. Some things produce asexually, meaning within themselves. Some things produce heterosexually, meaning with the opposite gender. Ultimately, even among all of the five categories mentioned in the list, the goal of all of nature in any of those systems is a system for reproduction.

I am going to denounce here any kind of assertion that reproduction is the value for sexuality alone. It is much much more complex than mere reproductive value, as recent science mentions that the hormones that influence attraction for same-sex features for an in-utero fetus also cause the mother to become several times more fertile. If you're conservative and latching onto the idea of reproduction, your efforts are futile. If you are liberal and claiming that it's not the only function, you are correct but don't get too hasty.

What I mean when I say that all people are sexual is actually really simple. Everyone has an personal take on sexuality. They either do or do not prefer to engage in sexual activity. If they do, then they either do with others or alone. I it's with others then there must be a method of deciding which they will have interaction with - men or women. So all people are sexual in nature. We actually have tons of proof for this in your genetics. There are actual genes in your DNA that decidedly make you sexual. Everyone is sexual.

What does this mean? It's actually really simple. Nobody "IS" gay or straight or bi. We are all sexual beings and there is a number of variations we can choose from at any given moment and they are all consistently available to us. Good. Got it.

RULES OF ATTRACTION
This is where we get into the fun stuff. I am by no means "the authority" on all things regarding attraction. Nobody is. It's still a widely researched subject, but we can identify a few simple basics. Everyone who is interested in someone else for sexual activity must have a set of criteria that separates those that they find viable from those that they do not or you would simply sleep with everyone and anyone.

RULE #1: Attraction is not set in stone. It is ever-changing.

This is actually part of the beautiful thing with attraction. This is what allows two people to consistently be attracted to one another despite that her breasts sag, his hair runs for the back of his neck, her face gets wrinkles, and he becomes a curmudgeon such as myself. The fact that she can love my fat belly and still learn to love me while I lose weight and the fact that I will love her despite her size, hair, makeup, or whatever is what makes the relationship the most viable and as a product of that reproduction most viable. Attraction, from an evolutionary standpoint is required to be changing so as to prolong the species for the most possible applications. It's a beautiful thing that we aren't all locked into thinking that the Cheerleader or the Swimsuit model is attractive. To be candid, at the moment I do not personally find those looks attractive at all, but I will talk about the why of that in a later point.

The Kinsey Scale is a good and replicated experiment that shows that people at different times change their sexuality by some element (Kinsey Scale Experiment). In the experiment it is actually only a very short period of time for anyone that they are exclusively one type of sexual and even then it's largely skewed. The results actually suggest that there is never really a moment where people are solely one sexuality type but rather we are all bi-sexually capable at most times.

RULE #2: We are not attracted to GENDER. We are attracted to features.

Science is ever confirming that what drives the attraction template is features.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/17-facts-about-human-sexual-attraction_n_3817941.html)

We are not decidedly attracted to a gender. If I did makeup for a girl to look EXACTLY like Hugh Jackman and took a picture and then placed it next to a picture of the real thing, my wife would find both attractive despite that the one has a vagina and the other has a penis because the way Hugh Jackman looks has features that she finds attractive. If we were solely attracted to someone based on genitalia we would all be unable to be attracted to someone unless they were naked. Alas, here we are in a day and age where we are attracted to features and not to gender per se. That's not to say there is no balance there either. Let's say that I was attracted to skinny  arms. I might find that attractive, but when the person also has a hairy face and zitted back, I've weighted those unattractive features as heavier than the attractive "skinny arms." This lends us to the next rule.

RULE # 3: Everyone is attracted in some capacity to both genders as a product of rule #2.

Features are not unique to a gender that do not define their gender. That is to say, having wide hips is not uniquely female. There are males with this feature. Being hairy isn't intrinsically a male feature. There are hairy women. For any given stimulus for attraction it can be given to both male and female counterparts. If you are sitting there as a conservative thinking, "No way! There is no way I'm attracted to the same gender at all!" you are already missing it. It isn't suggesting that you are interested in the same gender as a whole being. It's suggesting that both genders will exhibit features that you find attractive. This is actually supported by science over and over again

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kinseyinstitute.org%2Fresearch%2Fak-hhscale.html&ei=3mVAU6rxKces2QWrjoFY&usg=AFQjCNGoiHbeU40wSH_o5fRDVdNVE7JhQw&sig2=JPNDTnXXibHeaht7L9di9g&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I)

So decidedly, we all have the ability to be attracted to both genders if we are a sexual in a way that is not non-sexual or asexual.

I'm sure there are a ton of other rules, but these are ones that I can define through a vast amount of reading on the subject and going over several scientific journals to find. They all circle back to these three main points and generally try to define sub-rules within these three.

CONDITIONING
In the media there is a drastic problem with how people view this. It has widely been held to believe that you could simply condition someone to be interested in the opposite sex by exposing them to those conditions long enough. The problem with that is Rule #2 of the rules of attraction. You aren't exclusively attracted to one given gender.

There are a few different things that condition you to like a given feature and this is a part that science is particularly concerned with understanding at the moment - so forgive any gaps in the explanation. If you have more information about how conditioning happens here, please feel free to comment. Anyway, onward and upward.

The recent scientific thought is that conditioning actually begins in the womb. The hormones given off by the mother and the environment of the womb begins you conditioning to certain hormones and certain stimuli that give you a positive or negative result and those results cause you to be conditioned for that response. So if you take a given feature you can actually come up with any number of variant ways to condition that feature. This is a lot of the difficulty of science right now and them trying to find out what makes someone straight or gay - forget the fact that nobody is decidedly either for their whole life.

Let's take an example of a "square jaw line" as a feature. I might have had a lot of people who had square jaw lines reach out to me in love as a child and I could have felt those feelings. As a result, when I see the feature, my body is conditioned to produce the same chemical response in a similar way that our body is conditioned to produce dopamine when we see other people smile

 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.bufferapp.com%2Fthe-science-of-smiling-a-guide-to-humans-most-powerful-gesture&ei=Q2hAU-H2KsT22AXF1YGwDA&usg=AFQjCNEwFZLsRq3tDDHzaZcHYoyXRdnBpg&sig2=ahg29B-SmmkCNq4pSGhWXA&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I).

Most recently there have been advances in the study of conditioning and sexual desires. Here are some recent studies on sexual conditioning:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14739689 (2004)
This study shows from 2004 the effectiveness of conditioning sexual response to a non-sexual object entirely - in this case a gun and it provides quite successful results
"The results provide evidence for appetitive classical conditioning of sexual response in women, and are the first to show attenuation of sexual response in women by aversive conditioning" 
"Genital and subjective sexual responses were successfully modulated by the differential conditioning paradigm. This replication of our previous study confirms the effectiveness of our conditioning procedure and indicates that it may provide a fruitful paradigm for further research on associative sexual reward learning in humans."

It's not really possible to dial all of the interactions that I have with square jaw lines to a definitive action. It's also not definitive that it is only male people who have given these experiences. What is definitive in this example would be that the square jaw line would then make me feel the same feelings of love in a biochemical way and I will be conditioned to seek these features out. Simple enough but then this plays into the next point.

POOLS OF AVAILABILITY
The thing that trips people up is exactly like what I was illustrating in the last point. If I were, for instance, conditioned to be attracted to square jaw lines, there is a finite group of people who possess the feature of having a square jaw line unless we were to surgically alter everyone to have them and then I would have some remote attraction to everyone.

The uniqueness of features serves to divide people into pools for the propagation of a given species. Generally, we like to find people with features similar to ourselves, as a rule of thumb, but not everyone is conditioned that way. In the case of the square jaw line, if that was my attraction for that feature then I might be led to conclude that I am more attracted to men because more men have square jaw lines than women. That's not definitively the truth. Assume that I put that person in a room with 10 square jawed women. If one of them had enough features that I found attractive, I would be attracted to that woman. It's actually really simple how the fundamentals work. It's a balance of attraction vs unattraction. If you have more features that I find attractive than those that I do not I will consequently find you attractive.

For some people, this can become very very difficult. Let's assume that you have a trait that is very rare that is conditioned to you as attractive - say hetrachromia (having two different colored eyes). If that is something that my mother had and I was conditioned to find attractive I have now reduced my options for finding that specific feature to roughly 1% of the nation. That's not too bad because I might have other features that are more common that outweigh that need, but let's say that I am also conditioned for red hair and very pale skin. I have now given myself to roughly a 4% chance if I searched all of the continental US to find someone with all three of those features. If those are weighted the most heavily, I may well assume that I need to "settle" or that I simply won't find someone attractive.

If I were conditioned to find mostly male characteristics then I am limiting myself to a very small portion of females but a very large portion of males. This might lead me to believe that "I am a gay male" but that's not really the truth. The truth is that I am conditioned to be attracted to features that are predominantly found in men. I am not gay or straight. I am conditioned and I select partners based on the pool of availability for a given set of desired features that will outweigh the undesired ones.

HOW CHOICE WORKS
If I were to say to you, "I have blargs and splarks. Which do you prefer?" you are then instantly provided with a choice. That is to say, when you are provided more than one option for any given need/want then you are afforded choice unless you are forced into one option without the ability to go to the other. For instance, there are several options for eye color, but I cannot actually choose mine. I can cover it up with contacts but I cannot actually change my eye color. I can color my hair, but I can never actually change my hair color. Those are forced on my through my DNA and I have absolutely no choice in the matter.

In sexuality, there are decidedly elements of your DNA that make you a sexual being. We have several studies that can actually pinpoint several chromosomes that are decidedly involved with your sexual decision making and the balancing of those desired and undesired features. In the case of the blargs and the splarks, we have no actual criteria as to value one over the other, so you still have a choice, but as of right now it is entirely arbitrary as I have given no values to them. If I say that blargs make you wealthy and splarks will make you poor, you would have a large portion of people who will now prefer blargs because they prefer to be wealthy versus poor, understandably.

The good thing about sexuality is that it's not defined in terms of gender entirely because you are attracted to features. It's not really the choice of "do you prefer men or women" unless you have interacted with both a penis and a vagina and then you could make a choice between the two. That wouldn't mean that just because you prefer penis as a man that you will only like men. It only means that if you found enough favorable traits on a man and he happened to have a penis then you are with a more suitable partner for what you have been conditioned to like. It works the other way around also.

So for the most part the gender of someone is only one element of whether you are attracted to them or not. In reality, you are weighing several features simultaneously. It's not "do you find this man attractive?" because that's too vague. It's more like, "do you like this man's eyes? smile? hair? physique? height? weight? body hair? intelligence? voice? laugh? and so on for an almost infinite set." If you like more than you dislike, you would say that the person is an attractive person. Fine.

The trouble is that there isn't always only two types. Like hair. There is blonde, brunette, red, white, silver, and a few other natural shades of hair. What's happening here is that you are prioritizing the attractiveness of given hair colors. For instance, I personally find red hair to be an attractive trait. Red hair is unique and I recall several of the women who took care of me when I was growing as having red hair. There weren't a lot of adult figures who did this for me, so the ones that did have left an impression - I am attracted to red hair. That said, it doesn't mean that the others are entirely out. That would be silly. What it means is that red is the first on the list, but if that red hair doesn't match their skin then it's decidedly at the bottom of the list. So you can see even with the hair how it's conditional and ranked.

These complications are another area where science is working to improve and it is what they mean by environmental situations that help condition a given response. All of this said to say that maybe the ideal line up of all of my most desirable traits exists out there, but that doesn't guarantee that I will find that combination attractive because part of the reason you find something attractive is that they repeat conditions that you had before, and it may either not be possible to have all conditions at one time that you find attractive or on the other hand having them all at the same time creates a new condition that you may or may not find attractive intrinsically.

GET TO THE POINT ALREADY?!
Okay. My point is that nobody is born gay or straight. Nobody sits down and says, "oh I am going to be gay/straight now." Everyone is conditioned to like certain features. For some people these features appear most often in the same sex. That doesn't make them straight or gay. It means only that the features they like the most appear in their own gender.

All of the political jargon going around and people saying things is actually wildly frustrating to me. People use words like "orientation" to mean something other than what it means. Being oriented means that you are set facing a given direction. It doesn't mean you cannot deviate from that path. It doesn't mean that you won't. It means that when you were born, the conditions in the womb were already beginning to make you attracted to a given set of features that may be verified by any of our five senses.

It is frustrating to no end when I see people on either side of the fence who have a severe lack of understanding with how these things work make sweeping statements that have no basis in either science or psychology. If you are conservative and you believe that making gay decisions is sin, okay. That doesn't mean that the person is a "gay" person. The bible doesn't call anyone "gay" but it does say that laying with a man as a man does a woman is sin. Some of it comes to understanding. They very well may feel like they are not in control. If you are a male who is conditioned to liking facial hair and bulky muscles it is going to be a very narrow pool of women that fit your model and we haven't even started to factor in social cues.

If you are liberal, stop saying that people were "born gay/straight" because that's equally wrong on the same grounds. People are not gay or straight. People are people first. Then they are sexual. Among sexuality there are variant types and you are attracted to features that cross several types. Everyone is. EVERYONE is. You aren't born any one way or another.

In the end, everyone deserves the same rights because in the end we are all the same. We are all sexual people who respond by balancing features that we have been conditioned to find attractive by ranking them. If one of those people has the right to do something, then so do all of them. It makes no difference what their choices are because if you are liberal you should agree that everyone deserves rights and if you are conservative you should believe that everyone was given the same rights by the same loving God.

SIDE NOTES FOR MY CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS
I am a Christian. I do believe that making gay decisions is sin, but we are not called to hold people who are not Christian to the same standards as we are. If they do not know Jesus, how effective is convincing them that those gay choices are sin? What does that serve? Are they now getting to heaven? No. They still don't know Jesus.

What definitively changes people in our belief system is a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Will there be people in heaven who have done gay things? Absolutely there will because the blood of Jesus has more power than anything else. The only way to show people Jesus is to show them love, because God is love.

As Christians, we can be on the "right" side of a given issue but lose the battle and that is what we currently are doing. If people look at us and do not see love, even love for the LGBT community, then why would they be curious as to what we have? Wouldn't they simply wish to get rid of it?