Absolutely hilarious column at the following website wherein the author, after a month of gay marriages in San Francisco, demands to know where his promised apocalypse is in a tone evocative of Marvin the Martian perplexed over the absence of the Earth-shattering kaboom.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
PAD
• 
Mark Morford is brilliant and, as you note, hilarious. Here’s a link to all of his Notes & Errata columns (I have it on my sidebar too). You can also sign up to receive his twice-weekly Morning Fix e-mails, which contain his N&Es plus other cool stuff. He often passes on some of his hate mail verbatim. I think he has a bit of a fatphobia blinder at times, but other than that I pretty much worship his writing. 🙂
“While you’re at it, God also really hates shrimp.” Awesome.
If I had my way the government would get out of the marage business. No benefits, no tax breaks/penilties. Nada.
Ohyeah, no Divorce either.
Maybe it took the same detour that “global cooling” did.
In fairness, any divisive or partisan issue always has folks screaming that it’s the end that’s good and virtuous.
Personally, I want to hear from the heterosexual couples that can’t stay married if gay folks are getting married. You know, the whole “they’re ruining it for the rest of us” argument.
And I wonder if Arnold expected anything like this when he became governor…
Do you think that Sodom and Gomorrah might have been destroyed because all of the inhabitants, except for a few that were taken out of the cities, were unnatural in their lusts and indulged in immoral and abominable practices?
Wow. That was a great article. Thanks for the link.
*warning, tangential rant about to occur*
Since Novafan mentioned the word “unnatural”, I feel the need to spout off on a tangent related to the gay marriage thing (not that this has anything to do with what Novafan said either, it’s just been on my mind and the word triggered it again). It’s about the whole issue of some people calling homosexuality and gay marriage “unnatural”. Well, if it were unnatural, it wouldn’t occur in nature, right? But, even outside of the human species, homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, whether it’s a bonding thing, a loneliness thing or a dominance thing or whatever (you can’t really ask a male monkey why he likes other male monkeys and expect to get a coherent answer. Same goes for dogs, birds, whatever). And the fact that it happens in humans makes it natural too. Love and reproduction are separate concepts. I think perhaps it’s a problem with terminology. Skyscrapers are unnatural. Pavement is unnatural. Man flying is unnatural. Anything that doesn’t occur in nature is unnatural. Hëll, the square rooms in our houses are unnatural. Like it or not, and whether or not you think it’s icky, homosexuality *is* natural.
Alright, end rant.
Monkeys.
Regarding the delay of the apocalypse:
I knew “The Good Die Young” was a great health plan for the individual, but who knew it protected our entire species? So much is now explained…
I viewed the article as more on the same tone as Avery Brooks’s “Where are my flying cars?” IBM commercials from several years back, but Marvin works too…. *chuckle*
—KRAD
“homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom”
I’ve never understood this argument. It exists in the animal kingdom, so what’s wrong with it existing for humans?
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
“Alright, end rant.
Monkeys.”
No, not just monkeys – homosexual, incestuous, perverted bonobo chimpanzees!!
Them animals is all gonna burn in Hëll, I tell ya!
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
Exactly. The term I’ve heard used before is “moral vacuum”.
“Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?”
Perhaps it is we who do not think like them. And yeah, animals in the animal kingdom (which humans are a part of) *can* tell the difference between the sexes.
But, in some regards you might be right about animals not thinking like we do. They don’t think about destroying their environment to make money, or building bombs to blow each other up, or killing for fun. Yeah, I know I’m sounding like a tree hugging hippy right now. But part of my point is that humans aren’t much different than the animals we think we are so much superior to, and in some cases we aren’t as superior as we think we are. We aren’t the end all be all, and the only distance between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is what we convince ourselves of.
Big Honkin’ Feces Throwin’ Monkeys
The argument goes like this –
“Homosexuality is bad!”
Why?
“Because it’s unnatural!”
If it’s unnatural, that means it’s contrary to nature, n’est-ce pas? If it’s “contrary to nature”, then by definition animals, ruled as they are by instinct, should not be able to engage in it, just as they are unable to engage in the building of superhighways, the deliberate deforestation of millions of hectares, or the construction of powered heavier-than-air craft (all quite “unnatural”, thank you).
In the event, homosexuality is hardly unknown in the animal kingdom. Few animals practice it as a preference (oddly enough, the same is true of humans); however, there are those dogs, wolves, dolphins, etc., that seem to bond exclusively with members of their own gender. Thus, it cannot, by definition, be “unnatural” – it’s quite evident in nature…
(And the suggestion that animals might not know the difference between males and females of their own species is just plain silly.)
“(And the suggestion that animals might not know the difference between males and females of their own species is just plain silly.)”
So, if most animals know the difference between males and females of their own species (which I agree with in most cases), why would they go for a member of the same sex?
Do you think it’s a choice that they make?
So, some animals eat their young. And many are cannibalistic, seemingly without negative consequences.
Why not take this the whole way with humans. Or is picking and choosing too easy.
“That’s absurd” you may say.
Heck, animals don’t get married. Why should this be a debate? Abolish all weddings period, and humans and animals can once again live in harmony.
\\So, if most animals know the difference between males and females of their own species (which I agree with in most cases), why would they go for a member of the same sex?
Do you think it’s a choice that they make?\\
Because they’re homosexual. That’s the whole point. And jsut like in humanity, it’s not a choice.
Man, the quetions people ask when they don’t want to accept what’s right in front of their noses…
Look, I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, outside of religious beliefs (which by nature don’t require rational analysis), can believe that homosexuality is a choice. Who would choose it?
At no point in my life did I ever think “Well it’s time to pick my path in life and I’m going to go with the one that includes breasts.” If some guy wants to kiss a big hairy truckdriver, well, better him than me. We are obviously on different wavelengths so who am I to say he’s making a bad choice? I can’t understand how those who feel revulsion over the very thought of same sex sex can’t get it through their noggins that gays are not feeling the same thoughts. It’s not a choice. (And I don’t mean to repeat myself but again, WHY would anyone choose Harvey Firestein over just about any woman on the planet?).
If the anti gay folks want to argue that homosexuality is some kind of mental condition, that’s another argument but to think that this is some kind of malicious choice designed to just pìšš øff one’s parents…I just don’t get it.
The conventional wisdom on Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be that God looked down, saw acts he disapproved of, and wiped the cities out.
If I may float yet another silly perspective:
Does the Bible say what _else_ these people were doing?
What if all the Sodomites and Gomorreans were doing with their lives was partying, copulating, and etcetera. Straight, bent, didn’t matter, but 100% of the waking hours spent like pigs at the trough.
I could imagine a cranky God thinking “I built human beings for thought and constructive work, of which these idiots are doing neither!” and putting a quick, bloody stop to the goings-on.
Also, without all these gay marriages we wouldn’t get this headline from the Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-rosie27.html just in case you think, quite reasonably, that I’m making this up)
Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush
Novafan,
I can say with 100 percent certainty that I did not CHOOSE to be homosexual. I did not CHOOSE to fear my parents (who I care for and have always had a good relationship with) would cast me out of their lives (they didn’t). I didn’t CHOOSE to lose friends when they found out the truth and couldn’t handle it. I didn’t CHOOSE to have times where I feared for my life because I was walking out of a gay bar or holding hands with another guy.
The only choices I made were when I tried to pretend to be straight and when I chose to be honest with myself and other people about who I truly was. If you don’t understand that then I doubt there is much more I can say. You obviously know very little about homosexuality so don’t be stupid enough to make assumptions about us, okay?
By the way – Someone you know is gay. Probably more than one person. Probably someone you care about. We’re everywhere. And we’re not going anywhere.
Peter, thanks for being on our side, it’s appreciated. Same goes to others who post here.
If no one would choose homosexuality, then can someone
explain bi-sexuals to me?
Those dámņ dirty apes.
“If no one would choose homosexuality, then can someone
explain bi-sexuals to me?”
Have you ever seen someone who goes to a buffet restaurant, then stands in front of the entrees, unable to make a decision?
Bisexuals are the “undecideds” in the sexual banquet hall of life. Should he have the chicken, or the beef? And that lobster’s looking pretty good, too… Oh, what the hëll – put ’em ALL on the plate!
“Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?”
Maybe they just figure, “Any port in a storm…”?
JSM
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
Yes. Interestingly enough, they also seem to know the difference between their siblings and others. You rarely see two siblings in the animal kingdom hooking up and mating for life. I’m not going to say it doesn’t happen at all because I don’t know. I DO know that it happens among humans a lot more than people probably think, and no, I’ve never engaged in it, nor do I know if any of my relatives ever have. The closest I’ve ever come was having the hots for a third cousin.
There used to be a cartoon strip with a pair of really hot twin girls who were being raised by their aunt and uncle. The thing is their aunt and uncle were brother and sister, living together and had never been married. I gotta admit, that strip always made me wonder. Does anybody know the name of the strip?
Of course it’s natural. Anyone who says it’s a choice is a moron.
The best thoery I’ve read on the subject is that homosexuality is a kind of natures form of population control. It’s been obeserved that homosexual behaviour (in all species) tends to grow in relation to the increase in population density.
Absolutely hilarious column at the following website wherein the author, after a month of gay marriages in San Francisco, demands to know where his promised apocalypse is in a tone evocative of Marvin the Martian perplexed over the absence of the Earth-shattering kaboom.
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape; you don’t spit into the wind; you don’t pull the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger; and you don’t write columns like Mark Morford just did from a city sitting on a major fault zone.
If “The Big One” happens in San Francisco tomorrow, and a building falls on Morford’s head, there will inevitably be a multitude of people who are going to wag their finger in the direction of Northern California and say, “I told you so.”
Whether you happen to be religious or not, I’ve seen far more ironic and impossible-to-believe things happen in my lifetime.
To quote a famous rabbit, “What a maroon!”
Russ Maheras
Dennis Miller– long before he outed himself as a “Conservative Comedian” (whatever that means) said this about bi-sexuals (and I paraphrase):
Bi-sexuals are people who are seemingly straddling a fence. I don’t really care what they do– I just wish they would jump off the fence and PICK A HOLE.
That said, I did enjoy reading the referenced article until I realized that it WENT ON AND ON AND ON…(much like my entry here)… and my eyes started to glaze over like they did when I used to subject myself to some of Dennis “I’m about to be cancelled by HBO” Miller’s lame, overblown, later in life rants.
*While you’re at it, God also really hates shrimp.*
This doesn’t apply to Christians, because Jesus said something like “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles them.” This is why Christians eat ham and pork today.
As for homosexuality:
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.
…Jesus said something like “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles them.”
I’m sorry – the joke here is just too, *too* obvious… 🙂
Let’s not forget the other moral lesson of the Sodom and Gomorrah story: If a mob wants to gang-rape your guests, you should offer them your virgin daughters instead. (This wisdom comes to us courtesy of Lot, who also impregnated both his daughters after they got him drunk.)
Doesn’t anybody actually read these stories, or do they just pick and choose for the bits that reinforce their pre-existing prejudices?
**s for homosexuality:
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.**
Yes, and there is some research showing that homosexuality in wolves generates more males that protect the pack without engendering competition for mates. This leads to more offspring for packs that have limited number of homosexual offspring.
Not that I think this research is bullet proof, but one should be careful of using organizing principles like evolution in a simplistic manner.
Bill muses,
At no point in my life did I ever think “Well it’s time to pick my path in life and I’m going to go with the one that includes breasts.
If I ever create one of those terrible “affirmation” calendars, methinks “Well, it’s time to…” above has got to be the lead-off quote. Ðámņ, dámņ funny.
And Keith — I dunno if I see it as Marvin or Brooks, but I think it’s more Marvin. It sounds more indignant to me than either of the above, though — maybe a Denis Leary sort of thing.
TWL
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.
Beyond Roger’s rebuttal, which I agree with totally, you could only argue it’s a disorder if it appears on its own.
There is every likelihood that it somehow comes hand-in-hand with some other evolutionary trait that is positive — Roger’s suggestion is a good one, and there might be others.
If it truly were an evolutionary dead-end, it’d be unlikely to occur across dozens of species and last for eons.
TWL
Wow, I read this wrong I guess.
Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams bush
Ah, the old “It’s wrong because it’s unnatural,” “But it happens in nature, animals do it!” “It’s wrong because it lowers us to the level of beasts!” byplay.
It’s wrong because you’ve decided it makes you feel bad in some way, and will stop at nothing to justify your kneejerk reaction by invoking higher principles. Doesn’t matter if it’s natural or unnatural, either will support your argument.
Bah.
Look, I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, outside of religious beliefs (which by nature don’t require rational analysis), can believe that homosexuality is a choice. Who would choose it?
People who like it? I mean, come on. People make a choice to get beaten with whips and and tied up and humiliated, and deficated and urinated on. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination an advocate for the gay lifestyle, but given the choice between sleeping with men or getting pooped and pìššëd on, hëll, bring on the dancing boys!
OK, I guess it’s time SOMEONE tugged on Superman’s cape while spitting into the wind…
I support gay marriage. I think it’s a matter of time before it becomes recognized. But I can NOT support the way it’s happening right now.
In Massachusetts (as a New Hampshirite, I gotta ask: why do so many bad things come from Massachusetts?), four of seven judges voted in favor of gay marriage. But they didn’t simply say “it’s OK.” They openly ORDERED the legislature to rewrite the laws. Massachusetts’ constitution has a very clear separation of powers clause, and it says the court cannot make law — only interpret it. The three dissenting judges all cited this clause, but the other four blithely ignored it.
Then, in California, one mayor decided to recognize gay marriages. This he did after California voters approved a referendum specifically banning gay marriage in a 61-39 vote in 2002.
In this light, President Bush’s proposed amendment to the federal constitution is not quite as insane as it seems at first blush. Currently four judges are busily rewriting a state’s constitution (OK, nitpickers, a commonwealth’s constitution) and one mayor of one city is freely defying a law passed by a clear majority of the citizens.
Also, take a look at Bush’s proposed amendment. While it does specifically restrict “marriage” to one man and one woman, here’s this alleged “religious right-wing extremist” calling for gay civil unions to be written into the Constitution, specifically saying that states can choose to recognize them. That is such a HUGE step forward from a few years ago.
Voltaire once said “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Similarly, in this case, the “fabulous” is the enemy of the “fine, whatever.” A push for civil unions now, with a hold being put on actual “marriage,” would probably pass muster in most of the states. But if actual marriage is pushed for, I worry about a conservative backlash that will result in even civil unions getting shot down for years to come.
J.
Jonathan wrote: “Bisexuals are the “undecideds” in the sexual banquet hall of life. Should he have the chicken, or the beef? And that lobster’s looking pretty good, too… Oh, what the hëll – put ’em ALL on the plate!”
Um, my ex-girlfriend (who I’m still friends with) is bisexual — and it’s very, very difficult for her. She doesn’t know if she’ll ever be able to commit to one gender, she doesn’t know how or when to bring it up when on a date, she doesn’t even decide when she’s attracted to men or to women. For the lucky bisexuals, I suppose, bisexuality is choosing which gender they want. For the unlucky, it can be continuing uncertainity about what gender they find attractive. It’s not some pornstar-type life, or having more choices than everyone else.
“Man, the quetions people ask when they don’t want to accept what’s right in front of their noses… “
That sums it up right there doesn’t it? Maybe we don’t want some things right in front of our noses.
On a side note, which one of you can say that every thing you do throughout the day doesn’t involve a choice? Prove me wrong on this.
From the beginning of the day when you decide if you’re going to hit the snooze button and roll over (instead of getting up) to the time you go to bed at night you make choices.
Everything you do is a choice.
Best.
Headline.
Ever.
(Man, did I laugh!)
Rob
Jay Tea wrote In Massachusetts (as a New Hampshirite, I gotta ask: why do so many bad things come from Massachusetts?), four of the seven judges voted in favor of gay marriage. But they didn’t simply say “it’s OK.” They openly ORDERED the legislature to rewrite the laws. Massachusetts’ constitution has a very clear separation of powers clause, and it says the court cannot make law — only interpret it. The three dissenting judges all cited this clause, but the other four blithely ignored it.
They did not order the legislature to rewrite the laws to allow gay marriage. They determined that it would be unconstitutional to deny marriage to homosexuals, and that making civil unions would be, in effect, writing that homosexuals are second class citizens into the law. Thus, they declared that the legislature must allow gays to recieve marriage licenses, because to do otherwise would be unconstitutional.
This is why the legislature wanted to convene a constitutional convention. As it stands, the court interpreted the law, as is their job, and decided that the constitution of the commonwealth did not allow for discrimination.
They did not order the legislature to change the law. rather, they ordered them to uphold the law.
as to your writing: Also, take a look at Bush’s proposed amendment. While it does specifically restrict “marriage” to one man and one woman, here’s this alleged “religious right-wing extremist” calling for gay civil unions to be written into the Constitution, specifically saying that states can choose to recognize them. That is such a HUGE step forward from a few years ago.
The proposed amendment reads: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
The “legal instances thereof would mean that civil unions would not be able to assert the rights that homosexuals are fighting to get from marriage.
And, if gays are not able to get the “legal instances,” then civil unions are essentially meaningless.
And besides that, do you really think that writing into the constitution that a group of people are “seperate, but equal” is a good thing?
There’s a reason the head of the NAACP is asking President Bush not to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Adam Schwartz
Everything you do is a choice.
The functions of biology are not a choice. Your heart beats without any conscious choice by you. Likewise, you are attracted to someone through a mess of chemical reactions in your body. Also NOT a choice.
And, by the way, for those of you who argue that this “brings us down to the level of animals”, it never seems to amaze me that humans forget that we ARE animals. Our big brains enable us to do more than most other animals, but we are still part of the animal kingdom.
Homosexuals are a part of our population. This whole argument boils down to: Will we include them in our civilization or keep them marginalized. I choose to include them. I am very much for gay marriage.
That sums it up right there doesn’t it? Maybe we don’t want some things right in front of our noses.
In five words or less:
Too.
Gøddámņ.
Bad.
Nobody has a legal right to not be offended or to avoid seeing particular things they don’t want to see. Not me, not you, and not President Bush.
I don’t care who the “we” happens to be in your sentence above. It ain’t your right.
Everything we do is a choice.
Uh-huh. So I chose to have an aptitude for physics and very little talent for foreign language. I chose to be left-handed. I choose to breathe.
Not everything is a choice, you maroon.
I can, however, choose to ignore you — and I think it’s not a bad idea.
TWL
*Your heart beats without any conscious choice by you*
Many people can regulate their heart beats, and some can even stop them.
On a more serious note; wolves are not monogamous, so they are not the best comparisons. Besides being momogamous, a species should also have their partner be a life mate to be a appropriate comparison.
“Nobody has a legal right to not be offended or to avoid seeing particular things they don’t want to see.”
What a bunch of crock.
How many states have laws against indecent exposure, etc.?
Whether you choose to believe it or not, many people don’t want to see gay marriage either. Maybe that’s why a majority of the states have laws against it? Nah, that couldn’t be the reason could it. These lawmakers just decided to make these laws for no particular reason except to persecute gay people. Is that what you believe?
As for the phrase “moral vacuum”, it’s actually quite hard to prove morals. In fact, I’d dare say there’s no conclusive evidence for the existence of morals in humans or the rest of the animal kingdom. Morality is subjective. Take, for example, the fact that you (in general) could say homosexuality is immoral, while someone else could say that it is moral. There are acts/behaviors that most people would agree are immoral, like rape, murder or stealing, but those are things that make sense from a personal and social survival standpoint to discourage. I guess we’d have to define morality, but I think it’s a nebulous concept like love.
Monkeys
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
Homosexuality as a response to population pressure? That’s a very interesting idea. Could someone tell me more about that?
It seems a lot of people here have trouble believing that homosexuality could be called a choice. What they don’t seem to understand is how the social responsibility is organized. See, the christian right, the same institution that is calling homosexuality a choice, fails to recognise any sort of genetic or biological contributions to behavior. Why should they treat homosexuality any different? Yes, (male) homosexuality has, beyond doubt, a strong somatic component. So does atheism. So does criminal behavior. Perhaps not as strong perhaps stronger, in some cases. The Christian right recognizes none of that; they believe that people are inherently good, blank sheets of paper, which can be trained indefinitely into any sort of behavior. Simply put, one’s genetic makeup is considered part of one’s soul, part of one’s choices.
This is true even when you talk about the power of free will to alter one’s condition. Do we every really have free will? Calvin postulated the notion of predestined salvation: only a certain number of people are destined to be saved, no matter what.
It’s not an easy question to say what a person is or isn’t responsible for, and even if you can decide that, chances are that society will choose people to blame, anyway. So I can’t find fault with a mindset that calls homosexuality a choice, even if I don’t hold that mindset myself. Any arguments into the nature of choice are, for this reason, going to be moot. Someone’s talking about nurture alone, and someone else is talking about the sum of nature and nurture.
On the topic of natural homosexuality: It’s ridiculous to call something natural just because animals do it. Animals aren’t people. Cats lick themselves, but wouldn’t you agree if you saw someone doing that, that that was a little, um, off? Lemming run of cliffs in response to population pressure, et cetera. Chimpanzees hunt and eat other monkeys. Does that mean that I should avoid lasagna in favor of natural, healthful Colobus-burger? Homosexuality is natural, yes, but because people do it, not animals. Put a house cat in the arctic and it’ll be a race between freezing to death or starving first. Put a person there and he’ll adapt and build shelters. Our natural habitat is all around us, all around us.
About God hating lobsters and shrimp: Yep. Everybody picks and chooses from the bible. It’s impossible not to. The bible is not a book, it’s a library, with dozens of different viewpoints represented on every possible topic.
Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: I actually can’t find any specific sin mentioned in the bible. That isn’t unusual, as it often says something like “walked with God, neither turning to the left or right” or “was detestable before the eyes of God” without explaining anything that anyone actually did, usually preceding a sudden windfall or catastrophic decline or destruction — the assumption seems to be, something bad (or good) happened to them, so God must have been angry (or pleased) at them for some reason.
How many people realize that all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah asked for is to be //introduced// to two //travels//? (at the time, the concept of ‘Angel’ didn’t exist. Angel and Messenger are the same word in Hebrew, as in Greek) Most people don’t like to admit that, because it makes Lot’s reaction seems vastly out of proportion, which it is when taken literally, and not in the (likely) intended symbolic sense as a metaphor for the extent to which he was willing to go to provide hospitality to his guests.
As long as I’m on the topic of the bible: Why is it that so many people seem to think that marriage is a biblical concept? It’s mentioned in the bible, sure. But so is war, and nobody claims that one day God sat down “I think I’ll implement the divine institution of war.” To point it another way, “I now pronounce you man and wife” is not a bible verse. So what does the bible have to do with marriage, except traditional restrictions on ancient Israeli weddings? Nothing, so far as I can see. Nobody in their right mind would try to use ancient grain prices (as accidentally preserved in their sacred books) to force better government contracts under freedom of religion, so how can the protestant right think of marriage as anything more than a social institution, whose authority comes entirely through the United States government? I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Shakerism believed, based on the same bible most of the christian world studies I should note, that all marriages were living in sin. But apparently they didn’t care that the United States government allowed other people to get married, so long as they didn’t force them to do so.
“Everything we do is a choice.
Uh-huh. So I chose to have an aptitude for physics and very little talent for foreign language. I chose to be left-handed. I choose to breathe.
Not everything is a choice, you maroon.
I can, however, choose to ignore you — and I think it’s not a bad idea.
TWL
“
I like the color maroon, nice choice.
You don’t have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let’s be realistic here.
You might have difficulty mastering certain things, such as a foreign language, where others can master it easily. What does this have to do with making a choice? The choice would be in whether or not you decided to study harder and try to pick up what you were missing or doing something else entirely.
Your examples do not prove me wrong that everything you do during a day involves choices.