Diabetes Talking

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One interesting aspect of the last Kerry-Bush debate was his response on the gay issue. Now I happen to think, that in least in terms of the big picture issues, there is little to choose between Kerry and Bush. They think much the same thing about most everything. I don’t think there has yet been a debate in which Kerry has not used the phrase "the President and I agree on …" or words to that effect. In one of the debates he used variations of that phrase three times. But on the gay issue, there does seem to be a difference, and I’m wondering if Kerry’s view represents the liberal consensus in America. Kerry implied that Cheney’s daughter had no choice about being a lesbian, whereas Bush says he’s not sure whether it’s a choice or not. Curiously for me, I think I’d have given Bush’s answer, rather than Kerry’s. I don’t think it’s at all clear why some people are sexually oriented to people of their own gender. To the best of my knowledge there are no studies that clearly show a "gay chromosome"

Well just today it has become clear that there is a chromosome that causes gays. The research concentrating on why and how gay people still exist as it seems fairly clear under the normal scheme of things same sex people would reduce brcause of no offspring, and should by now have disappeared or be of a very small number? But the research indicates that the gene is connected with fecundity and families of gay people , apparently the straight members, have the same gene which is the cause of the increased fecundity. or that can analyse – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – environment in such a way as to reliably predict homosexual orientation. And so, on empirical grounds, what other answer can one give but that one is not sure? For me, that doesn’t justify discrimination in any sphere of human activity. Whether it’s a lifestyle choice or predicted by genes or any combination of free will or predisposition is surely irrelevant. In my view, what consenting adults choose to do sexually is simply no business of the state, and attempts to vary legal protections according to gender, or to mitigate a person’s claims or rights on the basis of sexual orientation are indefencible. If gay people want to get married, I say, let them do so. Ironically, gays may turn out to be one of the last bastions of marriage. Now I can understand why the notion that gays have no choice in the matter appeals to those who oppose discrimination. Plainly, if it’s like skin colour or ethnicity or genetic disability, then programs to "cure" it are doomed to failure and will inflict pain without good purpose. Fears about young people being turned gay by adult gays would be groundless. Discriminating against people in areas for which they aren’t accountable seems clearly wrong. On the other hand, it does make homosexuality seem a little like a disease. Perhaps, eventually, if one can isolate the gay gene, one can modify the sexuality of gays. If it’s environmental, perhaps people can sue those responsible for (unwittingly) turning them gay. Public policies against "those damn culottes" might have to be instituted. In the end, gays might come to be bracketed closely with disabled and HIV positive people — seen as victims who ought to prefer a cure. I rather suspect that nobody is purely heterosexual. After all, what is a homosexual anyway? It is someone who aims to engage in sexual contact with persons of their own gender. There is ample evidence that many men who are married with children also engage in a range of sexual practices with other men, while asserting that they are heterosexual. In prison, many men satisfy themselves in ways that they would publicly declaim on the outside. In the end, in my opinion, we aren’t oriented to genders, but to people and circumstances. It may well be that a given man or woman may never find him- or herself in a situation in which a same-sex experience seems indicated. That person may believe he or she is heterosxual and in practice, he or she will be so defined. But if they do find themselves in that situation and decide to go ahead, does that mean that, retrospectively, they were gay or bisexual? I think such definitions are pointless. Speaking for myself, I cannot imagine any set of circumstances in which I would find sex with another male appealing. But not being able to imagine such circumstances, and there being no such circumstances are not at all the same thing. Perhaps if people just stopped worrying about who people were oriented to and left people to try floating their boats down whatever river seemed inviting at the time there would be a lot less rubbish being talked. I know that’s not Bush’s position of course, but that doesn’t mean Kerry is right either. I think it speaks volumes about the US polity that even on this matter, neither side is willing to unconditionally endorse the full sexual rights of gay people, and those that wink at them have to find an entirely spurious basis for doing so. The Nerk

As far as I am aware the gays do not want amrriage so much as a recognition of their relationships in some legal manner. And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur. Their should be some sort of legal arrangement for the following reasons. It becomes clear that it is a requirement as we all know only relatives can visit in hospitals, and if a gay couple have an accident the partner might be stopped from even comforting their partner because of being unable to produce any legal attachment? And I can understand that some legal recogition of the relationship so that if one dies, the money and/or  property wont go to an underserving aunt, brother or parent leaving the partner destitute?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One interesting aspect of the last Kerry-Bush debate was his response on the gay issue. Now I happen to think, that in least in terms of the big picture issues, there is little to choose between Kerry and Bush. They think much the same thing about most everything. I don’t think there has yet been a debate in which Kerry has not used the phrase "the President and I agree on …" or words to that effect. In one of the debates he used variations of that phrase three times. But on the gay issue, there does seem to be a difference, and I’m wondering if Kerry’s view represents the liberal consensus in America. Kerry implied that Cheney’s daughter had no choice about being a lesbian, whereas Bush says he’s not sure whether it’s a choice or not. Curiously for me, I think I’d have given Bush’s answer, rather than Kerry’s. I don’t think it’s at all clear why some people are sexually oriented to people of their own gender. To the best of my knowledge there are no studies that clearly show a "gay chromosome" Well just today it has become clear that there is a chromosome that causes gays. The research concentrating on why and how gay people still exist as it seems fairly clear under the normal scheme of things same sex people would reduce brcause of no offspring, and should by now have disappeared or be of a very small number? But the research indicates that the gene is connected with fecundity and families of gay people , apparently the straight members, have the same gene which is the cause of the increased fecundity.

   Pointers ? I somehow doubt this… and I support Gay marriage.    I have seen conclusive work on Brain differences, but it remained a "chicken or egg" argument….  it may well be hormonal, which may even be environmentally related, we aren’t sure.    Gay marriage reduces promiscuity, thus transmission of STD’s   are inhibited…    In addition, Marriage forces one to develop a deeper sense of relationship…. and work on things, rather than turn and run. Another good thing….   The problem with Gay marriage is the inheritance rights, and a couple other issue’s… most of which are about the children.   Children are our future.   Most of our laws surrounding marriage are there to facilitate the lives of our children. A Society can know no greater calling…   And , it is a phony straw man to assume that a gay marriage would not produce a better role model for children.. it would.   If the parent was gay, that isn’t going to change. It is better the child learns the value of fidelity, and sticking together through thick and thin, rather than a rotating "other half" on a daily basis.   The child will emulate role model behavior, as far as promiscuity goes… but, choice of gender appears to be determined by something other than role.    But, another concern regarding children is the passing of the money…   As it stands today, Uncle "Ernie", passes on, and the estate passes back to the family, who in straw man theory, is reproducing…   Thus, lack of marriage among gays, facilitates our children.   Thus, I suspect, the position among the Kerry group.     They support Unions being recognized, but they don’t want it to be a legal marriage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – or that can analyse environment in such a way as to reliably predict homosexual orientation. And so, on empirical grounds, what other answer can one give but that one is not sure? For me, that doesn’t justify discrimination in any sphere of human activity. Whether it’s a lifestyle choice or predicted by genes or any combination of free will or predisposition is surely irrelevant. In my view, what consenting adults choose to do sexually is simply no business of the state, and attempts to vary legal protections according to gender, or to mitigate a person’s claims or rights on the basis of sexual orientation are indefencible. If gay people want to get married, I say, let them do so. Ironically, gays may turn out to be one of the last bastions of marriage. Now I can understand why the notion that gays have no choice in the matter appeals to those who oppose discrimination. Plainly, if it’s like skin colour or ethnicity or genetic disability, then programs to "cure" it are doomed to failure and will inflict pain without good purpose. Fears about young people being turned gay by adult gays would be groundless. Discriminating against people in areas for which they aren’t accountable seems clearly wrong. On the other hand, it does make homosexuality seem a little like a disease. Perhaps, eventually, if one can isolate the gay gene, one can modify the sexuality of gays. If it’s environmental, perhaps people can sue those responsible for (unwittingly) turning them gay. Public policies against "those damn culottes" might have to be instituted. In the end, gays might come to be bracketed closely with disabled and HIV positive people — seen as victims who ought to prefer a cure. I rather suspect that nobody is purely heterosexual. After all, what is a homosexual anyway? It is someone who aims to engage in sexual contact with persons of their own gender. There is ample evidence that many men who are married with children also engage in a range of sexual practices with other men, while asserting that they are heterosexual. In prison, many men satisfy themselves in ways that they would publicly declaim on the outside. In the end, in my opinion, we aren’t oriented to genders, but to people and circumstances. It may well be that a given man or woman may never find him- or herself in a situation in which a same-sex experience seems indicated. That person may believe he or she is heterosxual and in practice, he or she will be so defined. But if they do find themselves in that situation and decide to go ahead, does that mean that, retrospectively, they were gay or bisexual? I think such definitions are pointless. Speaking for myself, I cannot imagine any set of circumstances in which I would find sex with another male appealing. But not being able to imagine such circumstances, and there being no such circumstances are not at all the same thing. Perhaps if people just stopped worrying about who people were oriented to and left people to try floating their boats down whatever river seemed inviting at the time there would be a lot less rubbish being talked. I know that’s not Bush’s position of course, but that doesn’t mean Kerry is right either. I think it speaks volumes about the US polity that even on this matter, neither side is willing to unconditionally endorse the full sexual rights of gay people, and those that wink at them have to find an entirely spurious basis for doing so. The Nerk As far as I am aware the gays do not want amrriage so much as a recognition of their relationships in some legal manner. And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur. Their should be some sort of legal arrangement for the following reasons. It becomes clear that it is a requirement as we all know only relatives can visit in hospitals, and if a gay couple have an accident the partner might be stopped from even comforting their partner because of being unable to produce any legal attachment? And I can understand that some legal recogition of the relationship so that if one dies, the money and/or  property wont go to an underserving aunt, brother or parent leaving the partner destitute?

Response:

Well just today it has become clear that there is a chromosome that causes gays. Wow, "just today", eh? How exciting!

Would be for you, sounds like you have trouble knowing what day it is, nevermind what is going on. But I can back whatever I say with factual reports. Oh I might add just today is the first acquaitance I have had that there is even discussion about a gay gene. http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996519 Not being gay, or the near gay that cant get their minds of it, I dont give a stuff one way or the other. Just dont care how others satisfy their sexual cravings, just dont like to see persecution and condemnation for practices as long as they are not as perverted as the West family in England, or legal torture chambers in countries like Israel  that like to claim similiarities with our western democracies. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But the research indicates that the gene is connected with fecundity and families of gay people , apparently the straight members, have the same gene which is the cause of the increased fecundity. Wow! A gene that makes some people gay and makes others breed a lot, eh? Wow! this kind of "knowledge" sounds like it is right up there with the "bible code" and other great intellectual achievements of that sort. As far as I am aware the gays do not want amrriage so much as a recognition of their relationships in some legal manner. Then why do they insist they want "marriage"?

Poor fella, trying hard but way out of his depth. Wants to get back to the brainwashing, but entertaining , simpsons etc. The religious want to stop any kind of relationship so compare it with marriage. In Australia they have full recognition of their perverted partnerships, but they *still* want to play at husband and wife.

As I understand in Australia the partnership  does not address the matters below. So I know it’s straining your  attention span, but check it out. It becomes clear that it is a requirement as we all know only relatives can visit in hospitals, and if a gay couple have an accident the partner might be stopped from even comforting their partner because of being unable to produce any legal attachment? And I can understand that some legal recogition of the relationship so that if one dies, the money and/or  property wont go to an underserving aunt, brother or parent leaving the partner destitute? You don’t need to turn "marriage" in a circus to do that.

You’re not to bright are you, yes marriage gives heterosexual partners all those things in one hit, so as I understand it  partnerships and complex arrangements have to be made to ensure the same rights for gay couples. And I would lie to see that so that the matter is taken out of the political arena, where matters of class induced funding, illegal wars, HTA agreements, PBS can no longer be  submerged by what gays are doing.

Response:

And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur.

So in relationships between men & women where 1 of them has a problem so that they cannot birth children. They shouldnt’ be allowed to get married eithert?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well just today it has become clear that there is a chromosome that causes gays. Wow, "just today", eh? How exciting! But the research indicates that the gene is connected with fecundity and families of gay people , apparently the straight members, have the same gene which is the cause of the increased fecundity. Wow! A gene that makes some people gay and makes others breed a lot, eh? Wow! this kind of "knowledge" sounds like it is right up there with the "bible code" and other great intellectual achievements of that sort.

   Yeah. I concur, as I have not read this, as of yet. As far as I am aware the gays do not want amrriage so much as a recognition of their relationships in some legal manner. Then why do they insist they want "marriage"? In Australia they have full recognition of their perverted partnerships, but they *still* want to play at husband and wife.

   Well, two people love each other and want to make that statement before their version of God and man… and don’t like being told they can’t.   And as far as perversion, that is in your opinion.   But, I can’t blame you. Animals, like Cats, smell the genetics that are "different" in their babies, and if too different,   -eat- them at birth…   You are like those animals, a long time ago such hatred served a purpose for the race, I am sure.   However, we are no longer animals. It becomes clear that it is a requirement as we all know only relatives can visit in hospitals, and if a gay couple have an accident the partner might be stopped from even comforting their partner because of being unable to produce any legal attachment? And I can understand that some legal recogition of the relationship so that if one dies, the money and/or  property wont go to an underserving aunt, brother or parent leaving the partner destitute?

  That, I suspect, is what they don’t want, as it often reverts back to the breeding portion of the family. You don’t need to turn "marriage" in a circus to do that.

   It is only a circus because you are a homophobe.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One interesting aspect of the last Kerry-Bush debate was his response on the gay issue. Now I happen to think, that in least in terms of the big picture issues, there is little to choose between Kerry and Bush. They think much the same thing about most everything. I don’t think there has yet been a debate in which Kerry has not used the phrase "the President and I agree on …" or words to that effect. In one of the debates he used variations of that phrase three times. But on the gay issue, there does seem to be a difference, and I’m wondering if Kerry’s view represents the liberal consensus in America. Kerry implied that Cheney’s daughter had no choice about being a lesbian, whereas Bush says he’s not sure whether it’s a choice or not. Curiously for me, I think I’d have given Bush’s answer, rather than Kerry’s. I don’t think it’s at all clear why some people are sexually oriented to people of their own gender. To the best of my knowledge there are no studies that clearly show a "gay chromosome" Well just today it has become clear that there is a chromosome that causes gays. The research concentrating on why and how gay people still exist as it seems fairly clear under the normal scheme of things same sex people would reduce brcause of no offspring, and should by now have disappeared or be of a very small number? But the research indicates that the gene is connected with fecundity and families of gay people , apparently the straight members, have the same gene which is the cause of the increased fecundity.    Pointers ? I somehow doubt this… and I support Gay marriage.

I dont, despite the faults of gay couples and the kind of behavior and problems that can occur in a heterosexual marriage, the Wast family of England being one horror story one thinks of. I do not think that gay partners have a marriage.They have a partnership, a deep and caring partnership, but not the same as marriage? . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    I have seen conclusive work on Brain differences, but it remained a "chicken or egg" argument….  it may well be hormonal, which may even be environmentally related, we aren’t sure.    Gay marriage reduces promiscuity, thus transmission of STD’s   are inhibited…    In addition, Marriage forces one to develop a deeper sense of relationship…. and work on things, rather than turn and run. Another good thing….   The problem with Gay marriage is the inheritance rights, and a couple other issue’s… most of which are about the children.   Children are our future.   Most of our laws surrounding marriage are there to facilitate the lives of our children. A Society can know no greater calling…   And , it is a phony straw man to assume that a gay marriage would not produce a better role model for children.. it would.   If the parent was gay, that isn’t going to change. It is better the child learns the value of fidelity, and sticking together through thick and thin, rather than a rotating "other half" on a daily basis.   The child will emulate role model behavior, as far as promiscuity goes… but, choice of gender appears to be determined by something other than role.    But, another concern regarding children is the passing of the money…   As it stands today, Uncle "Ernie", passes on, and the estate passes back to the family, who in straw man theory, is reproducing…   Thus, lack of marriage among gays, facilitates our children.   Thus, I suspect, the position among the Kerry group.

I feel you are drawing a very long straw there, I think the fears of homophiles is to do with the small difference between gay and heterosexual preferences. And the mere fear that they might be gay is what raiese their hackles, and well they might be closet, not even able to amit to themselves that they have gay inclinations? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – or that can analyse environment in such a way as to reliably predict homosexual orientation. And so, on empirical grounds, what other answer can one give but that one is not sure? For me, that doesn’t justify discrimination in any sphere of human activity. Whether it’s a lifestyle choice or predicted by genes or any combination of free will or predisposition is surely irrelevant. In my view, what consenting adults choose to do sexually is simply no business of the state, and attempts to vary legal protections according to gender, or to mitigate a person’s claims or rights on the basis of sexual orientation are indefencible. If gay people want to get married, I say, let them do so. Ironically, gays may turn out to be one of the last bastions of marriage. Now I can understand why the notion that gays have no choice in the matter appeals to those who oppose discrimination. Plainly, if it’s like skin colour or ethnicity or genetic disability, then programs to "cure" it are doomed to failure and will inflict pain without good purpose. Fears about young people being turned gay by adult gays would be groundless. Discriminating against people in areas for which they aren’t accountable seems clearly wrong. On the other hand, it does make homosexuality seem a little like a disease. Perhaps, eventually, if one can isolate the gay gene, one can modify the sexuality of gays.

You are letting the common discriminatory stance, probably connected  to survival show. I think all these aflictions are mere survival traits? Diabetes for instance obviously a survival trait that shows up under certain condiions. And is advantageous under certain conditions? Unwanted and perhaps even detested under our normal conditions, but the implanted by nature/God the incredible variety of genetic branches to ensure survival of the species under the most varied conditions.  If it’s environmental, perhaps people – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – can sue those responsible for (unwittingly) turning them gay. Public policies against "those damn culottes" might have to be instituted. In the end, gays might come to be bracketed closely with disabled and HIV positive people — seen as victims who ought to prefer a cure. I rather suspect that nobody is purely heterosexual. After all, what is a homosexual anyway? It is someone who aims to engage in sexual contact with persons of their own gender. There is ample evidence that many men who are married with children also engage in a range of sexual practices with other men, while asserting that they are heterosexual. In prison, many men satisfy themselves in ways that they would publicly declaim on the outside. In the end, in my opinion, we aren’t oriented to genders, but to people and circumstances. It may well be that a given man or woman may never find him- or herself in a situation in which a same-sex experience seems indicated. That person may believe he or she is heterosxual and in practice, he or she will be so defined. But if they do find themselves in that situation and decide to go ahead, does that mean that, retrospectively, they were gay or bisexual? I think such definitions are pointless. Speaking for myself, I cannot imagine any set of circumstances in which I would find sex with another male appealing. But not being able to imagine such circumstances, and there being no such circumstances are not at all the same thing. Perhaps if people just stopped worrying about who people were oriented to and left people to try floating their boats down whatever river seemed inviting at the time there would be a lot less rubbish being talked. I know that’s not Bush’s position of course,

Of course you are fobbimg of here , Bushs position is quite clearly to pick up the christian vote, those lovely people who dont care who runs the world and how, as long as there is no abortion and no gay marriage. So you can back the Jewish protocols, instigate a Jewish inquisition in america and ensure a base in Israel, as long as you promise that back in hicksville where ever there will be no abortion and no gay marriage. You can kill 40000 people in Iraq, regular deaths of Americans in Iraq, Israel can run with it’s Nazi policies of genocide and torture to achieve it’s nefarious aims as long as there is no abortion and no gay marriage. They are so obssesed with pregnant young girls and what gays are up to that I will point out that was part of Hitlers popularity? So it is a fatal flaw in policy that tjis becomes an issue on deciding matters of far more concern to the voters like income, health, control of their own country so that they can expect and receive a fair share of the national cake. And properly evaluate governments that are not working for the best interest of all Americans? but that doesn’t mean Kerry is right either. I think it speaks volumes about the US polity that even on this matter, neither side is willing to unconditionally endorse the full sexual rights of gay people, and those that wink at them have to find an entirely spurious basis for doing so.

And even more so in the case of Bush who blatantly and unashamedly is playing this card so that indeed Kerry has to saddle himself not only wth a badly organised and entered into war, a rift wih our usual partners and the UN, but a divisive policy of pandering the religious right as well. Which does not give him much more room than Bush, so in comparison it boils down on everything else being equal, who reveres the traditional values of the US enough to protect them while dealing with a Bush self … read more »

Response:

And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur. So in relationships between men & women where 1 of them has a problem so that they cannot birth children. They shouldnt’ be allowed to get married eithert?

I’ve asked that myself. I’m personally aware of one couple who simply cannot procreate. His problem, her problem? I don’t know. But as long as they’re together, they will never have children. They’ve been married for over 20 years. Is this marriage not valid?

Response:

And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur. So in relationships between men & women where 1 of them has a problem so that they cannot birth children. They shouldnt’ be allowed to get married eithert?

Probably not? I mean in reading back the oldies used to say if you married for children you were a peasant type, so sophiscated city slicker if you married without the intention of children? The difference is if a country who did not manufacture cars claimed to want to join countries who did produce  cars by manufacture as the same they would be told, you are not the same, you buy a lot of cars, you repair a lot of cars, but you do not manufacture cars. So although you might be accepted in all ways by these other countries, there is one respect where you are not the same, you do not manufacture cars? In heterosexual marriage the problem is the same? Although you have the means to manufacture or produce a baby, you do not, and if you buy one it is still not fully manufactured by the couple as with the heterosexual couple? So to say that buying a full or half baby belittles the act of motherhood? A young couple struggles to achieve a position in life to have a baby, go through all th terrore and tribulations of miscarriage, troublesome births, and financial hardship to produce, and you want to say that a couple who could choose when and where they have the baby, in eddect buy a model without any of the trauma or effort that a heterosexual couple has to go through? Not to menton reaching stages where they wonder if it’s safe to hang his trousers on theend of the bed in case she should have an unwanted pregnancy? And also all the complications to health that a women can have with childbirth. Yes I do not think it is the same in a lot of ways.

Response:

And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not occur. So in relationships between men & women where 1 of them has a problem so that they cannot birth children. They shouldnt’ be allowed to get married eithert? I’ve asked that myself. I’m personally aware of one couple who simply cannot procreate. His problem, her problem? I don’t know. But as long as they’re together, they will never have children. They’ve been married for over 20 years. Is this marriage not valid?