🚀 go-pugleaf

"Silence Is Deep" <North@OneCall.Net> wrote in message
news:ckotkn$csq$1@news.onecall.net...
> Jackeroo wrote:
> > "Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:42b00426.0410142215.394c52f9@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>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?

.
>
>    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?

>
>
> > 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
> >>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 induced
situation following an Israeli or Israeli induced situation of 9/11?

It has to be said that the main difference is Bush is tearing down respect
for  the traditional armed services  and decorated members of the armed
services, encouraging dissent and ridicule simply to improve his position
viv a vis Vietnam as a near draft dodger?

While setting up a negative budget in a gamble that he could control and
keep oil prices down, another problem Kerry will be better able  to deal
with seeing  the gamble has not come of?

> >>
> >>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?
> >
> >