🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.


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?