Gay Marriages

[Gladys]

Chinahand, I agree. These awful diseases are IMHO just nature's way of redressing the balance.

 

The reason, as I recall, that AIDS is linked to homosexual activity is because the culpable (not being judgemental, just delicate) membrane would accept the virus more easily than the membranes that normally fight off diseases! Its job is to absorb whereas the others have to defend. Just simple biology but, lawksamercy!, its a deliverance from hell!!

[cheesemonster2005]

So, in summary are we for gay marriage or against?

 

The ease with which we get distracted would make us all very good MEPs or MHKs.

[ButterflyMaiden]

Chinahand, I agree.  These awful diseases are IMHO just nature's way of redressing the balance.

The reason, as I recall, that AIDS is linked to homosexual activity is because the culpable (not being judgemental, just delicate) membrane would accept the virus more easily than the membranes that normally fight off diseases!  Its job is to absorb whereas the others have to defend.  Just simple biology but, lawksamercy!, its a deliverance from hell!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assuming you are referring to anal sex, this particular preference is a component of heterosexuall relationships as well as homosexual relationships and is enjoyed by both passive and active partners irrespective of gender.

The link between Aids and homosexuality is a classic case of social construction and differs, only in its details, from the notion that homosexuality itself is a disease.

Take a look at this short paper for some fascinating insights to our perception of disease and homosexuality ...... Social Construction of Disease

[ButterflyMaiden]

So, in summary are we for gay marriage or against?

 

The ease with which we get distracted would make us all very good MEPs or MHKs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didnt you notice the poll statistics at the top of every page ?

[Survivor]

So, in summary are we for gay marriage or against?

 

The ease with which we get distracted would make us all very good MEPs or MHKs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didnt you notice the poll statistics at the top of every page ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well bugga me (no pun intended ) I never noticed it at the top of EVERY page, thought it was just the first - i've never been very observant!

[P.K.]

Human genetics has a really tight choke point.  A long long time ago an epidemic nearly wiped out the entire human species and we are now all basically genetically identical no matter what race we are; hence me continually going on that PK is taking cr*p when he claims people smell different because of their race rather than a cultural behaviour. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At NO time have I EVER claimed that people smell differently because of their race rather than cultural behaviour. The races smell different to me cause unknown, to me that is. Is it cultural behaviour? It could be but the fact remains that it exists nonetheless. That's good enough for me. Unfortunately I have yet to find two races that smell the same. Of course, races with identical cultures could prove your point but so far I have not come across them. As I am no longer attached to Im and Nat it's unlikely to happen as well. Case not proven as they say in Scotland. As to us all being genetically identical presumably this is a bad time to mention the association between the sickle cell and cow's milk? Just checking.......

 

Our brains are wonderful at making associations; its probably what makes us unique as a species, but it often makes incorrect assosciations and the result is prejudice, racism and intolerance.  Which is what this thread is meant to be debating not superstition and mythology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes we make incorrect associations - as you have time and again trying to fathom out my motives - but this drives us forward as a species. We make them, get them wrong, and accidentally stumble across a major breakthrough which is entirely typical of science.

 

I'm not picking on you, although it may seem like it, but you are one of the few who have made a real and thought-out effort to get to grips with a difficult subject. That's not trying to sound patronising but it is Wednesday night....

[cheesemonster2005]

At NO time have I EVER claimed that people smell differently because of their race rather than cultural behaviour. The races smell different to me cause unknown, to me that is. Is it cultural behaviour? It could be but the fact remains that it exists nonetheless. That's good enough for me. Unfortunately I have yet to find two races that smell the same. Of course, races with identical cultures could prove your point but so far I have not come across them. As I am no longer attached to Im and Nat it's unlikely to happen as well. Case not proven as they say in Scotland. As to us all being genetically identical presumably this is a bad time to mention the association between the sickle cell and cow's milk? Just checking.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes you have. For xxxx sake everyone smells differently depending on their chosen scent, their persperation, their lifestyle and other factors. Anyway why do you care about smell so much?

 

I'm waiting for something sensible from P.K. Me thinks I'll be waiting a long time.

[P.K.]

I'm waiting for something sensible from P.K.  Me thinks I'll be waiting a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

England should drop Beckham.

 

My team:

 

Robinson

 

Carragher Terry Ferdinand Cole

 

Lampard Gerrard Downing

 

Rooney

 

Owen Smith

 

This also gives the option of dropping say Smith up front and adding someone like Hargreaves or Bridge to midfield to give more depth. You will notice no Beckham as being able to take the odd free kick fails to compensate for his lack of tackling and attempts on goal from open play and no Wright-Phillips as he lacks the presence to make a success of a forward role. I wondered about Carragher as he tends to give away too many unneccessary free kicks but Woodgate just hasn't had enough games.

[Chinahand]

we are now all basically genetically identical no matter what race we are

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As to us all being genetically identical presumably this is a bad time to mention the association between the sickle cell and cow's milk? Just checking.......

 

 

Your right, but I did say we are "basically genetically identical" which is different from saying we are all identical. Having the sickle cell gene is one of the VERY few genes which can be used to make a guess on the race of the carrier. But its by no means perfect. If you have a blood sample which shows the donor had the sickle cell gene then it is LIKELY that their heritage is from a high malarial area of Africa. BUT many many africans DONT come from these areas and so DO NOT have the gene and the gene is an occassional mutation within ALL the races.

 

In other words finding this gene doesn't really tell you anything other than a range of quite wide probabilities that the donor may or may not be african.

 

In terms of gays I think twin studies have shown marked genetic effects; you have a much higher probability of being gay yourself if you've a gay twin, even if you were separated at birth and brought up in totally different environments. Though this probability isn't 100% showing those environmental factors are important!

 

As ever, genes have multiple effects: so the disadvantage this particular gene, or more likely set of genes, has in that some of its carriers don't pass the genes on because they are exclusively gay is offset by the fact that in other circumstances the carriers do not become exclusively, or maybe even gay at all, and so the genes get passed on. The gene confers a larger advantage when it is passed on than the disadvantage due to it being associated with gay behaviour and so it remains stable in the gene pool.

 

Ain't nature increadible and science amazing that we can start to understand this sort of stuff!

[Rog]

From http://www.sporks-r-us.com/story/2004/5/19/163829/863

 

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)

 

"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?"

"No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

 

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

 

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

[cheesemonster2005]

From http://www.sporks-r-us.com/story/2004/5/19/163829/863

 

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)

 

"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?"

"No, we are not gay."

 

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By allowing gay people to marry we will be simply ensuring people who love each other (in the sexual way) are allowed to register their love like hertrosexual couples. Mr and Mr Jones shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are related and because they don't love each other in that way. With regards to Smith, James, Green and Johnson maybe in the future we'll allow multi-couple marriages - hell, why not?

[Declan]

I'm waiting for something sensible from P.K.  Me thinks I'll be waiting a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

England should drop Beckham.

 

My team:

 

Robinson

 

Carragher Terry Ferdinand Cole

 

Lampard Gerrard Downing

 

Rooney

 

Owen Smith

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

9 out of 11 not bad.

[Steven]

No im not sugesting that a virus was the direct result of the merging of 2 mutations of the y male chromosome.

If the virus is a consequence or gay sex between males, + as the y chromosome only in males, not females, its a possibilitey that it may be the trigger?

The virus has probably been in existance for millions of years yet has only been "allowed" to come to "life" via some form of new DNA coding which has only only just been "assembled" maybe via the exchange of "mutated" sperm cells?

 

Im not sure, im only giving sugestions? Its all becoming complicated!

Im more clued up on bactriology rather than virology soes i could be wrong.

Viruses invade bacteria also, there called bacteria "phages"

 

But im not sure we should be talking about viral + bacterial disease,s in terms of "punishments" ? a far more accurate description would be "consequences"? Most of these diseases we see today are man made + are the consequences of our inaprropriate use of pesticides, insecticides, of polution, inadiqate sanitation ect ect ect

BSE is a classic example? we fed herbivore grazing cattle the stale + diseased remains of dead + rotting MEATS FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!! cows dont have 4 stomachs for nothing ! They need so many to help digest all the grass ect (well actually its the stomach bacteria that breaks the grass down)

 

As for cancer we are aware of how it originates, its a fault within the gene controlling cell division, + so the cell mutipliies uncontrolabally + or else replicates into deformed cells, there are many reasons which trigger this fault ie radiation, pestcides, tobaco smoke, preservities ect.

We do in fact ALL have cancereous cells EVERY day! but luckiley our white blood cells (luecocytes) destroy em cancer usually takes hold when our imumne systems are serverley weakened.

But when we say the HIV virus "mutates" we are of course refering to it surface changing so that our our anti- bodies cant "latch" onto it in order to help destroy it, once the virus is inside our cells its undetecable + uses our own dna to replicate itself ect

Viruses of course cannot replicate by then selves without a host cell, they mearly "exist" + are known as "virons".

And lastley + not talking "trash"!!! its an opinion!

[Rog]

From http://www.sporks-r-us.com/story/2004/5/19/163829/863

 

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)

 

"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?"

"No, we are not gay."

 

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By allowing gay people to marry we will be simply ensuring people who love each other (in the sexual way) are allowed to register their love like hertrosexual couples. Mr and Mr Jones shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are related and because they don't love each other in that way. With regards to Smith, James, Green and Johnson maybe in the future we'll allow multi-couple marriages - hell, why not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A permanent recognised and formal partnership between a couple (I won’t use the word Marriage as it is NOT a Marriage – it can’t be) that delivers the same benefits and obligations to a couple up to but not including the adoption or fostering of kids would be no bad thing, at least in my view.

 

What I would hope would be that any legislation that delivers this is not restricted to people who are not close blood relatives as there is no good reason why a brother and a sister, two brothers, or two sisters should not also form a permanent relationship as a couple who have decided to stay together through the remainder of their lives. It happens, nor all that often but it happens.

 

Under such circumstances they should benefit from all of the advantages as well as the responsibilities that apply to a normal married couple (except for adoption or fostering of kids) including the advantages associated with the laws of inheritance between committed partners which is the principle reason being claimed for the legitimisation of homosexual and so abnormal permanent relationships.

 

If it is good for one abnormal pair bonding it should be good for all.

 

As regards multiple marriage, that would amount to polygamy, illegal in the UK and other civilised nations, and the illegality of polygamy should extend to non-normal permanent relationships that will probably soon be recognised in law.

[P.K.]

England should drop Beckham.

 

My team:

 

Robinson

 

Carragher  Terry  Ferdinand  Cole

 

Lampard  Gerrard  Downing

 

Rooney

 

Owen  Smith

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

9 out of 11 not bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cheeky. Downing is the only natural left-footer in the Premiership. Cole always has to turn in to cross and every defender knows it hence he was ineffective against NI. The style and aggression of Smith compared to Owen would give defences a lot of problems having to cope with both. Don't tell me, you've got James in your side?