Liam

My orientation is a variation, not a defect, thank you very much. First, I don't think this kind of "therapy" will ever be available. Pharmaceutical companies are busy looking for disease-ending drugs and for profits and there simply will never be enough of a public outcry for this kind of "cure". Also, there probably aren't enough people whose shame of having a gay child would create a vast market for this -- particularly as decades go by and being gay becomes less of an issue each decade. That said, I think theoretical orientation reassignment poses a number of ethical and moral issues and is something I could never do to either of my kids if such an option was available to me. Like someone with a child born with both make and female parts who selects one gender over the other without any indication from the child as to which is the right one, I would be haunted by the thought that I did something to possibly point my child down the unhappier of two paths. Knowing that being gay is part of the natural order of things, I would look in her eye for the rest of my life and think, do you hate me for what I did to you? what kind of person would you be if I just let you be the kid God gave me? I think nature (God, Mother Nature, whomever) has a way of readjusting to account for the things man tries to "correct". There is a theory that gayness is a condition that partly arose to stem overpopulation by certain species. I think if man develops a way to tinker with the natural order of things, that the natural order will shift paradigms slightly and we'll find ourselves with an entirely different magnitude of problems.

I think that is ridiculous for Ryerson to take that position and I am glad to see that she went through the ceremony and got the degree, despite some professors' turning their back on her. That's shameful, IMO. A university is supposed to be an environment that fosters examination of all the issues in the universe (hence the name), not just issues we agree with. Likewise, I think it would be a disgrace for professors at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to turn their backs on the head of GLAAD or HRC (though I don't expect them to ever honor someone who disagrees with them on this issue, so we'll probably never know). I disagree with Somerville's position, but that doesn't mean she should be wholly dismissed as a crackpot or a homophobe or that she should be shunned. But as I have said before, I think her position on opposition to SSM but in favor of CUs is not logical. I would expect someone of such intellectual distinction to be able to advance a reason beyond citing traditional values. Tradition is perhaps the weakest argument of any. If "tradition" was the ultimate trump card in shutting off intellectual debate, we would be still blindly denying the findings of Copernicus and Galileo. I have hope that someone with an intellect such as Somerville's will be open to further scientific and sociological data which may prove a currently held position to be without merit.

...including those whose views are based on conservative ideology? *LOL I actually disagree with this assertion because most of the world's views are based on some kind of ideology, yet I think most people are open to hear opposing ideas. I would agree if you said that those who are dogmatic about a particular ideology rarely value free speech or views that differ from their own. (I am moderate to liberal and most of my views come out of that ideology, yet I enjoy listening to conservative talk radio and have had their arguments change my opinions on some issues.)

Correction, it is a physiological variation, not an error. (I don't know if you believe in God, but if you do, do you contend that God makes errors?)

I am not a fan of the way this war is being fought and how it was planned, but I think that when someone joins a volunteer army, he or she has to expect that the army might come calling some day. I have almost no sympathy for deserters who are trying to get out of their half of the enlistment bargain in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Thanks for the wikipedia link -- I didn't even think of going there.

She knew the rules beforehand and disregarded them. The school district told her what was acceptible and what was not acceptible in a valedictory speech. She decided to go down the route of the unacceptible. All speakers were told they'd be shut down if they veered off their scripted speeches. She veered, they unplugged as promised. Religion, along with politics, is a very polarizing issue and I can see why the school committee would not want someone up there advocating a particular religious faith or advancing a particular political viewpoint (whether liberal or conservative). Would all of you be so up in arms if she was a young Muslim girl who mentioned the virtue of being a martyr for one's faith? She should take responsibility for her actions.

I am not familiar enough with various sections of Toronto to know what/where those places are (sorry!). Are they suburbs, separate townships, parts of the city proper? Do they elect their own town governments, or are they represented within the city government of Toronto by locally-elected aldermen/city council members/etc.?

It's overly simplistic to label anyone who opposes the Bush doctrine of staying the course as being Far Left. Murtha is a decorated war veteran and one of the most reliable and knowledgable members of Congress in terms of military matters and is one of the most trusted and respected members of Congress by the Pentagon. The problem for the Far Right is that when someone with such credentials questions the GOP party line, they cannot debate on the merits, so the GOP and its supporters resort to namecalling and labeling. Murtha must be labeled a kook or as "Far Left" because dissent by someone like Murtha (or Brent Scrowcroft or James Baker from the Bush I administration) is devastating to the NeoCons who now run the war machine. It shows them for what they are -- spoiled rich kids who do not understand military matters, never served a day in military uniforms, and playing a real-world version of the boardgame "Risk", all of it motivated by electoral politics. Murtha can hardly be put in the same category as Cindy Sheehan.

I frequently see references to "GTA" which I understand means "Greater Toronto Area", but what excatly does that mean? Is that the city of Toronto, including the towns it consolidated with in the past few decades, or does it also include the suburbs (which are separate political divisions)? The reason I ask is that I always see references to the fact that the GTA, at roughly 5-6 million, is the fifth largest city in North America, which I can't believe is true. If GTA comprises only those areas within the city limits, I could see how that is possible, but if counting city and suburbs, Mexico City, New York, LA, Chicago, SF/Bay Area, Metro DC are all larger. If GTA = city and burbs, Toronto would be more in line with Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Miami/Dade, and Atlanta. I don't mean to provoke some size-is-better argument here, I am just curious as to what makes up the GTA and how the claim that it is 5th in size is true.

I don't think you should be getting your news from the GOP homepage. Only a small part of the overall insurgency is related to terrorist organizations. Not to say that the various factions aren't employing terror tactics -- they do, including the blowing up of mosques and killing innocent people to terrorize entire neighborhoods, etc. -- but these are not the same Islamofascists your talk radio brethren bleat about all day long. There are different factions at work in Iraq and it only makes you look naive when you lump all of them in under the "Islamofascist" label. I've seen some intelligence estimates that put the al Qaeda-in-Iraq headcount at just around 1000. The vast majority of the insurgency is made up of the two main warring factions: Baathist Sunnis and Shia Militias.

I pretty much feel the same. She lost a lot of my sympathy and a lot of credibility when she started veering off into loony-land. I was almost expecting her to start making appearances with Hugo Chavez. However, I will credit her with at least focusing attention on the war and starting a long-overdue debate on the wisdom of the war. It's easy to question the wisdom behind the Iraq invasion now that Bush is unpopular, but Sheehan stood up when people were still behind him and the war effort. That takes some cojones.

Lieberman is not leaving the Democratic party -- but don't tell the right wingers because rumors like this are about all they have going for them. I mean, if they can't feel superior to someone, what good is living?? The reality is that Lieberman wants to serve another term, but the primary voters of both parties tend to be at the more extreme ends (on average) of both their parties. Lieberman has been criticized by many on the left for being too much in Bush's pocket, something I kind of agree with. But only kind of. It's natural for some incumbents to have a primary challenger, and that's what this is. The far left has put forth a candidate of their own. The non-rumor aspect of this story is that IF he loses the primary, he may run as an independent. he is not leaving the party in a huff or because of an ideological shift (which the right-wingers around here imply by their, "the party leaving Lieberman" cr^p). Lieberman will win the primary. And he will win re-election in a walk. As a Democrat.

No one is making "something" out of this. It's just one of those "oops" moments caught on film. It's funny. Nothing more. Please, if you really think this is some left wing media conspiracy, I can only imagine the number of black helicopters you could tell me are following your every move.

It would have been hilarious to have seen Bush's face if the guy said, "Uhh... I wear them because I am blind."

Actually, my best friends (a gay couple) were married in a Unitarian Universalist church. But I think you are right that the percent of gay couples who would opt for a religious ceremony is probably smaller than in the straight community. Even if the Catholic church would allow me to marry within its church -- which it never will and which is something I would never even bother to pursue -- I would probably prefer a ceremony on the beach.

I'd be the first one to donate money to the relocation effort, believe me.

I don't think Bush hates Jews, but I don't think he loves them, either. He is a politician and as such, views all ethnic groups as potential voters and supporters or as potential opponents. The problem the GOP has with Jews is that there are a significant number within the GOP who are courting Jews and taking a very pro-Israel stand because they see the establishment of the state of Israel and growing its strength in the region as a sign that the Second Coming approaches, kind of an "end of days" scenario. These Christo-fascists have, as their ultimate goal, the eventual converting of Jews to Christianity. I'm not saying that that is Bush's aim or those of mainstream Republicans, but while there is a hardline Christian spine holding up the GOP skeleton, I think many Jews remain rightfully skeptical.

As my earlier posts have suggested and as an avid reader of non-US news media, I am fascinated by the views others in the world have of us here in the US. It shocks me when people around the world treat American citizens with a greater degree of rudeness or even scorn just because of the actions of the US federal government. I can understand that as an representational democracy the citizens of this country are ultimately responsible for the government it gets, but Americans are from being a monolithic group and a minority of citizens elected Bush (51% of the 60-some % of eligible voters... roughly 30-33% of eligible voters cast ballots for Bush in 2004). It would never even dawn on me to be disrespectful of a Russian visitor to the US because I thought Putin was a terrible leader who sells out the West by sometimes protecting and enabling Iran's nuclear program, or a French tourist because Chirac is duplicitous and borderline criminal, or Canadians because of Harper's militaristic threats against Americans. (Just checking to see that you're still awake. ) As it is, I can only say that I love France. I don't attribute the actions of the French leader to the French people -- that's simply irrational. Yet there are an ample number of people the world over who think it is okay to be (sometimes) openly hostile towards Americans because of Bush. Foreigners who criticize Americans for choosing to be so isolated do have a point and I think it is vital that Americans develop a greater understanding of the world out there. However, if when planning a trip to Paris, friends tell you of the awful experiences they had with the locals or when in Berlin, a coworker got berated for US foreign policy, you might think to yourself, "who needs this? Let's just go to the Grand Canyon this year instead." I think Americans need to open up more and to be better diplomats when out in the world, but as long as there is a sense that overt anti-Americanism is around the corner, I don't expect the latter to happen anytime soon.

I didn't read the Gangs thread because the title seems to have racist overtones to me, so I don't think it's something you definitely want associated with the conservative/rightist mindset. Good luck w your medical issues!

I sometimes wonder what planet some people come from. Actually, I am kind of surprised it has taken what, 48 hours?, for the Bush supporters to start casting their opposition as mourning the death of this killer. I have not heard a single liberal nor any respectable conservative (e.g., George Will, NOT Rush Limbaugh) say anything other than praising those who nailed Zarqawi and expressing an inability to know what the impact of Zarqawi's death will be. But don't let the facts stop any of you from inventing new realities for yourselves.

No, those are your conclusions, not mine. Nice try, though. I simply pointed out that she has taken a strong position opposing same sex marriage because of the harm it will do to children. But then Somerville endorses civil unions, which would be identical to marriage in all but name. If "gay marriage" harms kids, and it is identical to "civil unions", then civil unions must also be harmful to children. Somerville somehow endorses this scheme which, to me, seems illogical and not based on reason.

You are right, I should have neither assumed nor concluded that she is an intellectual.

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

WG: exactly. WRT Somerville's position, if gay marriage harms Canada's children but civil unions are okay, and when civil union = marriage in all but name... then civil unions must also harm Canada's children. How, then, can she support civil unions? Is this women getting an honorary degree because she could earn one based on her own intellectual merit??