SirRiff

a cell does not have a 'right' to develop at the expense of human. i dont like abortion at all, but if done humanely, the embryo doesnt even have a nervous system yet or anything that even resembles sentient thought. thus when you balance all the rights and risks, it would be unethical to force a women to carry to term a child. the fetus cannot be given the same rights as a full human, because it is not a human. it would only endanger women to force them to illegally stop thier pregnancy. thus the right to control your own body is a necessary right for all humans and am imperfect solution to unwanted pregnancies. SirRiff

were you listening to teh same speeches as me? obviously, WMD were the absolute central argument made for war. there is no disputting that. um, as far as i have heard, there was no gurilla war in germany and japan. in fact, i heard a miltiary guy say the allies didnt loose a single soldier to gurilla war in germany. so comparing germany to iraq is nonsene. different cultures, different skin color, different geography, and not to mention Americas pathetic track record in afganistan and iraq. they already scewed each nation over once, and they are already getting the itch to run out of iraq. if they were in such a rush to find all these WMDs, you would think they would be willing to stay for a while and clean up the mess. you actually think americans are willing to put in the time? nope, sorry, nasdaq and unemployment will trump iraq any day. who cares who started or ended it? thats just a aspect of timing. it was the waste of human life from everyone involved. simple as that.

blacks live shorter lives then whites. obese people die early. native americans have very very high suicide rates. smokers drain the health care system if you are saying that unhealthy subpopulations are somehow immoral or less deserving of civil quality, the vast majority of north america can be targeted to some extreme or another. thus there is no sane way that health can be used as qualification for equality. just doesnt make sense. a white man who sleeps with a filthy prostitute doesnt deserve to loss his basic equalities and protections. the argument just cant stand when you take it as a philosophy beyond just gays. another point; why are people so handcuffed to the idea that morality and reglion are one at the same?? in egypt, mothers loved thier children, fathers protected their family, they had laws and a complex society and stealing and killing were crimes. the basic human functions know as morality were alive adn kicking when we were cavemen. the family unit was developed and we were advancing. jews and christians and islam all just took the reality of thier time and put them down on writing. morality is just the byproduct of basic human nature. we value those related to us, and want to live without fear. the basic functions of morality developed WELL before 1AD, and this idea that our society cant continue to evolve its morality without religion is nonsense. SirRiff

why do people assume there is another way to change societies bad habatis besides being lead by progressive laws? how many genetions would we have waited for racist whites to stop harassing blacks? for womens claims of rape to be shrugged off? for gays to be denied jobs they are quaified for? without AA, people would just sit on thier asses and things would never get better. it is the absolute hallmark of a civil society to have society changed for the better by government. anybody who things AA is wrong should suggest another viable alternative that would have equalized minority representation over the last few decades. because considering human nature, i cant see anything less then government policies that would force beneficial changes without generations of suffering. SirRiff

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/internat.../03PREX.html?hp http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3202991.stm This about sums it up... so the painfull obvious truth, is that there are several nations that can destroy, conquer, and occupy alone, but none that can rebuild. that is why afganistan and Iraq were both left in ruins the first time. nobody can stay there long term alone right? but that absolutly insane part is that many pro war americans may have actually thought the US was going to do it. like when you would hear "well we are going to rebuild it, so our companies should get the buisiness". well looks like even the US wont be able to stabolize it. anybody hear anything about WMD lately? werent they ready to launch at a moments notice? this all proves that while it may have been worthwhile to take out saddam, the rush to war was nothing more then a power grab covered by lies. as we can plainly see, iraq was not a threat to anybody as long as inspectors were on the ground and if the US had waited untill right now, they could have invaded with true UN support in september or october. which i think would have been true leadership, instead of cowboy diplomacy then pretending you dont need help by suggesting an international role without admitting you would be screwed without it. SirRiff

doesnt all the stats showing the modern state of marriage just prove that given the choice, most people will not adhere to the 'traditional' roles of marriage? i mean, women are liberated, they can leave as they want, they dont have to suffer abuse, they make enough to be financially independant, thier lives arent about reproduction, and so on and so on. if SO MANY marraiges end in divorce, and many of the intact ones suffer from infidelity, we can only conclude that the institution of marraige was mostly held by imposing cultural and religious limits on personal freedoms. and that humans are completely unfit for that kind of strict interpretation of partnership to the exclusion of all others? or maybe we would be able to stay married if our society wasnt so stressfull, hyper-sexually enticing, lacking in accountability or disposable. or what i prefer to believe, that humans were never designed to live in such massive populations that our technology has brought, and so matter how complex we craft our societies, our neuro-biology is not up to the task. its messed up. SirRiff

Native Americans will be thrilled to hear that.

what was his alternative, surrender? if clinton had reason for war, he would have gone, he was a smart guy. but being in the middle of a great economy, everyone would have jumped on him if he rocked the boat. especially when the war would be open ended. bush had 3000 people die in a horrible way when there was nothing much else going for him. he went to war and milked the fear for everything it was worth. if time was inverted, clinton and bush would have exchanged roles perfectly. its silly to even suggest each of them had much leeway in thier actions. they have senior military and political people to answer to as well. i read about that guy who was convicted of spying for isreal. when clinton thought about altering his sentance the CIA chief threatened to resign. which would be unaccepatable obviously.

you guys are funny. well its good that on his first day in office General W tracked osama down right? his first week in office? his first month? year? oh wait...nobody on bushs team gavea rats ass about osama...hmmm...go figure. so the truth is no body say 9/11 coming.

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage its funny they say "US supplied apache helicopers attack gaza"

Fastned what exactly do you think the repurcussions of this would be to those of us in Canada and the US. I think everyone in the world would suffer huge ecnomic and other unknown setbacks if a truely full scale war occured with NK. talk about stock market crases and low tourism. so my question is, if the best course of action when presented with a a potential WMD threat is full scale attack, what will we suffer even if the good guys "win"?

not to get in the way of all this UN bashing while touching yourselves, but... why doesnt any anti-UN argument ever discuss the numberous coups and dictatorships the US has created and supported and profited by? its living in a fantasy world to think that because the UN is slow and bloated that the US is someone pure and wise. if the UN didnt exist the US or some other nation would come in, setup another puppet regime, and rape and pillage the nation for its own gain. the examples are numberous and horrible. at worst the UN is a stabolizing force that brings international attention to bad situations. all this blaming of an international body whose actions are readily tracked is ridiculas considering US supported attrocities and dictators are ususally hidden for decades before the true evil of american policiy is revealed. given the alternative, i would take a slow plodding organization. at least we dont learn about thier evils decades after the fact like the US. SirRiff

i agree that polls shouldnt lead social issues. that is why civil rights for blacks was the right thing to do regardless of how many sourther states hated it and how bad the reaction from whites was. similiarly, equality for gays is the right thing to do regardles of how many wrinkled church leaders tell their followers to fight it or how many politicians try to look pious by not embracing it.

well for the last 10 years the US has had a very strong economy, so people from all over the world came to make money. when things settle down or terror concerns arise or conservative policies come about, you may find more people hesitant to run to the US. but still, money is money, and the US is best for rampant capitalism. SirRiff

uh no....let us know how saudi arabia is when you paradrop over there... SirRiff

yeah but what you are saying is that a LACK of genetics IS a basis for discrimination. becaues by comparing gays to blacks and women who have won equality, and saying that gays are not like them in terms of thier obvious genetic trait, you really imply that your case against them is strengthened. so really you are using genetics as a case for discrimination, or else you wouldnt have brought it up in the first place right? but what i am saying is, that EVEN IF we found that gays were 100% genetic, would you accept them without hesitation? no, i dont think you would. thus even an argument that they are not the same as blacks is pointless, because no matter what genetic proof comes out either way, the argument against gays that you adn many others make would not be swayed by biology either way. thus even though i think the truth about genetics is important, i think that the argument you are making is a purely social one, and had little basis on genetics of any sort. like i said before, the acceptance of blacks and women were made by the evolution of society. and similiarly i think gays under the same criteria need to be accepted too. there is nothing genetic about civil rights and tolerance and humanity. so you cant bring up blacks and women, who you accept, compare them to gay genetics, and say you are not trying to link genetics to discrimination. if your not, then there is no reason to ever dicuss gay genetics in the first place. but my opinion is that genetics cannot vindicate a bad behavior or condemn and innocent one. but i just dont see a threat by gays to society at all. look at all the everyday normal threats caused by everyday heterosexuals and you see gays are not the problem. just a scapegoat for human nature. SirRiff

RONDA what about people who were just different? did they call them sick without cause? i doubt it. HUGO That first one is just musing man, just pondering the consequences IF it was true. OK, tomorrow morning the paper says scientists have found 7 genes that together account for nearly all observable gay sexual behavior. so it was all genetic after all. does it mean that society must accept homosexuals? does it mean that any behavior with a genetic component must be tolerated? of course not, society does not have to tolerate violent just because we have biological instincts programming violence. so how did we come to outlaw murder and rape? through the evolution of society. simple as that. and just like that society evolved to accept women, then blacks, and now gays. their acceptance does rest on genetic proof and thier denial doesnt rest on its absence. its a usefull tool for enlightenment, however the behavior that society accepts must be judged by the rules of society, not nature. we should never accept violence no matter what genetic links we find. homosexuality is benign to a society in terms of its capability to continue to be stable with the basic family unit. ANY suggestion that homosexuality is dangerous can easily be counted with many many other accepted behaviors that are just as dangerous. thus there is no reason society should not tolerate it just as it tolerates many other former oppressed behaviors. as i said, a genetic link does not vindicate a behavior, and no genetic link does not condemn a behavior. society can judge for itself what it will accept and what it wont. THAT is why i must about finding a complete or nonexistent genetic link. because it really does not preclude society from making judgment decisions either way. gays are harmless to society, we damage each other far more effectively in other ways. society is decling because of social stress, overpopulation, mass media, violent and hypersexualized images, and so on and so on. too many people doing to many things slipping to the lowest common denominator. SirRiff

i wont go into detail as another thread is open on this, but there are few examples i nature of anything resembling a human family unit. males in "nature" procreate in anyway that assures survival, regardless of whether its 1 female or 100. likeways females in nature are only concerned with bearing the strongest child, regardless of who they have to mate with to get it. hell, when a new dominant lion takes over a pride the first thing it does is to kill all the cubs, which brings all the females back into heat and then mates with them all. why doesnt anybody ever cite that as 'natural'? this and numerous other examples demonstrate that there is very little that the 'natural' world can tell us about behavior in a modern civil human society. our behavior often goes against our insticts because in nature instincts only purpose is for reproduction. we as humans have enriched our lives above simplying reproducing as the criteria for a quality of everyday life. two things i believe 1. the "threat' of gays to the family values is far overshadowed by the everyday actions of heterosexual peoples. there is little if anything to threaten. look at widespread paternity testing in the US, something like 1 in 7 children came in to different fathers then assumed. straight couples are leading the deterioration of soceity, not gays. hell, churches and government lead the way in corruption. 2. the rhetoric of action against gays is pointless and often just serves a political cause to gain influence by church or politicians. the same was done against all sorts of minority groups in history. if people put as much effort to making society better as they did blaming gays, things would actually get better. SirRiff

oddly enough i agree with craig and hugo. either we have a functinal military or we dont. if we do, it needs to be technologically comparable to the US, since there is no reason it cant be. it can never be large enough to sustain a massive ground war like the US though, who exactly would we attack? china? north korea? so it would have to be technologically based right? small numbers of troops very well trained and very well equiped adn alot of very accurate and deadly support, but when are we going to use it to justify the cost? and will the added cost of security justifty the daily sacrifices we would have to make to afford it? but you know, since smaller nations like canada coud never act alone, doesnt it make sense to put a strong emphasis on regional organizations like Nato, and have each country specialize? do we even need to plan to have an independant military that coudl sustain a ground war alone? no way. will never happen. but i feel bad for the hard working military guys and its nothing to be proud of for canadians. sirRiff

uh nobody cares man. I dont really care about my periods nor does anybody care about your commas. or rondas or scotchs or whoevers. as long as its understandable, the content is what people are interested. this isnt an english grammar board. but if you feel that my missing a comma makes me less informed about genetics and increases the strength of your argument, by all means, enjoy it. but i think you know that the surest sign of insecurity would be to avoid debating the ideas of another and focus on unrelated pretty insults. if i misstate the definitions of genes, heritability, or evolution, by all means correct me. if the best you can do is a comma, that should tell you a lot. see this a perfect example of punctuation not mattering. a little basic knowledge of what you are talking about would prevent you from repeatedly misusing biological words. do you even know what innate means? (we have already covered heredity and inheritance) i will even look it up for you while you critique my punctuation, so you dont even have to trust my definition Cambridge Dictionary Online -An innate quality or ability is one that you were born with, not one you have learned Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth so you see, its incorrect to say homosexuality is not innate like being black for two reasons, 1. because innateness is the same regardless of what specific feature we are talking about 2. innateness is the same regardless of the complexity of the genetic inheritance mechanism thus there is no reason to differentiate between two different types of innateness. they dont exist. either something is innate or it isnt. can you prove something is more innate then another? i dont know, maybe by linkage studies in a lab you can get a number, but to use differing levels of what is natural to discriminate? I don’t think there is any philosophy or science that would support that arbitrary agenda. really what you are saying is that while both homosexuality and race are innate, they are predisposed to different levels. actually, ronda made a very good post discussing that, i should quote it and respond i think. that is a very insightful post i must admit. factually correct, concise, and correct usage of definitions too. have you been reading up ronda?? penatrance and expressivity are two other terms that describe the number of individuals in a population phenotypically affected by the same mutation and the absolute range of the mutant phenotypic respectively. let me just say, when you say cancer or alcoholism or whatever, those are generally single genes or simple mutation cases. the major breast cancer gene, BRCA1, is traced in families like that too. if your mom gave you a faulty gene, you are much more likely to get cancer over your life if you loose the second one for any reason. same with retinoblastoma, RB1, cancer of the eye, a preexisting mutation is almost always inherited before a second spontaneous mutation occurs. this cannot possibly be the case with sexual behavior. since nobody has found as 50-50 spread in families of gays, it cannot be one gene mutation or something like that. in fact, normal healthy sexual behavior is known to be developed by thousands of genes all interacting. and i mean sexual gender, sexual identity, and sexual preference may all be independent to some degree. so what does this mean? you cannot compare one gene characteristics like skin color with multi gene complex behaviors like sexual preference. and then say, well color is innate but preference isnt because it isnt a white or black outcome. there could exist many genes that produce in the right combination the exact same predictable patterns of sexual preference. so although more complex, it would be entirely predictable liek skin color, just more complex and with more intermediate possibilities. so what i am saying, is that i think its inaccurate to use a simple trait like skin color to say that because the genetic mechanisms of homosexuality dont match it in simplicity and predictability, gayness cant be as innate. i dont agree adn i don think that argument holds water genetically. skin color is predictable (if the gene is know) and binary. gayness is not yet predicable without much further study (and its so complex it may never be predicted) and is not binary, since there is no easy way to classify everyone into gay and non-gay. additionally when you consider the huge social pressures brought by modern organized religion, there are undoubtedly many many would be gays who live normal hetero lives when constrained by society in the recent past. as society grows more accepting, i'm sure the relative number of gays will go up as well. for these reasons i dont think its accurate to compare the innateness of homosexuality to simple one gene characteristics like color pigments. because in teh end, the 'innateness' of one genetic characteristic cannot even be reduced because of the innateness of another. can it? i dont see how. so even if i agreed that you could compare two, what does it prove? that because you cant predict sexual behavior completely its not natural? that even though we will probably find genes with a strong linkage to homosexuality because skin color genes are absolutely linked they are more innate? i think, the oppression of blacks and women does not need to rely on the vindication by genetic explanation. human society decided on its own without genetic proof that accept blacks and women because we evolved to accept basic human rights, similarly i dont think gays need to wait on a complete genetic explanation to seek vindication of their behavior. its obviously due to some unknown extent by genetics. but considering neither being black or a women would morally need to be genetically vindicated, why should gays? when Jesus helped the sick, did he demand a genetic explanation for their malady? did he refuse to help those who acted differently? the genetic basis of homosexual behavior is one absolute undeniable similarity to all our human behavior and thus cannot be characterized in any unnatural way. no comparison to the differences between skin color genes and sex genes can reduce the innateness or naturalness of this inherited behavior. but even without this proof, there is every ethical reason to treat it just like any previous discriminatory criteria, like blacks and women, and accept them as part of the diversity of all humanity, because there is no genetic criteria that can be used in a civil society to determine who can be oppressed and who cant. Comparisons to skin color don’t further a case against gays in any way shape or form in my opinion. Regardless of what you draw from it, because in a broad genetic view, the genetic differences are so meaningless when trying to extract moral implications or what is ‘natural’ or ‘innate’.

its funny how you bring up petty grammer mistakes and claims about bad logic then pretend it didnt happen when someone corrects you and points out your misstating of simple language. you should run for political office. homosexuality isnt innate? thats not what i have been saying. in fact i specifically said many times there is a strong genetic componant to all aspects of sexual behaviors, including homosexuality. so no, you dont have anything right. i guess this is proof you dont bother to read all those pesky big words i write about 'strong genetic componant' such. whats more funny is when you say its due in large part to environment. whats the leftover cause after the large part? aliens? the only additional reason other then environment would have to be genetics. so you contradict yourself in two statements. homosexuality cannot be "not innate" like you say in line 1 and "due in large part" like you say in line 2. if its due in large part by environment, it must be due in small part at least to genetics, and thus is innate to some degree. maybe scotch should take over if you cant/refuse to read what i am saying. its just with your first post defining heredity and inheritance, i thought you could use some help brushing on your genetics. i didnt realize you just wanted to misstate posts over and over again.

if a few dirty wanna be militants in iraq mean iraq is an ally of al queda, then surely $3 billion the US funded to osama and his crew in the 80s makes America guilty of war crimes. there were moreal queda terrorists in the US on 9/11 then there ever were in IRaq.

HUGO, really read what you are saying. i compared the oppression of gays to the oppression of blacks and women, not just thier genes. thier genetics are not identical, although certainly philosophical comparisons can be made between them i think. why dont you just read what i said as i posted it so i dont have to correct you so much. no, it was a question man, the 'right' does not = 'well', its the slang grammatical end of the question. like; I should get gas at the next stop right? just another misread? its getting to be a habit for you man. funny, i just read on the web scientists think dyslexia maybe be caused by a single faulty gene. you could probably sign up for a study right? oh, and if you like funny quotes. We should call you professor HUGO for that one. so once again, you dont read what i posted as simply as i can. you claim that i didnt make sense. i correct you again and again and if you read at a proficient level, you will find everything i said is very plain and normal. and you continue to spin your wheels grasping for mistakes i made that only exist in your imagination. i have to wonder why you keep trying to find imaginary problems with my grammer instead of just answering simple questions or reading my posts acruately. do you actually have any opinions backed by basic science or do you just like misreading others? SirRiff

Hugo, Hugo ,Hugo, instead of answering my genuinely asked questions, you try to resort to insulting my intelligence. which is funny, since you pretended to want to raise the level of discussion in your previous post. should i go back and ridicule your first post and misuse of some of the most basic scientific terms? no, i dont think i will, since maybe you know alot about other things and cant be expected to know everything. or maybe you just explained yourself badly, that happens some time. or maybe you just made a mistake and want to move on. fine. now you are trying to say that i'm and idiot and cant speak right? instead of responding to some very well thought out questions i posed. well i think this really shows to everyone on this threat really your level of interest in the scientific or philosophical aspect of this thread that you started.. but just for fun i will show how pathetic your attempt to attack my intelligence is again. i said thats my opinion, i happen to think genetics is very powerful and alot of our sexual identity can be traced back to genetics. this is what the field of genetics says as far as my readings on developmental biology would tell me. that taken together many scientists would not outright agree with me that genetics may be the overwhelming factor in sexual behavior. so the question is, do you have a problem reading? because i specifically said "i would say" and then "but the field taken as a whole". ther is nothign contradictory about stating my opinion and then stating there is no consensus among the complete field. its fairly pathetic then when given serious questions, you would choose to once again make some "petty" insults as you said, and then fail so badly when its obvious i just stated my opinion and seperated it from others. well yes obviously eugenics and the early science of society claimed all sorts of things that could never be supported, and let to alot of suffering. but what i also said that you refer to is once again you seem not to be able to read. that does not say science has nothing to do with it, that says science does not provide a conclusion as to who can be oppressed and who cant. genetic linkage will just give you a number, like 0.8, or 0.112. it cannot conclude who is worthy or who isnt, just a relative spectrum of significance. this is another example of where, if you understood linkage studies, or the results that experimental science produces, that often it doesnt tell you anything in genetics, that it has to be interpreted by men. i think its pretty plainly written that no experimental result can tell you who to oppress. un huh... so i ask you some questions respectfully, you ignore them and try desperately to show that i cant think. and i'm the fool? anybody with a grade 12 education could read what i said and see there was no contradiction because i was speaking of my opinion and others opinion, and then of the misuse of science historically and the inconclusiveness of science is some modern disciplines. i'm not sure what you are trying to prove, since you really ignored some very good questions to attempt to insult me. i know what i said was spefiic and a little scientifically worded, but maybe you should try to read and understand them instead of just misreading them and claiming that since you dont understand it that it must be my problem. i assure you, in all my academics and work i talk about much more complex stuff and nobody misreads me like you. so you can really just give it up and just say you dont agree or dont understand rather then looking silly and saying it doesnt make sense. it indeed does make sense if you can read and follow scientific thinking. if you cant even understand and respond to what i say here, then you really should get out of the genetics/biology/development discussion and just hold your views without trying to justify them scientifically. because then you would have to actually answer questions like the ones i possessed, instead of pretending other people are at fault because you dont understand.

HUGO, really what you seem to be saying is that because sexual behavior isnt a perfectly binary choice, black or white, that an argument against it is somehow more justified. that argument just doest make any sense to me at least. any argument against homosexual behavior that you have, certainly has enough justification by the rules that society chooses to accept. there is nothing that genetics can do to make any human behavior less natural, because by definition anything developed in nature, i.e. our basic design, is the definition of natural. homosexuality is to some degree absolutely genetics, because our sexual gender, sexual identity, and sexual preference all seem to be modular independent parts of our sexuality. so lets assume for simplicity its 50-50, that seems the most reasonable guess right now. the only conclusion can be that you think that simply because a behavior cannot be excused by %100 instinct, that its somehow more open for persecution. well i suppose i would agree generally with that statement, namely that complex sexual behavior cannot be compared to simple binary choices. and yes it is not 100% genetic from all we know. this is where many people with genetics backgrounds would take issue with your conclusions, because there is nothing in the primary science that would allow anybody to make any conclusions about who deserves to be oppressed and who doesnt. if you are trying to use genetics as the basic for logical argument that gays do not deserve protection against oppression I would conclude two things, I. you have misstated the basic principles of genetics II. there is no human that genetic science could justify being more subject to oppression then any other Lets look up the word oppression; Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power Cambridge Dictionary of American English when people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom: so really what your argument is saying when you take away all the debate about how genetic homosexuality is, is that; human characteristics that were savagely oppressed in the past such as female gender and dark skin would be unethical to oppress in modern day because we know they are completely hereditary in nature, while homosexual characteristics, don’t fall under the same category of protection, because we know they are not 100% hereditary behaviors SO i have a few questions for you 1. do you believe in the above statement, if not, please restate it. 2a. how would a non-complete hereditary explanation for genetic influenced homosexuality make any argument for the continued oppression of homosexuality any more acceptable considering the vast advancement in human culture and acceptance came without genetic insight to any of the advancements, 2b why should a negative burden on society be differently categorized based on the inability to control the behavior? 3a. who decides what the acceptable level of hereditary contribution is that protects a group from oppression? 3b. how would the acceptable level of heredity contribution (heritability as we previously discuss) be determined without presuming to know everything about humans in the far distant future? 3c. what negative human behaviors could be similarly made tolerable because of a strong heritability link justifies them? 4. Could an unpopular benign human characteristic be unprotected from prosecution from society on the grounds it is not %100 heritable. 5. Why should the source of a characteristic overshadow its effect on society when we decide what is acceptable? 6. as homosexuality is part of the oldest animal heritable behavior system (sexual reproduction, billions of years), and assuming its not only a non-productive behavior (no offspring) but also detrimental to a population (promiscuity and heath effects), why would its genetic existence continued to be tolerated in humans over our evolution, even at %50 influence, and in nature as well?