Sir Bandelot

When I used the term 'defect' I did not specifically mean a physical defect such as genetic, or like a disease. It might even be genetic, I don't think anyone's ever proven why it is. But moral defect, perhaps that is closer to what I meant. Defect in this case means something is wrong, in other words I think it is wrong, but I don't blame people who have that impulse. Seems like some are born with the tendency to be gay. If genetic then they are defective much like Down's syndrome children are defective. Others, maybe not born that way give in to it in a form of sexual deviancy, as with the example of prisoners sex. Anyway I'm no expert but these are just my opinions. Some of you will jump on the concept of morality. Forget about Nietzsche, his philosophy is cruel and abominable. I know the liberals here will gnash their teeth at the word "moral". So let me explore how far the liberal mind is willing to go, in abandoning its morals. There are other types of sexual deviants, there is a group called the "Man-Boy love association." They advocate that sexual love should be acceptable between a man and a boy, as long as the child is willing to consent, there is no harm done. Now, by g_bambino's reckoning, this should be acceptable as it was very common practice in Greek and Roman times, and he seems to further advocate it thus in his example about gay sex with youth in the middle east. How young are the youths, g_b? Acceptable, or not? If not, why not. Where do you draw the line. Or is there a line for you people at all.

In the example I gave, it comes out as a response to their hopelessness (from being in jail), and their isolation from women. Those who have prison sex are mentally unwell. How many would not engage in that activity, given a heterosexual alternative? Explain to me how that is not defective.

Don't blame me, it's not my system either. But we do not acknowledge, dreaming about committing violence toward others.

I'm not sure what that proves, g_bambino. Adolescent males are grossly irresponsible. Your article shows that as they grow up they return to a sense of decency, and cease having gay sex with one another. It implies being gay is a choice and that they can shut it off, stop being gay once they mature and especially if woman is 'available' to them. But I have no doubt that there are men who would never consider having gay sex, even if no women is available. But perhaps, give a long enough time (like being in a prison for example) that could change due to loneliness and stress. Tell me that isn't a defect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt Yes I know it's a Wikipedia link, but still. Garish, cruel, barbaric is a better description of the attitude towards homosexuality there. It doesn't sound at all like you describe. I suggest, you are talking us for a little hand-holding walk here yourself. By the way, do not confuse Arab customs such as hand holding and even, kissing amongst men as xpressions of sexual desire. Lest we forget, when GB was President he too had to hold a few hands. And far as I know, he ain't no queer boy. Despite that, what's right is right. Not- relativity! Although I cannot speak for Oleg let me say that I believe there is a finite, fixed thing we can call 'right'. There is a right principle! Being right is something we might spend our lives aspiring toward, but frequently fail at. Forgiveness of that failure, in all of us, is a whole other matter but does not negate what is "right". So lets call it like it is.

In your opinion. Millions engage in criminal behaviour too. And have mental diseases, and get cancer. The fact that a particular issue, behaviour, or tendency is common worldwide, even normal, does not make it unobjectionable.

I don't oppose the basic principal but as I demonstrated above, which poll do you want to choose from? - The dilemma of the 'Age of Information'

Considering the state that the world is in, I believe this to be true. But it is surely not the fault of homosexuals. The human being is sadly psychotic, selfish and unwise. And all the things in life that distract us from devoping to our true potential add to the problem. That's why discipline and guidance, and yes some kind of code of morality are so important. A young mind needs rules and boundaries, else we fall to chaos from our unchecked animal instincts.

I immediately thought the same thing, and for a moment was considering to make my first post- there is some hope for Bonam after all!

Saw on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart quite a confusing barrage of opinion polls on this same matter. He showed a bunch of news clips from various TV networks with support numbers going everywhere from min to max. It really raised a question about the validity of polls!

Same goes for me, bm. No I am not visceral toward gays. That's quite an exaggeration. Disinterested, perhaps. I don't care to know if someone is gay or not. When I meet someone new, the question of their sexual orientation hardly comes to the forefront. But fact is, I do have an opinion and I know what I like, and what I don't like. Pity isn't quite the word, but I do view homosexuality as a defect. For my sake I certainly wouldn't want my kids to turn out gay. I would be disappointed, and ashamed. Yes, I admit to that. Perhaps that is a defect of mine. But, we're all human and we all have our issues to deal with. I have no malice towards gays. Anyone who uses name calling for people like me, such as bigot or homophobe, simply says to me they think they're allowed to express themselves, as being pro-gay, but I am not allowed to express myself, despite having no malicious intent. Who is the criticizer? Who is the judger?

I think anti-Americanism exists, but it is issue based. People are against America on some issues, but not on others. Foreign policy and economic policy where there is deception and bullying, yes. Those are the darker side of America. But America is made of at least two opposing forces and we want the good guys to win. And my view of the good guys is, those who don't want to hurt other people just so they can have more luxury.

Good post. It's like one sane and truthful voice in an otherwise confused wilderness.

Indeed. It seems we share much in common, old bean.

Gay is like a culture, and many gay people strongly identify with that culture. What it means is, they prefer gay barbers, gay doctors and dentists, etc. Of course, that is not to say ALL are embedded in the culture bloodyminded. It does not mean they exclude themselves from interaction with non-gays. But the person who is gay had to go through some difficulty in accepting it, and eventually coming out since there is such a latent hostility toward gays even now. How easy is it to tell ones Dad that you are gay, for example. Identifying the self with the gay community must be a difficult transition. Once made, it's naturally easier to hang out with other gays so they can relax and... be gay. That is only my personal observation. For the Hetero, who is by nature readily accepted on that fact, sexual identity is not such a challenging issue. Seems to me that says, the whole question of sexuality takes on a less important role in daily life.

Looks like white folks just aren't making babies and raising families like they used to. It's the inevitable consequence of liberal hedonism.

I suppose you are right. There's nothing to be afraid of. As long as the education kids get today puts them on an equal level with kids in other countries in terms of the ability to compete for good jobs. As long as we don't dilute the essential requirements for that, it's not a big problem. On to the next topic.

Despite all the nay-saying from our American friends, that doomsday for the US is not imminent, these words keep coming from the White House itself. On two occasions now President Obama used the words "catastrophe" and "apocalypse". What's a poor Canadian boy who reads the news to do? Now I'm more reasonable in that I don't believe this will be the final curtain for America, but fact is, sensational hype like this coming from the President, his spokesman and various news outlets and internet blogs make some people sit up and take notice.

Really the only problem I have with this is the word "required". I say let people who have in interest in gay history take the course. it doesn't seem necessary to make it a requirement for all. I don't understand how anyone can justify that.

Seems to me demand is down and uncertainty is up, BECAUSE so many people have no jobs. But solving this is not the CEO's problem, as long as they've got their trillions.

Many of these missions are now international in scope, with technology components and scientists provided by other countries. "The Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (located in Lindau Germany) and the German Aerospace Center provided the framing cameras, the Italian Space Agency provided the mapping spectrometer." Mission Leaders- Chris Russell, Dawn Principal Investigator, UCLA Carol Raymond, Deputy Prinicipal Investigator, JPL Fabrizio Capaccioni, Technical Manager, Co-Investigator, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica Maria Teresa Capria, VIR Team Member, Data Archive Manager, Co-Investigator, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica Ulrich Christensen, Co-Investigator, Max Planck Institute Germany Angioletta Coradini, VIR Team Leader, Co-Investigator, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica Maria Cristina De Sanctis, VIR Deputy Leader, Co-Investigator, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica Ralf Jaumann, Dawn Co-Investigator, German Aerospace Center Steve Joy, Manager, Dawn Science Center, UCLA H. Uwe Keller, Co-Investigator, Technische Universität Braunschweiger

Yes it's important in itself. But whether it means anything in regards to this thread topic, no, not so much. Shady is promoting the idea that the US should follow the Cretien/ Martin model, but it was not based solely on cuts and tax increases. There were other sources of money. That's an important distinction! And those other sources in the financial overhaul that Martin made, might not even have a parallel in the US. As with downloading health care to the provinces. That's an important distinction!

I wrote my initial comment purely from memory. That's going back over ten years and my only mistake is using the word "Canada". Anyway, small error on my part, but the rest of what I said is true and I didn't need to look it up to know what I meant to say.

If you want to nit-pick on a word, that's up to you. But arguing over it is a waste of time, and it detracts from any useful discussions.

But not nicer