ParanoiA

I'm a bit more freaked out by killer clowns actually. I've not read up on the whole gay culture, but I think it's pretty common for there to be a feminine partner as well as the masculine one. So, how does the masculine homosexual fit in your theory? But it's also natural for a man to be horny for another man. For many homosexuals, acting like something they're not means acting hetero, and you're right, that's not healthy.

No, he means it effects your judgement of remaining homosexual. That was the context of the statement. Obviously, the patient being effected by the condition cannot be objective about treating it or not. The counter argument being that our heterosexuality keeps us from being objective about treating it or not also. Edit: I just realized I called you a Hetero. I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything by it.

Me too, that's why I keep saying "treatment", because 'cure' also implies a value judgement. Maybe treatment actually does too, but more objectively implies an adjustment to the medical condition - trying desparately not to imply bias. And actually, doctor's do apply a value judgement. That's a point I missed on my crusade for recommendation of treatment for all medical conditions. One doctor will recommend pimple treatment, while another doesn't. Both will treat, of course, if requested. I don't see why this should be any different, actually. Do you have issues with a doctor recommending pimple treatment? That's a value judgement as well. Bowing to the whims of society that says pimples are ugly and are bad. This would be my answer if required to answer today. It's obvious though. So, it's no fun to discuss.

ONLY because all other treatments are "recommended". In other words, just being consistent. Instead, you're advocating not recommending THIS treatment, yet recommending all of the others. That's the bias I'm talking about.

Well, maybe. But I don't believe they are allowed on the sidewalks, so that leaves them in a bind.

Why are you replying to me about what warmongers claim? Maybe you shouldn't listen to them huh? Oh yes, the "surge" is quite the white flag of surrender isn't it? I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how we've "lost". It's amusing how extremists want the US to lose in Iraq so badly they'll do almost anything - like declare defeat without any meaningful context or evidence. How many have we lost? About 3,560 per DoD. How many have they lost? over 66,000 per http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Uh..according to the math, we're killing about 20 people for our 1. Now, tell me how we're losing again? I know reliving the 60's sounds like a lot of fun. And it's always a gas to see the world as black and white, support the underdog and pop LSD. Eventually, though, you're going to have to put forth a little more effort or no one's going to listen to you. That's what the hippies learned anyway...

Interesting. Someone else brought up the Bonobos. And I'm sure someone has made this point before, in some capacity...but could it be plausible that homosexuality was or is declining within the human species? That perhaps, homosexuality used to be more common, but has declined as our species has advanced through evolution, because of some of the above?

Yeah, the politics on both sides have been despicable. I think politics looks its worse at wartime. It's the most pathetic reason for people to have to die.

Uh...who's the throwing the temper tantrum here? You responded to one statement with two paragraphs of strawmen. Two paragraphs of crap that has nothing to do with the statement. And my point still stands. The war is won. The occupation is messy, costly, and will never be prestine. We must leave before any chance of civilized society can flourish. They hate us. Just like we hated occupiers here in the US so many moons ago. They will never stop retaliating. But they won't get their country back either - that's the part you seem to be ignoring - wishing wasn't true. And I don't understand why. Why does it matter whether or not we're winning anyway? It's irrelevant as to what needs to be done. We need to leave with a formidable Iraqi force in place. If we're losing, we need to do that. If we're winning, we need to do that. I'm just not going to pretend, like the left wing business media here in the US, like we're on our heels. That's silly. Critical thinking is in much needed doses in this thread. I realize your passion against this war, but that doesn't mean we get to chuck reality because it doesn't compliment your agenda. The point is you can't gauge whether we're winning or losing based on whether or not the enemy is still attacking you. If that's true then they're losing because we're still attacking them. So who's losing here? Depends on which agenda you're pushing huh? Somebody is always going to strap on a bomb, or shoot up some place and that's no more indicative of "losing the war" anymore than it is "losing our country" when some nutcase does it here.

I'm stunned that you seem only mildly pissed. I would be a raging lunatic, quit my job, and begin a national movement to hang automobile drivers. I lost alot of respect for humans when my wife had to dig out and free her car from the snow and ice at about 6 months pregnant while a group of young men watched from the steps of a convenience store...20 feet away. People just suck.

I think so, although I share your sentiment. They're just an annoyance, a day when I have to fight to get around downtown while all the non-downtowners try to figure out how to deal with all the one-way streets and lack of parking. Seems like they always do this on a week day...when I have to work and am forced to interface with this mess.

No you don't need an accepting population. They don't need to accept anything and still lose their country. You need an accepting population if you want a place worth living in, though. You need an accepting population if you want peaceful law and order - not just law and order. There can be plenty of violence everyday, and the media can make as big of a deal as they want out of it, but it doesn't mean there is no order - just not peaceful, violence free order. Plenty of people are murdered everyday in the US - sometimes more in one US city than all of Iraq - but we're still in a state of law and order and no one is declaring the nation is lost - the revolutionary war is lost. Tell me how the insurgency has a better hold of the country than the US. If we traded shoes with the insurgency, you'd have to be saying we don't have the country at all, and the enemy has only lost a fraction of what we've lost, and that our only method of fighting seems to be dressing up like civilians and blowing up things here or there, without any new stronghold or advancement to show for it. You'd have to go on and on about how their technology, firepower and organization, battle skills and equipment are ridiculously superior to ours and how we'll never take the country back. And You'd be correct. Because the shoes aren't switched like that, and we are in possession of the country. A case could also be made that enflaming terrorism in Iraq causes them to activate and move in Iraq, thereby giving us a chance to kill them. A case could also be made that we want to "have it out" in Iraq, rather than let them fester for years and years, perhaps decades, leaving us with a false sense of security - and then launch a grand attack that makes 9/11 look like a tea party. You're confusing will with possibility. We could have kept south vietnam if we wanted. We didn't have the will necessary to do that. War isn't easy. You need a lot of support, in several key areas, in order to maintain long, bloody conflicts. That's why anti-war folks always jump to defeatism - morale is a great focus point to remove will from war. It's hard to convince people war is bad when their military is winning. No, because if only ONE person was left, they would still attack and CNN would report it like it matters. Because we are occupiers. If the french had done the same thing after the revolutionary war, we would have started fighting them. It's not uncommon to want help being liberated by an ally, and then expect that ally not to turn right around and take your country. I think, however, the Iraqis are unrealistic if they think they could have dealt with the aftermath on their own, even though, as I said, it would be quite expected for them to do so. This is the irrational side of middle eastern politics. It doesn't matter if thousands or millions were slaughtered through civil war, leading to imperialism by a neighboring country - it only matters that "the great Satan" is on their blessed soil. Yes, armygas. Some think that their views of the conflict, thousands of miles away, getting their information from a business that makes it's money with drama, is somehow superior to your direct observations on location. Personally, I think the military has less motivation to lie or spin than any capitalist corporate news organization.

Absolutely NOT!! Not even in the same ball park. I'm not passing a judgement at all - that's the whole point. I don't care if homosexuality is the next latest craze and all scientists believe we should be gay - my only remaining point is that you shouldn't pass a value judgement. You either advocate treatment for medical conditions or don't - you don't pick and choose which ones based on your ideas, or society's ideas of what's right or wrong. I'm arguing in favor of not having an opinion. What you all are missing is that doctor's DO pick and choose what should be treated and what shouldn't, some of which is based on their personal bias. Ie...suggesting pimple treatment, mole removal, and etc.. - these are personal biases that pimples or moles are unattractive and should therefore be removed - societal pressure to be attractive. It just so happens that those are personal biases that 99% of us happen to agree with, so there's no issues. Suddenly, though, with the theoretical homosexuality disease, doctor's should have nothing to say?? Because of the way society is wrestling around with it? Hey buddy, this is your doing. You're the one that convinced me that heterosexuality was a medical condition, thereby chucking my supposition into the abyss. Ok, let me stir up the hornet's nest as well... If homosexuality doesn't perpetuate the species then how is it good? Heterosexuality compliments the cycle of reproduction and continuation of the species. Unless you can make a case that homosexuality can too, given enough time and evolution, then I don't see why we would see it as good. If someone loses a hand, we don't call that good. We also don't shun the person and judge them, but we don't perpetuate other's to lose their hand too because there's a political movement going on about how people without hands have rights too. Of course, you could always make the case that homosexuality is nature's built in population control. Perhaps societies that have mastered survival to the ridiculous, lazy extent that we have, also have the time, resources, and progressive culture to allow those kinds of thoughts to worm their way into the mainstream.

Sayonara Ok, we're misunderstanding each other. Yes, I used "credentials", but the point is about what you DO with those credentials - I said, "so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt?" Ie..where do you get the authority to decide they shouldn't consider homosexuality a "problem"? It's a weird question, I know, but it's logically valid. By not suggesting, you are also passing a value judgement on whether or not this person should consider homosexuality a "problem". But you have though if you are arguing in favor of not suggesting treatment for a medical condition. Just because that medical condition has controversial implications is no reason to bow to society and make exception for biased reasons - we don't care what society thinks. Right? Anyway, it can't be a medical condition really, or else heterosexuality is a medical condition and so we're actually closer to a logical agreement. We've already moved past this. I'm sorry you took it personally, seriously, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Incidentally, this thread is on Gay Marriage, which I fully support. I don't think anyone should be spared the miserable shackles and trials of marriage. I don't see how government has any power to say a single thing about the marriage of anyone to anyone, nor to any beast, or object for that matter.

It's even funnier when it makes them mad...

Allegations of judgements notwithstanding' date=' my "credentials" for this discussion come from personal experience, observation, getting involved with the community, and a great deal of research. Perhaps you would care to share your own "credentials", seeing as we now apparently can't discuss this in a civil manner without them.[/quote'] Wow. You have decided since you're really smart that you should be able to decide what other's value judgements should be?? No, I don't see any civil manners present in that attitude. Oh my, that's no red herring, that's the heart of the issue. If you say that treating a medical condition should not be suggested, then you are obviously placing a value judgement on that condition just as much as not suggesting it. You have decided, for them, that homosexuality is not an issue, and therefore should not be suggested to treat. I was saying that because of that obvious bias, instead just be consistent. If you're going to suggest treatment for medical condition A, then you suggest treatment for medical condition B - assuming, of course, there is parity in treatment safety / outcome. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No one should have an obligation to anyone else about why they want to change anything about themselves. It's none of your business why. And really, how do we change anything about our physical appearance without it being a reverance to society's expectations? On the other hand, if you're trying to say that "society" shouldn't be allowed to force what changes a person makes, well then yeah, of course. There are few that would argue in favor of Hitler's great white, blond haired, blue eyed society. Again, freedom is the theme here. I agree entirely. I would never do it. I don't know, depends on how we define "problem". Sounds like another juicy moral discussion... No kidding. It could get really ugly. Just goes to show that no matter how advanced we get, we will probably always be playing tug-a-war with morality and ethics. That's one of the reasons I like humans...

Hmm, interesting point. Well then it should be interesting to see how the next administration deals with that reality, particularly since it will more than likely be the current opposition.

Just an observation, but I love the implication of nanobots doing harm in your sleep because you forgot to turn them off. Sounds like a note taken by the the main character as he's being educated - reference some graphic photos... Also, the nano-jam in the artery sounds like a sweet addition to the death quota. What about a brand new disease or illness that attacks the nanobots and is thus, incurable? Suddenly, everyone with nanobots, the "superior" human, is marked for death. I don't know...

I had thought about that yesterday, so when I talked to him I used the term "gangsta talk".

Then we're talking years before we can leave. Years because it's going to take that long to put together a formidable enough Iraqi force to keep it from happening. From what I've read anyway. Makes sense that the legitimate rulers of the lands will have the formibable force too. But I don't know that that's true with the Iraqi's. If Iran is supplying weapons and fighters, then the Iraqi's need at least the same resources, preferably greater. And then of course, we're right back to training and supporting people that could very well be our enemy in the coming decades. I hope you're right. That's something I haven't heard too much about - Iraqi fighters. The will of the Iraqi law enforcement and security.

You don't do anything. Tolerance isn't a FACT, it's an opinion. An opinion that you and I believe very strongly in, but can't prove that it's correct. We have no right to force others to be tolerant - only enough so that they don't violate the civil rights of others. People already teach their children hatred. Why is the KKK still around? Absolutely. In fact, we may even have a duty to do so. Good questions. I'm not sure. But that's still an opinion. You can't prove that racism is wrong or homophobia is wrong. In-group / out-group psychology has a purpose. Most of us believe it's presence in racism and intolerance to alternative lifestyles is merely a by-product, for lack of a better phrase, but for all we know the psychological override we call tolerance could be our doom. Obviously, I don't believe that, but I can't prove anything either. This is tantamount to believing in god, but not forcing it on others. I appreciate people like that. So, I try practice the same thing with tolerance. By the way, I love the quote in your signature...

As far as they want, as long as it's theirs to change. I would also consider children under their parent's jurisdiction, so could change them however they want. Any and all tendencies as long as the change causes no harm to others - like creating a child that emits gamma rays is probably not a good idea. But people have a right to be racist and homophobic. If they choose to put their beliefs into action and alter their genes and their children's genes based on their racist views, so be it. I would suggest they do what makes them happy. If they want my opinion, I would just be who you are and society can kiss my ass if they don't like it. I'm not a big believer in changing yourself to make society happy. But I also don't force my tolerance on other people either, that would be intolerant.

Would you deny others the right to change their genetic condition?

I've been staying out of this one because this Iraq thing has just been done to death it seems. But the administration has not defined what winning means any more than the opposition has defined what losing means. I don't think anybody knows what the "war" actually is - or at least we're not agreeing on it. We already won the "war", we took the country and could keep the country if we wanted. The insurgents can sporadically bomb our troops for the next 20 years and never take their country back. We won, period. We're in occupation mode - trying to maintain peaceful order and law. That's what we can't and will never be able to win. We are the occupier going against a tenacious civilization that would rather be dead then be dictated to, by us. Sound familiar, fellow americans? It's counterproductive and disingenuous to continually moan about how we've "lost" or any other defeatist propaganda. None of us have any reason to think the violence will stop - for any reason - until we leave. The best we can hope for is to get Iraqis trained to deal with the impending civil war - to prevent it or influence it. We shouldn't expect any decrease in bombings or any other terrorist act no matter how well that works. I have contended for quite a while that we cannot turn our backs on the Iraqi people, that we have to fix our mess. Well, fixing our mess means training them to govern. And then we have to let them do it. The violence in Iraq is not a barometer of whether we're winning or losing anything. They will fight until there is only one of them left standing in the middle of the region with a bomb strapped to his chest, and CNN will still make it sound significant.

And that's pretty much been my point all along, or at least my arguments have been generated from that assumption - although I didn't want to use the word "bad" because you get into the same subjectivity as "good", obviously and no one can define that for everyone. Not that "abnormal" was any better... Anyway, fun discussion about something that will likely never be in the first place. I still think there is an element of judgement being passed by the overcompensating tolerance crowd, but perhaps that's unavoidable. Maybe a happy medium is to understand that medical professionals are people and when you enlist their service you understand their opinions on other matters than medical will peripherally enter the picture - so you keep that in mind when you're choosing your doctor.