Coral Rhedd

Hey you were the one who dragged your sister into this, not me. But since you do not seem to think it is wrong to marry you sister, perhaps you should try to change the law. Me, I don't have a sister. It would be interesting then to get your perspective about what you think laws should be based upon. Hmmm. Please reread you second sentence in the above quote. (I definitely understand your feelings about the lawn. ) Then the main purpose of law should be to enforce equality? Watch the Wizard of Oz and observe what happened to the Tin Man.

This is a forum full of scientists. Perhaps they might have a viewpoint as to whether there are sound' date=' scientific reasons why you should not marry your sister. Or at least some of them surely have an opinion on why you should not produce children with your sister. You are circular here. You say the reason (you should not marry your sister) is that it is against the law. If the law were the measure of right and wrong, in the early 20th century it was wrong for a black man in the American South to marry a white woman. Now it is right because it is legal. Is this your reasoning? Do you equate morality absolutely with law? It is a sophistry to say that because both gay men and straight men can marry a woman then they have equal rights. Are you saying that marriage need have nothing to do with desire? I say you are merely playing with words and this sort of argument ignores all human feeling. It is a Mr. Spock approach to human understanding. No gay men do not have the same rights that straight men have to marry the person of the sex they desire.

I am assuming a mutual arrangement. The question then would become: Does your sister wish to marry you?

Oh, do you mean the right to marry the person of their choice?

Actually, I think gay men marrying straight women in order to have children would be corrupt, especially if this were not discussed beforehand. What do you think women are? Babysitters for the convenience of men? Even if it were discussed beforehand, most straight women would decline. Are you suggesting that gay men marry in bad faith in order to become fathers? Also, you make the rather silly assumption that no gay man could use his imagination in order to sexually function with a woman? Obviously you really underrate the power of human fantasy. Gay men married women for years and cheated on the side in order to pass for straight. Has it occured to you what these sorts of marriages (based upon a fraud) were like?

Because they should finish high school first.

She was fired because she exposed the laziness, the carelessness, and the liability of those in power who could have taken action but didn't. People often get fired for doing the right thing.

Perhaps no one will care about this in 2008 unless they have slid there, but I would like to see a focus on poverty in America. Maybe by the time Bush's second term is almost up and the gap between the haves and have-nots has widened, people will be of a mind to show some compassion.

John, you forgot girl on girl.

I don't see anything wrong with polygamy. I don't care if gays marry. Doesn't bother me it if people pursue serial monogamy or even make like bonobos. But if people really want to discuss what is bad for children it is having parents who by age or temperament are not grown ups. Children usually thrive in family situations where the adults in their lives put their needs first. People who aren't prepared to do this simply shouldn't have kids. Caring, mature, supportive parents usually manage to make their share of mistakes but still do a pretty good job nevertheless. It is careless, narcissistic people who look to children to fill their emotional needs who make the worst parents. If our real concern were better quality parenting (instead of imposing our religious beliefs and prejudices on the rest of society) then we would make a law that no one under 25 should adopt. I realize that there is not much we can do about the folks who cannot figure out the rudiments of birth control.

Most kids feel this way about their parents sometime or other. For all the adolescent rebellion that goes on most teens, a little overwhelmed by their own developing sexuality, would just as soon pretend their parents never had sex at all. I've known well ajusted children with gay parents and I've know messed up children with gay parents. But there is such a crying need for adoptive parents that it is foolish to exclude any group except ax murders and pedophiles and that ilk. What would you have? More orphanages? More temporary foster homes? Children need parents, period.

His mother would have never made such a faux pas.

Actually, it will be the liberal tag that will be used again. Hillary is more liberal than her husband. We will never wear out the liberal tag here I am afraid because the right has managed to define liberals as being unpatriotic. I don't think we can assume the Republican candidate will be Jeb. I think we can assume, thank God, that it won't be Cheney. There are lots of possibilities. Perhaps Colin Powell will attempt to redeem himself. A black Republican moderate candidate would be a powerful draw. Powell however would shake up the South and would give a moderate Dem real a chance. It's the currently solid South that makes it so hard for a Democrat to win and in my humble experience as a Texas woman by rearing, a Southern Bible Belt female voter is not that much different from her male counterpart when it comes to voting. We could change the Constitution to elect Arnold. It seems many young Republicans are eager to put a Republican in the White House who gropes women. Every dog must have his day. Also, there are women who actively dislike Hillary and there are many more who are made uncomfortable by her. I feel a little queasy explaining this but the personal can be the political and I am a woman who is uncomfortable with Hillary. How to explain . . . ? She's a sellout. I suppose there was no good way she could have handled it but I would have thrown the bastard's clothes out on the White House lawn and told him not to come back until I had managed to move out and I would have divorced him very publicly. Every woman who has ever dealt with the pain of infidelity in her marriage, will be made uncomfortable by this loyal woman who stood by her man even though he is a sleazebag. You have to understand that what Bill Clinton has been accused of is much worse that playing around with Monica. There is a long and very sordid line of even worse behavior. Hillary, by standing by her man, is a woman who betrays other women. I am a die hard liberal Democrat and a feminist and I can't begin to tell you how it pains me to take this point of view.

It was a pretty hysterical election all around. I only wish I were laughing. I too got tired of all the Vietnam War era stuff. It really seemed to me like people were all over the place and the candidate couldn't decide how to appeal to them and so they replayed Vietnam. You know our candidates today don't know how they think until they take a poll. I agree that Hillary will go down. She is the only potential candidate for 2008 who already has a solid block voters who hate her guts, but this is not because of liberalism. This is because of she is a powerful woman connected to a powerful man and both of them have way too much past baggage. At one time the Dems stood a pretty good chance if they nominated a candidate from the South. But I think that time may be past. The South was so solidly for Bush. Here you are correct inasmuch as gay issues and religious issues played a powerful role. But the word 'liberal' will be used to label any Democrat who runs because like the word 'feminism' it has been tainted. The term 'liberal' taken the place of 'communist' as an all purpose bash label to be applied people who believe that our government should be run by the constitution and not the Bible.

Well at least Nixon's upper lip would sweat. Bush and Clinton don't have a "tell." Seasoned liars, both of them. About Clinton. I voted for Clinton. I even loved Clinton for a while, but the thing about his being a lech -- well actually I think it was rather worse than that. Some testimony from a woman in his home state was not even pursued because it was thought that she wouldn't be a sympathetic witness and because her experience wasn't relevant to his lying about not "having sex" with Monica. Bush is an absolutely cynical politician. He mistakes mouthing Biblical pieties for moral leadership. He is a man of such frat boy hubris that he is willing to serve more as a figurehead than a leader while his business men friends help him rape the nation. Maybe he actually thinks he is running things. That's scary. Makes you long for Gerald Ford, doesn't it? Maybe in the long run, boring is better.

You are right that it is not wise to insult the people. Sadly, it is also not difficult to insult the people either. We have come to a sad pass when we are so insecure as a nation that we actually want to elect the dumber guy. Kerry did not lose the election because he supported gay rights. Indeed, I thought he was rather tepid on gay rights. Kerry lost the election because he is a very unexciting personality. IMO, Bush won the election because he managed to use 9/11 to terrify everyone. This is not exactly taking the high ground is it?

Too many scientists! They don't want to stray to far from the possible.

Interesting list Microx, although I don't agree with you that everything on the list is a mistake. Many are both mistakes and deceptions and many are deceptions only. Take this one: 15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it. This was a lie and Bush knew it was when he said it. It was not a mistake however because the moment and the image were powerful and he used them in his campaign to good results. On your lists there are a few others like this. Politically they are redeemed from the category of "mistake" by the fact that they were politically successful. We have never had a president who lied so effectively. The lies won him a second term. Success at being President often seems more important to the men we elect than success at benefiting the world. For instance, Jimmy Carter was a good man but not a good President. Bill Clinton was a good President but is not a good man. George Bush is neither a good man nor a good President and is awarded a second term. That he managed this without being particularly smart, gracious, charming, or adept is nothing short of amazing. Instead his team created an incredible lie machine and the press colluded in its success. Those lies he told were powerful. When you have an electorate willing to believe, miracles can happen. It hardly surprises me that he will not admit to having made mistakes. Nothing succeeds like well told, oft repeated lies.

Hi Kate, I use a supplement called GABA. It seems to work better than most tranquilizers. Symbio's suggestion to priortize is really a good one but first you have to calm down enough to to it. I am beginning to use an outline method to analyse step-by-step tasks that I need to do. This helps me feel in control. Also, you can always ask yourself "What can I do now that only takes a few minutes?'' Sometimes the best answer to that question is: "Take slow, deep breaths."

Good one. Sadly, all political parties have sociopaths. In fact the career of politician probably attracts them because lying for the fun of it is a sociopathic characteristic.

I think grief, loneliness, and depression -- although they can occur at the same time are really separate things and probably require separate strategies. Support groups such as Sandi describes are a really good way for people to deal with grief, especially when all the people involved are dealing with the same sort of loss. My experience with depression was such that I have come to the conclusion that most people do not understand what major depression is. Lots of people think they have been depressed, and they have, but only people who have been diagnosed as clinically depressed can understand the debilitating impact of such a depresssion. In other words, most people cannot understand why the person with major depression cannot simply get out of bed and get on with their lives. Having been there, I am firmly convinced that major depression is a brain thing and that is why most psychiatrists use medication to treat it. Not that medication always works.

Perhaps not but the idea of reasonableness, also part of the law in the U.S., does take into account why different people might have very different but perfectly reasonable answers to the question. What might be reasonable force for a 26 year old male kickboxer to use might actually be quite different for a 96 year old grandma confined to a wheelchair. It also might very much depend upon what the householder can glean about the intent of the intruder. If the intruder wants my TV, he can have it. If he want's my computer, I going to put up a fight. If he intends to rape me, I will kill him if I cannot escape.