<br>[color:blue]Well it was your word not mine - I only ran with it out of politeness.</font color=blue><br><br>okay, I responded to your "recoil" - a very physical form of objection - by calling that a phobia. My bad. However, the evolutionary reference was yours.<br><br>[color:blue]social conventions that societies have evolved to take account of sexual differences</font color=blue><br><br>Social conventions regulate how to deal with them. Taking account would be rather less invasive. It would, for instance, recognize that a large portion of people do prefer members of the same gender, and that this doesn't seem to be passed on like a "social" disease.<br>Quite a few cultures seem to have managed that quite well. <br><br>[color:blue] I s'pose you're tell me next that men and women in Germany all share the same public conveniences?</font color=blue><br><br>Well, they do in planes and trains .... and homes, don't they? When you go to public restrooms along the Autobahns or at restaurants, you are frequently greeted by the lady looking after them (put a 50ç piece on the saucer) and some school authorities have introduced mixed toilets, to cut down on vandalism.<br><br>Mind you, I like them segregated, because that avoids the long line-ups at the ladies side. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Social conventions regulate...<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't agree with that... laws 'regulate' so for example it's usually a crime to go into a public convenience meant for the opposite sex because a social convention reflects a human aspiration for segregation as a matter of taste.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, they do in planes and trains .... and homes, don't they?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No - because there's only one person in there at any one time. I'm talking about men and women sharing a common space contemporaneously at the same time which is where we unwillingly finish up if we follow the gay agenda to it's logical conclusion. <br><br>km<br><br>

<br>[color:blue] I'm talking about men and women sharing a common space contemporaneously at the same time which is where we unwillingly finish up if we follow the gay agenda to it's logical conclusion.</font color=blue><br><br>Show me a single gay, who would want to share his shower with some fat old lady. <br>Mind you, the feminists invaded all kinds of men's clubs and even the dressing rooms of male athletes .... all in the pursuit of their careers, of course, being sport journalists and all ... while the attempt, for male journalists to go into ladies dressing rooms, was met with derision.<br><br>Bud, I don't think you'll have to worry about sharing the crapper all that soon ..... anywhere.<br><br><br><br>ps: [color:blue] I'm only explaining what I see - if people don't have such a phobia they should greet men and women just the same</font color=blue><br><br>I take back the "my bad" ... it was you who introduced that term. ;)<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Show me a single gay, who would want to share his shower with some fat old lady.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not saying gays are campaigning for it but that it's the logical conclusion of their position that heterosexuality and homosexuality are in all respects equivalent. Show me a single red blooded heterosexual male who wants to share his shower with George Michael or, heaven forfend, Elton John. <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bud, I don't think you'll have to worry about sharing the crapper all that soon ..... anywhere.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That proves my point... that their argument is flawed.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I take back the "my bad" ... it was you who introduced that term.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not really eck, 'twas you - check again!<---.<br><br>km

They might in CA, but not all states. That's the national issue. <br><br>David (OFI)

"not a kiss for one and a handshake for the other"<br><br>There are many cultures where men kiss men upon greeting each other. You know this to be fact.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There are many cultures where men kiss men upon greeting each other. You know this to be fact.<p><hr></blockquote><p>True, but none that allow gay marriage... which brings us back full circle to San Francisco where they don't so kiss and Apple's ill-thought-out position on Prop 8. <br><br>km

[color:blue]Kids with a single parent only get one gender's viewpoint too. At least with a gay couple they get the variety of having TWO viewpoints, albeit from one gender.</font color=blue> <-- exactly its not a balance of values from only one gender views and having a gay couple only reinforces a one gender view times 2<br><br>And I know this for a fact - However a child who was raised with a single parent or by parents of the same gender are NOT at a disadvantage by children raised with different gender parents but their views are slightly sided one way .<br><br>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child . So yes I agree that gay married couples can adopt , just be it, older children who can and will agree too joining a same gender parenting family<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child .<p><hr></blockquote><p>I have to agree - take criminality for example... a couple who are both crooks might offer a child somewhat different viewpoints about the world of crime and yet agree that being a crook is a great way of life which most of us would decry, right? So wherever possible the child should have a say about whether to adopt a criminal or non-criminal way of life and if he or she for some reason doesn't get that choice there has to be something wrong, right? <br><br>km<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child .<p><hr></blockquote><p>It's that 0 to 4 vulnerability of children that gets you and it gets me too. <br><br>Tell you what, you force same sex parents to jettison their kids to be raised by the state if the same happens to any child who is brainwashed during that same 0-4 age to follow some brainwashing religion. Those kids should have a say what they are brainwashed about and should not hear religious doctrine until at least 10.<br><br>You have a deal.<br><br>Meanwhile here in Massachusetts gay couples have been adopting children and these kids have been tested and tested to see if they have been infected with something disgusting. The results: Totally normal kids!<br><br>