Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; C01



Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

It's a baby boom for grandparents Dick and Lynne Cheney: Their older daughter, Elizabeth, went on leave as deputy assistant secretary of state before having her fifth child in July. "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild," spokesman Lea Anne McBride said last night.

Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home.

News of the pregnancy will undoubtedly reignite the debate about gay marriage. During the campaign, Mary Cheney was criticized by gay activists for not being more publicly supportive of same-sex marriage. Her father said people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to" but deferred to the president's policy supporting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Cheney herself called the proposed amendment "a gross affront to gays and lesbians everywhere" in her book, "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life," which was published in May.

Cheney has described her relationship with Poe -- whom she took to last year's White House dinner honoring Prince Charles and Camilla -- as a marriage. The two met in 1988 while playing ice hockey and began dating four years later. They moved from Colorado to Virginia a year ago to be closer to Cheney's family. In an interview with the Post six months ago, when asked if she and Poe wanted children, Cheney said that was a "conversation I think I should have with Heather first."

In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney's child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

[ruchir]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

[Shukla]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

[LosingNow]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Looks like you missed all the fun earlier... you may want to start here to get the context for the title of this thread
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=6211.msg84533#msg84533

[ruchir]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

[LosingNow]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

Fair enough. I think you have expressed that view very well in the past.

Q for you, if Mary Cheney was a single mom(through unusual circumstances) - would it have been OK for her to raise a kid?

[ruchir]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

Fair enough. I think you have expressed that view very well in the past.

Q for you, if Mary Cheney was a single mom(through unusual circumstances) - would it have been OK for her to raise a kid?

Unusual circumstances? Like what? Rape? Torn condom? No knowledge what sex can lead to? Unprotected sex?

Okay, whatever the circumstances. If she was a single mom, definetly she knew who the father was. She had a relationship with the father that probably did not work out in long term. She was not a lesbian to begin with. She probably bore the child to start a family with the father. Had mom and dad not split, it would have been a normal family.

Many normal couples, who can't bear child for medical reasons, go for artificial insemination in order to have a family. In these cases, ladies go for insemination only under extreeme medical conditions, like young Joes not survivng the journey to eggs after penetration. And there too, mostly the semen comes from husband.

In all these cases, I'm okay whether the mother is single or not.

In this case, Mary Cheney - a lesbian - went for insemination from an unknown person. I mean, I simply can't bring myself to think what kind of a woman would want to impregnate herself from the semen of a man she doesn't even know. It gives me shivers. I can't understand how can a woman go into a clinic and ask the doctor to fill her up with the liquid that came from an unknown man. Unimaginable. IMO, better option would have been to adopt. But I'm against that too, for the reasons mentioned in the other thread.

[fineleg]

You are against adoption? or adoption by gay/lez?

[LosingNow]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

Fair enough. I think you have expressed that view very well in the past.

Q for you, if Mary Cheney was a single mom(through unusual circumstances) - would it have been OK for her to raise a kid?

Unusual circumstances? Like what? Rape? Torn condom? No knowledge what sex can lead to? Unprotected sex?

Okay, whatever the circumstances. If she was a single mom, definetly she knew who the father was. She had a relationship with the father that probably did not work out in long term. She was not a lesbian to begin with. She probably bore the child to start a family with the father. Had mom and dad not split, it would have been a normal family.

Many normal couples, who can't bear child for medical reasons, go for artificial insemination in order to have a family. In these cases, ladies go for insemination only under extreeme medical conditions, like young Joes not survivng the journey to eggs after penetration. And there too, mostly the semen comes from husband.

In all these cases, I'm okay whether the mother is single or not.

In this case, Mary Cheney - a lesbian - went for insemination from an unknown person. I mean, I simply can't bring myself to think what kind of a woman would want to impregnate herself from the semen of a man she doesn't even know. It gives me shivers. I can't understand how can a woman go into a clinic and ask the doctor to fill her up with the liquid that came from an unknown man. Unimaginable. IMO, better option would have been to adopt. But I'm against that too, for the reasons mentioned in the other thread.

So you are ok with a single mother raising a kid. Now if she lives with her sister or mom and raises the kid - I assume you will be ok? Your issue appears to be with a mother raising a kid with another women - whom she is in love with - aka her lesbian lover.
Also, you are ok with a woman getting pregnant, as long as, she knows who is she having her baby with. Do you know for sure that Mary Cheney is having insemination from an unknown person. She could have picked the baby's father..the report clearly says that the "circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private"

[sgusa]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

I have seen quite a few hetero families that can in no way classified as "normal"

Ofcourse, I am not going to revisit my views ( rather opposed to Ruchir's I'm afraid! ) on this, since they have already been expressed in that thread LN pointed out

[sgusa]

Mary Cheney had artificial insemination done. After being lesbian, she goes for child-birth?? That too, through artificial insemination!! (of course, that's the only way possible for her).... In my view, that's such garbage.

not sure what motherhood got to do with being gay. are you saying gays cant raise children?

Mary Cheney is not doing anything illegal, as far as I know. And that's not my point of contempt.

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

Fair enough. I think you have expressed that view very well in the past.

Q for you, if Mary Cheney was a single mom(through unusual circumstances) - would it have been OK for her to raise a kid?

Unusual circumstances? Like what? Rape? Torn condom? No knowledge what sex can lead to? Unprotected sex?

Okay, whatever the circumstances. If she was a single mom, definetly she knew who the father was. She had a relationship with the father that probably did not work out in long term. She was not a lesbian to begin with. She probably bore the child to start a family with the father. Had mom and dad not split, it would have been a normal family.

Many normal couples, who can't bear child for medical reasons, go for artificial insemination in order to have a family. In these cases, ladies go for insemination only under extreeme medical conditions, like young Joes not survivng the journey to eggs after penetration. And there too, mostly the semen comes from husband.

In all these cases, I'm okay whether the mother is single or not.

In this case, Mary Cheney - a lesbian - went for insemination from an unknown person. I mean, I simply can't bring myself to think what kind of a woman would want to impregnate herself from the semen of a man she doesn't even know. It gives me shivers. I can't understand how can a woman go into a clinic and ask the doctor to fill her up with the liquid that came from an unknown man. Unimaginable. IMO, better option would have been to adopt. But I'm against that too, for the reasons mentioned in the other thread.

So you are ok with a single mother raising a kid. Now if she lives with her sister or mom and raises the kid - I assume you will be ok? Your issue appears to be with a mother raising a kid with another women - whom she is in love with - aka her lesbian lover.
Also, you are ok with a woman getting pregnant, as long as, she knows who is she having her baby with. Do you know for sure that Mary Cheney is having insemination from an unknown person. She could have picked the baby's father..the report clearly says that the "circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private"

To add to LN's points, what about "normal" couples going in for artificial insemination ?? Both are infertile or otherwise unable to produce a  baby, so they decide to get a test tube baby and go to the sperm bank. Ruchir, is this also not acceptable to you ? And if it is, isnt the woman from this "normal" family also pretty much asking the doctor to shoot her up with liquid from an unknown person she has no relationship/desire to start family with at any point ?

[Shukla]

On a side note, ruchir do you often find yourself agreeing with Bill O'?

[ruchir]

You are against adoption? or adoption by gay/lez?

I am not against adoptio. I am against adoption by gay/lez.

[ruchir]

So you are ok with a single mother raising a kid. Now if she lives with her sister or mom and raises the kid - I assume you will be ok? Your issue appears to be with a mother raising a kid with another women - whom she is in love with - aka her lesbian lover.
Also, you are ok with a woman getting pregnant, as long as, she knows who is she having her baby with. Do you know for sure that Mary Cheney is having insemination from an unknown person. She could have picked the baby's father..the report clearly says that the "circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private"

Yes, my issue is with a child being raised by a mother/father and their lesbian/gay partner. Not by a mother living with her mother/sister.

It's not about mother knowing who the donor father is. In artificial insemination, if the donor is anyone other than husband, their identity is kept secret. That is the law in USA and worldwide. It is about the NEED of artificial insemination. THE NEED. In my examples, I have noted medical needs for such insemination. In Mary Cheney's case, there is no medical need.

And per US laws, Mary Cheney will never ever know (legally) who the donor is. It is always kept secret.

[ruchir]

To add to LN's points, what about "normal" couples going in for artificial insemination ?? Both are infertile or otherwise unable to produce a  baby, so they decide to get a test tube baby and go to the sperm bank. Ruchir, is this also not acceptable to you ? And if it is, isnt the woman from this "normal" family also pretty much asking the doctor to shoot her up with liquid from an unknown person she has no relationship/desire to start family with at any point ?

In my first example, I talked about THE NEED for artificial insemination, by husband or any other donor. When the NEED for insemination is extreeme and medical, what logic is there to oppose it? Of course, I don't oppose it in such cases.

Again, in Mary Cheney's case, there is no need for artificial insemination. She is perfectly fit to have child thru normal process.

[ruchir]

On a side note, ruchir do you often find yourself agreeing with Bill O'?

Yes, I watch Bill O' often. And yes, I agree with his views on some topics and disagree on others. What has that go to do with it? Is he a demon or an evil person, with whom I should never agree?? What's the point?

BTW, I also watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report often. So, does that make me a comedian? 

[CLR James]

Dear Ruchir,

I am a little curious as to why you would automatically assume heterosexual relations to be the only 'normal' format. It of course immediately suggests that homosexual relations are 'abnormal'. This, despite the fact that it has always existed in history and studies have shown that even animals display bisexual/homosexual tendencies.

Secondly, what are the loss of values you are lamenting? What good are values that exclude a certain section of humanity, deny them rights and happiness while privileging others? For instance, why would I lament the loss of a tradition that once dictated that women should not be educated or allowed to work, or lower caste people should not be touched or allowed into the house? 'Values' are an ever changing thing, and they always come with a price. What matters is who pays it.

Thirdly, you seem to have something against 'artifice'. But if you think about it, as human beings, our sexual beings and erotic cultures are always already artificial to a large extent. We define our sexuality by visual, aural, and sensory stimulations of different kinds. Monogamy itself is artificial and not 'natural' at all. We practice birth control, we also do not have a naturally defined mating season like many animals precisely because we have an 'artificial' culture of erotics. We thus have sex for entertainment, something that a dog cannot do. If that is true, why can't we be comfortable with the prospect of atrificial insemination, when the woman in question cannot sleep with a man because of her different desires. In this case, don't you think this child will be much more a product of love because of artificial insemination, than if a man was hired to do the job 'naturally'?

[ruchir]

I am a little curious as to why you would automatically assume heterosexual relations to be the only 'normal' format. It of course immediately suggests that homosexual relations are 'abnormal'. This, despite the fact that it has always existed in history and studies have shown that even animals display bisexual/homosexual tendencies.

There is a thread linked by LN, where I explained in detail why I consider homosexuality as abnormal. I don't want to repeat that here again.

Secondly, what are the loss of values you are lamenting? What good are values that exclude a certain section of humanity, deny them rights and happiness while privileging others? For instance, why would I lament the loss of a tradition that once dictated that women should not be educated or allowed to work, or lower caste people should not be touched or allowed into the house? 'Values' are an ever changing thing, and they always come with a price. What matters is who pays it.

Every society develops with time. There was a time when women were not educated or allowed to work. Not anymore. Similarly, when the time comes (and I am alive) that homosexuality is considered perfectly normal, I will accept it. When I talk about values, I talk about how homosexuality and it's by products can hurt the society. In the other thread, all this has been in great detail.

Thirdly, you seem to have something against 'artifice'. But if you think about it, as human beings, our sexual beings and erotic cultures are always already artificial to a large extent. We define our sexuality by visual, aural, and sensory stimulations of different kinds. Monogamy itself is artificial and not 'natural' at all. We practice birth control, we also do not have a naturally defined mating season like many animals precisely because we have an 'artificial' culture of erotics. We thus have sex for entertainment, something that a dog cannot do. If that is true, why can't we be comfortable with the prospect of atrificial insemination, when the woman in question cannot sleep with a man because of her different desires. In this case, don't you think this child will be much more a product of love because of artificial insemination, than if a man was hired to do the job 'naturally'?

If you read my comments on this thread and the other one, you will see that I am not at all against artificial insemination, birth control, masturbation etc. You are getting the wrong idea. The woman in this case is a lesbian, and I am against lesbians rasing children.

Now, you can say that even hetrosexual parents are bad parent. That's not my point. My point is only about a child being raised in a normal family and a gay family. I have given my views on this in great detail on the other thread.

[sgusa]

To add to LN's points, what about "normal" couples going in for artificial insemination ?? Both are infertile or otherwise unable to produce a  baby, so they decide to get a test tube baby and go to the sperm bank. Ruchir, is this also not acceptable to you ? And if it is, isnt the woman from this "normal" family also pretty much asking the doctor to shoot her up with liquid from an unknown person she has no relationship/desire to start family with at any point ?

In my first example, I talked about THE NEED for artificial insemination, by husband or any other donor. When the NEED for insemination is extreeme and medical, what logic is there to oppose it? Of course, I don't oppose it in such cases.

Again, in Mary Cheney's case, there is no need for artificial insemination. She is perfectly fit to have child thru normal process.

In the hetero case, what exactly is the NEED, as you put it ? They can be without child or adopt, cant they ? And if the NEED is that atleat one of them wants to share the DNA with their child (the woman in this case), why cant MAry Cheney also have that NEED.

[toney]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

[sgusa]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

Quick, off topic reply: That would take masturbation to a whole new level!

[sgusa]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

If the hetero couples who raised the current gay person couldn't influence the current gay person (henceforth called CGP ) to be straight, what makes you think the CGP can influence the child to be gay?

God made them gay/think they are gay. Why punish them ? Free will you say ? Oh then that makes God a sadist who sets barriers and watches mice try to ( often unsuccessfully) surmount them!

For a more biological answer: Simpler species are, well, simple enough to have reproduction done solely by one member. More complex species , need 2 individuals to be speciliazed to carry out the various activities that result in a successful progeny.

PS: Not all, not even most creatures are hetero, btw, there are more species ( if you count micro-organisms) that can reproduce with just a single individual.

[LosingNow]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

1. I do not believe that parents can raise and influence a kid to be gay or straight. Having said that, if they could do so, I have no issues with parents raising and influencing kids to be gay. It is not criminal and/or hurts others if a particular person is gay or straight. Their choice - who am I(or anyone else) to tell them what to do with their kids.
2. Yes, I believe in a higher power. It is my faith. Having said that I have no "rational" answer to why male and female were "created". The rational answer may be explained by the theory of evolution...and I dont have the expertise or understanding in this particular area.

[toney]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

Quick, off topic reply: That would take masturbation to a whole new level!

Dude, where is the need to maturbate then? Can't shake off the habits from your teenage, huh?

[sgusa]

sgusa, lnow, CLR etc,
What is your opinion on the hypothetical situation of gay couples raising children and influencing them to be gays? And before you ask, I am against forcing other things like religion onto a child.

Also, does anyone of you believe in a higher power (god)? If so, why do you think human beings (like all creatures) were created as male and female? Why do you think we aren't like, say the hydra?

Quick, off topic reply: That would take masturbation to a whole new level!

Dude, where is the need to maturbate then? Can't shake off the habits from your teenage, huh?

That was the whole "whole new level" part of that statement. BTW, if you think the hydra has sex ( or intercourse) with itself you are mistaken. The hydra can act as the male or female. It still takes two of the species to mate.

[proloy]

I feel amazed as how flexible and agreeable we are becoming as a society. It looks like anything and everything is acceptable to us. Sense of morality and values is diminishing. I fear that with this contunuing trend of accepting everything thrown our way, one day many things that are considered immoral today will be perfectly acceptable in the books of morality.

To cut a long argument short, I don't support the same full family rights to gay couples, that are enjoyed by normal couples.

It's not a question of morality. Those who are gay are not doing so as a matter of choice. It's a matter of their internal biochemistry, which in all likelihood gets determined even before birth. These are genetic malfunctions, because of which a person may have an outward appearance of one sex, whereas biochemically and hormonally, may have attributes of the other sex.

Calling it immoral makes it appear that the persons concerned had a choice in the matter, whereas actually it may all be completely beyond their control. They have just got hard-wired the wrong way, because of some unknown short-circuit before their birth. It's not fair to disparage such unfortunate folks for this reason, or try to dictate terms to them, or to coerce them into other people's ideas of how things should be.

I agree though that the child's upbringing may be impacted, though if the parents are otherwise well-meaning, law-abiding, normal citizens, I think the effect will not be anything disastrous. We have to remember that even people of incontrovertible eminence like Martina Navratilova, and Tchaikovsky have been homosexuals. Surely they were practising no more 'immorality' than the most moral of heterosexuals.

[ruchir]

PROLOY --
One thing I will say since you raised the issue of biochemistry. Some decades ago, many scientists did research into homosexuality and found it linked to disorder in enzymes. They called it a disease/disorder. When this news came out, many gay organizations attacked each and every research efforts via courts, and media. These scientists were called bigots, racists and gay-bashers. Today, you don't hear any research effort being done to find out more about causes and cures of homosexuality, because no one likes to be cursed and shouted upon in public. That is one thing that I don't like.

US army and CIA did their own research into homosexuality and found that homosexuals were medically found to be less mentally tough than a normal person and could be easily blackmailed. That's why till some decades ago, homosexuals were not hired in US army and CIA. Gay associations went up in arms against this research and said how can govt. services not hire them? Even today, they are discouraged even though army has a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. The important thing to note here is that while speaking against Army and CIA, none of the gay associations actually argued against the contents and findings of the research findings. That's is what is most surprising.

There is a town in San Fransisco, that was known as a nice family-oriented town till about 10 years ago. There is a particular street in that town which was used by families to take walks with their kids because it had shops, parks etc. Overall, a nice family atmosphere. 95% of inhabitants of that town were families. Then some gay people bought shops on that street. They setup gay sex shops and started displaying penis-shaped vibrators, sex-dolls, naked dolls in the shop windows. People were surprised. Slowly and slowly more gay shops were opened as business for other shopkeepers reduced dramatically. Families found it difficult to walk on that street because not just the shops, gays were in full display in the parks that families visited. People complained to authorities about obsence displays in window and were told that they were within legal limits. People pleaded with these shop-keepers to make good judgement, keep feelings of the people living there in account and not display such explicit things in windows, so that families can use the road with their kids. Each and every shopkeeper refused, saying either bear it or move out. In 10 years, the face of that town has changed. Now 95% of the inhabitants are gays and singles. All families have moved out, forced to sell their houses dirt cheap. This has been covered by every major news channel in USA. Many shopkeepers were interviewed on camera and they said the same things - bear it or move out. This is one facet of homosexuality that you will not get to see in Hollywood movies like Philadephia and TV Shows like Will and Grace. But this is reality.

Gays say they are normal, but biology and science shows they are not. No problem till now. The problem arises when gays stop any and every effort that is made in trying to find a solution to help them in overcoming their condition.



Final Word --

I have discussed all these things in the other thread. You are asking me to explain why I have the opinion I have about homosexuality. This explanation can only be done to a limit. Beyond that, it becomes difficult.

Let's say, I ask you your opinion on what foods you like. You say you like Paneer dishes but dislike pumpkin dishes. I ask why you dislike pumpkin. You don't really have an answer but still say it is so because of the taste. I ask why you don't like pumpkin taste. Now what will you say? You will probably say you don't like pumpkin taste because you just don't like it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, let me say hypothetically, that I have an opinion that indian police force is corrupt. However, I also think that police man X is honest, policeman Y is also honest and policeman Z is mostly honest but sometimes dabbles around. Also, I think that police policy A is excellent, policy B is good but can be improved. However, I still think that police force, on the whole, is corrupt.

What I am trying to say is that my opinion of police force is not dependent on how I feel about it's individuals or individual policies. My opinions on them are seperate and can be contarary to my opinion of the police force.

In this thread, and previous one, I was asked of my opinion of a lot of real-life situations that resembled homosexual situations in some way. I was asked to equate them with homosexuality and then my opinion on those comparisons was questioned. What I am saying is that I can have different opinions for every situation in life. And they can still be contarary to my opinion on homosexuality.

How long can I go on explaning my opinions on this and that and that and how it can be linked to gays etc.? I have an opinion and I tried explaning it in the previous thread. Ultimately that thread turned personal on me and I had to stop commenting there. That's why I can't keep on explaining myself over and over and over again. People will pick up a sentence I write and will start shredding it and start asking questions on every shred. How long can I answer them?

[LosingNow]

Ruchir:
First of all, I started this thread...sorry, if this is turning personal on you (part of it maybe that you are the only "contrarian" in the DG on this issue..which is what makes this DG fun). That was not the intention.

If you notice, I am just focussing on your logic (single woman raising kid - OK, single woman with mom/sis raising kid -OK, single woman raising kid with another woman called her lover - not OK...hmmm!!) not you. You are entitled to your opinions..and I was not aware of the above 2 things - research on Gays by government and the SFO town story...which, if true, are very interesting facts.

Whatever, I applaud you for holding fort on your opinions!

[Cover Point]

I think Ruchir has done a great job fighting everyone single handedly on this topic. If nothing else I commend him on his convictions.

I have liberal views and believe that Gays should have the same rights as 'Normal' people.

But one thing I agree with Ruchir on is that if this is really a disease then gays should try to get cured. They should have some research done on finding a cure for gayness as they look for a cure for cancer.

I personally dont believe that people are born gay but I have nothing to prove it one way or the other. But I do think it is NOT 'normal'. So if it is a disease by birth or by later mental breakdown, its only fair that cure be looked for.

In the meantime though they should have all the same rights as normal people.

[proloy]

Yours is a fair call. And you have every right to your own opinion, no matter how others react. The point about discussions is that it should bring different perspectives to the table and thereby let an overall consensus emerge.

I think on the question of homosexuality people are more being driven by emotion than by reason. There is enough to prove that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, and is not, in purely technical terms, a disease. It just is an aberration that happens to only a small percentage of people. Like left-handedness. Just that the occurrences of it historically have been carefully nudged under the carpet and brought forth in the public eye only in recent times.

Are homosexuals mentally less tough than straights? Quite possible. If the gay person is a male. If female (a lesbian, that is), I'd tend to think that the person will be mentally tougher than the general female populace. It's because gay males would have more estrogen in their blood, than straight males; and gay females will have more testosterone, than straight females. It's what makes them acquire preference for the same sex in the first place -- because their own sex is actually the inverse of what it appears to be!

That apart, what you tell about the phenomenon in that San Fransisco town, is more an example of sexual depravity than homosexuality. And sexual depravity can as much be in the domain of heterosexuals, as in that of homosexuals. The trick there is to tighten up the legal framework so that people's personal sexual preferences are exercised in the confines of ther own four walls, and not in public view. I think what you quote is more an example of rebellious behavior than homosexuality as such. Some people, I don't deny, may even take to homosexuality as a matter of fashion, or to make a point. Just like it's with drug addiction (which again, like alcoholism, may have biochemical/genetic foundations!).

The important thing is to allow each other space. If homosexuals try to throw their preference on our face to score a point, that'll be wrong. And unacceptable from a public point of view. Similarly if heterosexuals try to run down homosexuals, or deprive them, or insult them, or call them diseased, that would also be wrong. The point is to keep our sexual preferences, just like our religious preferences, to ourselves, and then collaborate on the more 'secular' issues on an equal footing, with a level playing field.

I don't know about which other thread you are talking about. I haven't seen it. You can provide a link; I'll have a look, time permitting. But on the whole I believe the matter needs to be addresses with greater compassion and less allergic feeling.

I, for example, find it completely irrational to raise objections about somebody's becoming a clergyman because of his homosexuality.

[ruchir]

Ruchir:
First of all, I started this thread...sorry, if this is turning personal on you (part of it maybe that you are the only "contrarian" in the DG on this issue..which is what makes this DG fun). That was not the intention.

If you notice, I am just focussing on your logic (single woman raising kid - OK, single woman with mom/sis raising kid -OK, single woman raising kid with another woman called her lover - not OK...hmmm!!) not you. You are entitled to your opinions..and I was not aware of the above 2 things - research on Gays by government and the SFO town story...which, if true, are very interesting facts.

Whatever, I applaud you for holding fort on your opinions!

LN -- As I said in the previous thread too, it is not YOUR comments that I find personal. At least, in this thread there has been nothing like that from anyone. I was just reminding people of the fact that previous thread on this topic turned personal on me. You are a good man and I don't think you would hurt anyone's sentiments delibrately. 

As you said about logic, yes, I have different opinions on different situations of life. So while I am okay with other situations of single mothers, I am not fine when it is mother + female lover raising a child. That's my opinion. Which is similar to why some people may not like pumpkin dishes... 

[ruchir]

PROLOY --

The link to other thread is in Reply # 3 of this thread.

[LosingNow]

You are a good man and I don't think you would hurt anyone's sentiments delibrately. 

Ok..now I have to buy you a dinner  . I think I will be in Columbia, MD sometime in mid-Jan. I'll see you then.

[ruchir]

You are a good man and I don't think you would hurt anyone's sentiments delibrately. 

Ok..now I have to buy you a dinner  . I think I will be in Columbia, MD sometime in mid-Jan. I'll see you then.

Yup. We can get to meet when you are here. It will be our own DG meet and CP & all will be jealous that we got  the DG meet done before them. 

[Cover Point]

You are a good man and I don't think you would hurt anyone's sentiments delibrately. 

Ok..now I have to buy you a dinner  . I think I will be in Columbia, MD sometime in mid-Jan. I'll see you then.

Yup. We can get to meet when you are here. It will be our own DG meet and CP & all will be jealous that we got  the DG meet done before them. 

Hey I have already gotten one DG meeting done (Kban) So there.

And Avinash did say that he is free after 9th. I am out next week but we could arrange something in Mid December.
East or west ... midwest is the best

[ruchir]

You are a good man and I don't think you would hurt anyone's sentiments delibrately. 

Ok..now I have to buy you a dinner  . I think I will be in Columbia, MD sometime in mid-Jan. I'll see you then.

Yup. We can get to meet when you are here. It will be our own DG meet and CP & all will be jealous that we got  the DG meet done before them. 

Hey I have already gotten one DG meeting done (Kban) So there.

And Avinash did say that he is free after 9th. I am out next week but we could arrange something in Mid December.
East or west ... midwest is the best

NO FAIR !!!!!!

[sgusa]

Neither East nor West, midwest is the

Ah heck, I love Chi town! Go cubs!