Vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

[sirs]

Professor, you should read this and see if it sounds like these people want their children to be protected from this type of cancer, come hell or high water, or if they're more worried about them being sexually active. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07B01&v=PRINT

Ok, I read the article. Where does it mention that Republicans want women to get cervical cancer? Did I miss this? How do we know that Democrats and Republicans aren't all in this group? Why only Republicans? Am I missing something?

Notice the non-answer, Professor?

[Plane]

One can get consent from an animal , and marrage without consent is an anchient practice.

I don't want to advocate either of these as a practical matter , I am just quibbleing to narrow the definition.

[The_Professor]

Professor, you should read this and see if it sounds like these people want their children to be protected from this type of cancer, come hell or high water, or if they're more worried about them being sexually active. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07B01&v=PRINT

Ok, I read the article. Where does it mention that Republicans want women to get cervical cancer? Did I miss this? How do we know that Democrats and Republicans aren't all in this group? Why only Republicans? Am I missing something?

Notice the non-answer, Professor?

I am sure Lanya perhaps read too much into the article or posted the wrong article since I do not see the word "Republican" anywhere in it. Perhaps I missed it?

[Plane]

Professor, you should read this and see if it sounds like these people want their children to be protected from this type of cancer, come hell or high water, or if they're more worried about them being sexually active. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07B01&v=PRINT

Ok, I read the article. Where does it mention that Republicans want women to get cervical cancer? Did I miss this? How do we know that Democrats and Republicans aren't all in this group? Why only Republicans? Am I missing something?

Notice the non-answer, Professor?

I am sure Lanya perhaps read too much into the article or posted the wrong article since I do not see the word "Republican" anywhere in it. Perhaps I missed it?

To catch you up on our controversy.

Months ago Lanya brought to our attention an article about certain persons attitude twards a certain vaccine , this was news to most of us , but the thread heading was to the effect that Republicans want women to die of cancer.

Coming from so far out of left field this has become a catch phrase in our community which represents an overblown accusation , that is to say "Republicans want women to die of cancer" has been repeated by our conservative members to allude to this particular incident whenever another accusation seems exaggerated .

In fact there has never been found a Republican committee in charge of increasing Womens cancer rates , nor even a few persons who want this vaccine to be made unavailable to anyone , at most there are some people who do object to the vaccine becoming mandatory for everyone.

During the course of this thread I have learned that the vaccine in question has great effectiveness against some HPV but that there are some less common HPV strains that the vaccine is ineffective against.

This may mean that persons would consider themselves protected after the vaccination , but would not be protected from the alternate strain at all , this could lead to the uncommon strains becoming common and spreading widely through the population.  This disease has a long latent period , and transmission could occur before any symptoms did. The lifesaving potential of the vaccine would be wasted if the persons protected by it were not aware that there were still dangerous viruses ready to attack them.

This leads me to the notion that the total effect of this vaccine could be a greater number of cancer cases , if it is carelessly applied , and thus the accusation that all Democrats want women to die of cancer.

[sirs]

hmmmmm...........well summized, as ususal, Plane

[Plane]

hmmmmm...........well summized, as ususal, Plane

Thank you ,

I was shooting for symetry , many things become interesting when turned over.

[The_Professor]

Professor, you should read this and see if it sounds like these people want their children to be protected from this type of cancer, come hell or high water, or if they're more worried about them being sexually active. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07B01&v=PRINT

Ok, I read the article. Where does it mention that Republicans want women to get cervical cancer? Did I miss this? How do we know that Democrats and Republicans aren't all in this group? Why only Republicans? Am I missing something?

Notice the non-answer, Professor?

I am sure Lanya perhaps read too much into the article or posted the wrong article since I do not see the word "Republican" anywhere in it. Perhaps I missed it?

To catch you up on our controversy.

Months ago Lanya brought to our attention an article about certain persons attitude twards a certain vaccine , this was news to most of us , but the thread heading was to the effect that Republicans want women to die of cancer.

Coming from so far out of left field this has become a catch phrase in our community which represents an overblown accusation , that is to say "Republicans want women to die of cancer" has been repeated by our conservative members to allude to this particular incident whenever another accusation seems exaggerated .

In fact there has never been found a Republican committee in charge of increasing Womens cancer rates , nor even a few persons who want this vaccine to be made unavailable to anyone , at most there are some people who do object to the vaccine becoming mandatory for everyone.

During the course of this thread I have learned that the vaccine in question has great effectiveness against some HPV but that there are some less common HPV strains that the vaccine is ineffective against.

This may mean that persons would consider themselves protected after the vaccination , but would not be protected from the alternate strain at all , this could lead to the uncommon strains becoming common and spreading widely through the population.  This disease has a long latent period , and transmission could occur before any symptoms did. The lifesaving potential of the vaccine would be wasted if the persons protected by it were not aware that there were still dangerous viruses ready to attack them.

This leads me to the notion that the total effect of this vaccine could be a greater number of cancer cases , if it is carelessly applied , and thus the accusation that all Democrats want women to die of cancer.

However, when I hear of this vaccine being discussed on commercials on TV, they actually indicate that it only protects against most not all of these viruses, so I fail to see the "biggie" about this.  In fact, I have recommended our two girls, aged 14 and 21, become innoculated via this vaccine. Sounds entirely reasonable and prudent.

So, if I understood you, Lanya then NEVER said that Republicans want women to die of cancer?

[Amianthus]

So, if I understood you, Lanya then NEVER said that Republicans want women to die of cancer?

Well, the thread title was "Why do Republicans want women to die of cancer?"

But other than that, and the repeated claims that Republicans want women to die of cancer within the thread, no she didn't say it.

[The_Professor]

Oh, okay, I didn't think she was brain cell challenged enough to believe that. Thank you!

[fatman]

I don't want to advocate either of these as a practical matter , I am just quibbleing to narrow the definition.

I understand Plane, thanks for the debate, it was fun.

[Plane]

I don't want to advocate either of these as a practical matter , I am just quibbleing to narrow the definition.

I understand Plane, thanks for the debate, it was fun.

Ok , we can return to it sometime .

[Plane]

In fact, I have recommended our two girls, aged 14 and 21, become innoculated via this vaccine. Sounds entirely reasonable and prudent.

I concur .

Tho it may not be bullet proof , it is probly worth doing .

The theroy of the accusation is that fundamentalists want their daughters to be chaste so badly that they want sex to be dangerous .

As  a fundamentalist myself ths seems silly ,as an accusation ,the vaccine is protection from  a pathogen ,a very bad pathogen, people can pick up ths pathogen through no fault of their own , so all protection is welcome.

And removeing this one pathogen from the plethera of dangers facing young people makes them safer , not safe , foolish behaviors can overcome a precaution like this , prudence needs to be a general principal.

[Rich]

>>If the child of a marriage has (I don't know the chances here, I'm just going to state a number) an 80% chance of producing a non-viable offspring, then that marriage probably shouldn't happen,?<<<

Homosexuals can have no offspring at all and you?re not disqualifying them.

>> ? because this (to me) is a form of child abuse (which isn't to say that it won't or can't happen, I'm sure it has and does).<<

To you perhaps, but not to the couple involved. What if the couple were cousins and both of them were male? Would that be alright, since you?re concern about child abuse would be limited to a zero chance?

>>This is kind of a grey area in my feelings on civil rights (yes I have grey areas). I would imagine the numbers requesting an incestuous marriage vs. those requesting a gay marriage would be a fraction of a percent.<<

I?m sorry, but what do numbers have to do with a couple in love?

>>Further, with the societal taboos against incest (which to be sure, there are still some against homosexuality, but not nearly as drastic as with incest), I would think that two people requesting such a thing should see a good psychiatrist, and not Dr. Phil. He didn't do Britney any good.<<

It wasn?t to long ago that homosexuality was viewed as mental disorder, and still is in some circles.

[The_Professor]

I understood this from the beginning, Fatman. We disagree. I doubt the world will stop revolving because we disagree. No problem...

True enough Prof.  I do like the ability to disagree cordially though.

In support of Marrage the Government has given certain priveledges to the married.

Why?  What does the Constitution say about marriage, gay, straight, or polygamous?

There is a long list of these priveledges , but Marrage predates our government , might predate government itself , and doesn't need the government's help to exist.

But it needs the governments help to protect it from homosexuals?  (Constitutional Amendments)

As long as the government doesn't do things harmfull to marrage , it is all good.

What possible harm can government do to marriage?  It's been around forever (above) so I don't buy into the idea that because some homosexuals marry each other that it's suddenly under assault and about to fall into this morass of depravity.

Lets allow anyone to designate a power of atturny to a single other person of his choice , and to this coupleing let the tax advantage, the right to speak for , the right to visit in hospital and all other appropriate rights attached to marrage ,give.

Why not?  What business of yours is it?  Because Soon every gangster in the county will have "married " hs bookeeper?  That's a straw man argument and we both know it.  How many husbands and wives marry each other to further their criminal enterprises?  Relatively few I would imagine, I don't see how it would be different with gay marriage.

Oh well , unintended consequences are oten more important than the intended ones.

So the best policy is to always do nothing because it may have unintended consequences more important than the original?  That's hogwash plane and we both know that too.

"Plane: Try not to mix My responses with the Professors , we have slightly diffrent points of view and I hate to loose the nuance."



Gee, no one loves me, it seems. :-)

Different points of view? Doesn't sound like it, Plane. At least on many issues discussed here. Weird, actually. Hmmm, upon reivew, you are a bit more pro-Bush than I. On social and theological issues we do not differ. Must be why we attracted the same woman.

[fatman]

Homosexuals can have no offspring at all and you?re not disqualifying them.

Why would I?  They're not going to have a retarded child.  The idea of marriage for procreation in today's society is laughable.

To you perhaps, but not to the couple involved. What if the couple were cousins and both of them were male? Would that be alright, since you?re concern about child abuse would be limited to a zero chance?

No, it would not be alright, because of the incest taboo.  Incest is only ok if you're a member of a royal family it seems.

I?m sorry, but what do numbers have to do with a couple in love?

When a movement has numbers and support, then it becomes recognized and becomes an issue for discussion.  Non numerical issues (incest marriages) are not clamoring to be recognized by the incest community.  I've been told that the incest community is a pretty close one.  (that's a joke rich).

It wasn?t to long ago that homosexuality was viewed as mental disorder, and still is in some circles.

There is a lot that has changed in sexual psychology in the last 40 years.  The treatments for pedophiles and fetishists for example.  Thatsaid, it wasn't too long ago that being black, Jewish, insert your minority, were considered to be inferior, and still are in some circles.