Another important issue, no doubt
-
My kids have always been free to play with whatever toys they liked. In fact, my son grew up surrounded by barbies and so on, in the play room, as my daughter filled it first. From an early age, Calvin invented the concept of assault barbie. In other words, barbie in his hands went to war. There's a lot been written on the difference between the sexes brain format. I recently discovered that feminists like to deny science in this regard, but the truth is, men and women are different. The reason for both homosexuality, and people who act in a non stereotypical way has to do with things going 'wrong' in the womb. That's why Mike's example of people marrying cows will not happen. Something has to be seriously wrong for a man to be attracted to a cow. Blending of gender roles and human sexuality is something that can happen far more easily. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
There's a lot been written on the difference between the sexes brain format. I recently discovered that feminists like to deny science in this regard, but the truth is, men and women are different.
As are the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals. The "feminist" point you make is a straw man - no credible feminist has been touting "equality" for years, only equal opportunity.
Christian Graus wrote:
The reason for both homosexuality, and people who act in a non stereotypical way has to do with things going 'wrong' in the womb.
What scientific evidence do you have that this is the case? I'm assuming you mean this in lieu of a strictly genetic explanation. AFAIK, there is none - only speculation, probably because there is likely a significant portion of the gay community that truly is in it for the "culture," which greatly impacts research. I have reason to believe, based on the animal evidence I've posted above, that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. I note that your son started playing with his barbies, shall we say, correctly? What about the kids that don't? Is it moral to enforce an effectively arbitrary gender (or gender role, if you prefer) on someone, who either by developmental error or genetic predisposition, simply isn't wired that way? You could go even further and argue that by forcing homosexuals to submit to a traditional gender and propogate the "gay genes" we are acting against nature by not letting it breed itself out. (Hee, hee, I'm going to have to remember that one.) Edit: Also: Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation...The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. Rahman Q. 2005. The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Neuroscience And Biobehavioral Reviews 29 (7), pp. 1057-66. - F -- modified at 4:20 Tuesday 6th June, 2006
-
Christian Graus wrote:
There's a lot been written on the difference between the sexes brain format. I recently discovered that feminists like to deny science in this regard, but the truth is, men and women are different.
As are the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals. The "feminist" point you make is a straw man - no credible feminist has been touting "equality" for years, only equal opportunity.
Christian Graus wrote:
The reason for both homosexuality, and people who act in a non stereotypical way has to do with things going 'wrong' in the womb.
What scientific evidence do you have that this is the case? I'm assuming you mean this in lieu of a strictly genetic explanation. AFAIK, there is none - only speculation, probably because there is likely a significant portion of the gay community that truly is in it for the "culture," which greatly impacts research. I have reason to believe, based on the animal evidence I've posted above, that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. I note that your son started playing with his barbies, shall we say, correctly? What about the kids that don't? Is it moral to enforce an effectively arbitrary gender (or gender role, if you prefer) on someone, who either by developmental error or genetic predisposition, simply isn't wired that way? You could go even further and argue that by forcing homosexuals to submit to a traditional gender and propogate the "gay genes" we are acting against nature by not letting it breed itself out. (Hee, hee, I'm going to have to remember that one.) Edit: Also: Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation...The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. Rahman Q. 2005. The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Neuroscience And Biobehavioral Reviews 29 (7), pp. 1057-66. - F -- modified at 4:20 Tuesday 6th June, 2006
Fisticuffs wrote:
The "feminist" point you make is a straw man - no credible feminist has been touting "equality" for years, only equal opportunity.
Interesting. The person in question is a 50 ish woman who did brain/gender stuff when studying psychology. She was a world of hyperlinks to 'credible' people ( i.e. people with scientific degrees ) who claim that there is no such thing as instinct and no such thing as gender brain difference. She describes herself as a 'feminist biologist'.
Fisticuffs wrote:
What scientific evidence do you have that this is the case?
To be honest, I have none, I am relying on the scientific work others have done that I have read. I am yet to perform any experiments to verify what I have read, but it seemed to make sense at the time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'm assuming you mean this in lieu of a strictly genetic explanation.
Yes, absolutely. I doubt there is a 'gay gene'. If there was, then homosexuality would disappear over time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have reason to believe, based on the animal evidence I've posted above, that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
OK, well, I'm interested to see it. I guess you want me to dig up my sources now ?
Fisticuffs wrote:
What about the kids that don't?
Good for them. I didn't care either way, my point was that he had NO pressure to behave in any way. In fact, there are ways in which he's not stereotypical, because of how he's been brought up, but he's certainly typical boyish in most things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Is it moral to enforce an effectively arbitrary gender (or gender role, if you prefer) on someone, who either by developmental error or genetic predisposition, simply isn't wired that way?
No, did I say it was ? My kids can do/be whatever they like. The point is, they CHOSE to be what 'feminist biologists' would claim is forced on our kids, of their own free will.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You could go even further and argue that by forcing homosexuals to submit to a traditional gender and propogate the "gay genes"
I'm not sure what it is you think I was trying to say. I have no trouble
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The "feminist" point you make is a straw man - no credible feminist has been touting "equality" for years, only equal opportunity.
Interesting. The person in question is a 50 ish woman who did brain/gender stuff when studying psychology. She was a world of hyperlinks to 'credible' people ( i.e. people with scientific degrees ) who claim that there is no such thing as instinct and no such thing as gender brain difference. She describes herself as a 'feminist biologist'.
Fisticuffs wrote:
What scientific evidence do you have that this is the case?
To be honest, I have none, I am relying on the scientific work others have done that I have read. I am yet to perform any experiments to verify what I have read, but it seemed to make sense at the time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'm assuming you mean this in lieu of a strictly genetic explanation.
Yes, absolutely. I doubt there is a 'gay gene'. If there was, then homosexuality would disappear over time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have reason to believe, based on the animal evidence I've posted above, that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
OK, well, I'm interested to see it. I guess you want me to dig up my sources now ?
Fisticuffs wrote:
What about the kids that don't?
Good for them. I didn't care either way, my point was that he had NO pressure to behave in any way. In fact, there are ways in which he's not stereotypical, because of how he's been brought up, but he's certainly typical boyish in most things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Is it moral to enforce an effectively arbitrary gender (or gender role, if you prefer) on someone, who either by developmental error or genetic predisposition, simply isn't wired that way?
No, did I say it was ? My kids can do/be whatever they like. The point is, they CHOSE to be what 'feminist biologists' would claim is forced on our kids, of their own free will.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You could go even further and argue that by forcing homosexuals to submit to a traditional gender and propogate the "gay genes"
I'm not sure what it is you think I was trying to say. I have no trouble
Christian Graus wrote:
Interesting. The person in question is a 50 ish woman who did brain/gender stuff when studying psychology. She was a world of hyperlinks to 'credible' people ( i.e. people with scientific degrees ) who claim that there is no such thing as instinct and no such thing as gender brain difference.
Really! I sure haven't heard anything like that. It takes all kinds, I guess.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, well, I'm interested to see it. I guess you want me to dig up my sources now ?
Don't go to any trouble, but if you've got them on hand, send them over. I like reading new things. Here's one mentioning the Drosophila mutant: Garnet mutation[^] I've seen pictures of the males trying to mate with each other, it's quite entertaining. Also check the ref on the edit I made to my last post, it's got some meat to it regarding humans & genetic homosexuality.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I doubt there is a 'gay gene'. If there was, then homosexuality would disappear over time.
Some stuff I've been reading suggest there might be some kind of repressor elements passed on in the cytoplasm by the mother. Speculation, but interesting IMO. There are also various evolutionary theories being bandied about which I only recall faintly, like some kind of gamma-male "friendly uncle" theory.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm not sure what it is you think I was trying to say.
Just thinking out loud at that point, sorry. :) I bring up your son not as an attack point or anything like that, just a mostly rhetorical question that if homosexuality is truly genetic and not choice, then it seems to be a moral decision to let them behave as they are wired - since it certainly doesn't hurt anyone else. YMMV, as always. Cheers, - F
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Interesting. The person in question is a 50 ish woman who did brain/gender stuff when studying psychology. She was a world of hyperlinks to 'credible' people ( i.e. people with scientific degrees ) who claim that there is no such thing as instinct and no such thing as gender brain difference.
Really! I sure haven't heard anything like that. It takes all kinds, I guess.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, well, I'm interested to see it. I guess you want me to dig up my sources now ?
Don't go to any trouble, but if you've got them on hand, send them over. I like reading new things. Here's one mentioning the Drosophila mutant: Garnet mutation[^] I've seen pictures of the males trying to mate with each other, it's quite entertaining. Also check the ref on the edit I made to my last post, it's got some meat to it regarding humans & genetic homosexuality.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I doubt there is a 'gay gene'. If there was, then homosexuality would disappear over time.
Some stuff I've been reading suggest there might be some kind of repressor elements passed on in the cytoplasm by the mother. Speculation, but interesting IMO. There are also various evolutionary theories being bandied about which I only recall faintly, like some kind of gamma-male "friendly uncle" theory.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm not sure what it is you think I was trying to say.
Just thinking out loud at that point, sorry. :) I bring up your son not as an attack point or anything like that, just a mostly rhetorical question that if homosexuality is truly genetic and not choice, then it seems to be a moral decision to let them behave as they are wired - since it certainly doesn't hurt anyone else. YMMV, as always. Cheers, - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Really! I sure haven't heard anything like that.
Nor had I, I thought she was kidding at first :-)
Fisticuffs wrote:
I like reading new things.
My principle resource is a book called 'Brain sex', well worth a read.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I've seen pictures of the males trying to mate with each other, it's quite entertaining
There is such a thing as gay sheep, as well. Other animals may have gay sex when there is no other option, but these sheep are plain gay.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Just thinking out loud at that point, sorry.
That's cool, I was just worried that I'd misrepresented myself.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I bring up your son not as an attack point or anything like that
Oh, I did not take it that way, I was the one who dragged him in to this.
Fisticuffs wrote:
truly genetic and not choice
I'm proposing an essential third option. However, I suspect it's at least possible for it to be a choice amongst some women. YMMV ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No "gender" is a word that means what ever we wish it to mean.
Yes, that's certainly true.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just as with abortion, it is only important precisely because it conflicts with a tradional world view of human existence.
I agree: a traditional world view born out of ignorance of the mechanics of the biological, chemical, and physical world.
Stan Shannon wrote:
By completely separating humanity from the traditions of the past, the left will be more easily able to rewrite those traditions as they see fit. The single greatest hurdle to being able to do that is the stubborn refusal of American society to abandon its religions, free market traditions.
How is a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage consistent with a free market? - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I agree: a traditional world view born out of ignorance of the mechanics of the biological, chemical, and physical world.
So we are going to enslave our culture to scientific equations and chemical formulas? Every cultural artifact gets tossed aside because it can't be reduced to some kind of mathematical proof? Your political opinion of homosexuality has nothing to do with science in any case. Even if homosexuality is the result of some sort of explicite underlieing genetic cause, that does not mean it therefor must become an accepted component of the lifes of people who have reasons, religlious or otherwise, to not wish to associate with it or to have their legal system redefined to accomodate it. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Interesting. The person in question is a 50 ish woman who did brain/gender stuff when studying psychology. She was a world of hyperlinks to 'credible' people ( i.e. people with scientific degrees ) who claim that there is no such thing as instinct and no such thing as gender brain difference.
Really! I sure haven't heard anything like that. It takes all kinds, I guess.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, well, I'm interested to see it. I guess you want me to dig up my sources now ?
Don't go to any trouble, but if you've got them on hand, send them over. I like reading new things. Here's one mentioning the Drosophila mutant: Garnet mutation[^] I've seen pictures of the males trying to mate with each other, it's quite entertaining. Also check the ref on the edit I made to my last post, it's got some meat to it regarding humans & genetic homosexuality.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I doubt there is a 'gay gene'. If there was, then homosexuality would disappear over time.
Some stuff I've been reading suggest there might be some kind of repressor elements passed on in the cytoplasm by the mother. Speculation, but interesting IMO. There are also various evolutionary theories being bandied about which I only recall faintly, like some kind of gamma-male "friendly uncle" theory.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm not sure what it is you think I was trying to say.
Just thinking out loud at that point, sorry. :) I bring up your son not as an attack point or anything like that, just a mostly rhetorical question that if homosexuality is truly genetic and not choice, then it seems to be a moral decision to let them behave as they are wired - since it certainly doesn't hurt anyone else. YMMV, as always. Cheers, - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Some stuff I've been reading suggest there might be some kind of repressor elements passed on in the cytoplasm by the mother. Speculation, but interesting IMO.
There was a study a couple of years ago that determined a higher rate of homosexual males in families that also had very promiscuous women. Genetically, such a gene for homosexuality would survive because even though the homosexual members of the family would reproduce less, the women would be reproducing more on average. That is the only study I have ever read that seems to make any scientific sense.
Fisticuffs wrote:
There are also various evolutionary theories being bandied about which I only recall faintly, like some kind of gamma-male "friendly uncle" theory.
But there is no evidence in any human culture for homosexuals being kept around to serve as "friendly uncles". Humans evolved grand-parents to provide that role. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I'm not suggesting anything. I am objecting to the misuse of "gender" in this context. and the appropriate answer to your loaded question would be that only one of the two should posses a Y chromosome (allowing for the multiple anomallies involving 'extra' or 'missing' X chromosomes) ;P
So if a woman is XXY, she can't marry a man who is XY, but can marry a man who is XX? Once you get into chromosomal categorisation you're heading into a real dense minefield. Round about 1 in 2000 individuals worldwide are intersexed in some way, and a significant proportion of them won't have the chromosomal makeup we expect. :rose: Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
To begin with, Reid is a moron.
Thuis doesn't answer the question he asks. I don't know him, but I'd like this question to be answered. Aren't there mroe important topics? It's exactly the thing why "other countries" think the US are religous nutters. The US has two feet in deep shit, and argues about gay marriage.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow?
"two consenting adults"?
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
Aren't there mroe important topics?
no doubt, but so what? Reid pontificates and panders but, and this is important, is in a leadership role of the minority party. In that role he can push for those "more important" topics as he see fit. He doesn't. regarding "more important", there's an outstanding problem with Social Security solvency. When Bush proposed and pushed for a solution, Reid and the rest of the Democrat party fought him tooth and nail. Ditto anything constructive that takes a concensus. Bush proposes it, Reid fights it, nohing gets accomplished - so why not spend some time attending to the social fabric as well as to the wishes of a significant portion of the American voter - the religous nutters who represent a significant part of the tax paying public.
peterchen wrote:
The US has two feet in deep sh*t
and you're spending too much time reading anti-American press. We've the strongest economy you've ever seen, what we see as hardships others invade our country to share, we have a military that consists entirely of volunteers, we have a form of government that has operated unchanged for a couple of hundred years and we play the correct form of football. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Marriage is between people.
What are you, some kind of beastiality bigot? Oh, if only all people could open their minds what a wonderful world we would live in ... "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
What are you, some kind of beastiality bigot? Oh, if only all people could open their minds what a wonderful world we would live in ...
I hear the sarcasm, but if the Netherlands and Namblans have it, this won't be too far fetched and may happen sooner than you think. On a more funny note, reminds me of that funny line from Pluto Nash. Eddie Murphy's character was looking at twins. The guy told him that he loved his wife so much, that he had her cloned. So EM asks him which one's the original, to which the man replies, who gives a f**k. :)
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
To begin with, Reid is a moron. Secondly, what everyone misses is that marriage is a states rights issue, not federal. However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law. Ergo the need for an amendment, even though I agree it shouldn't be a constituitional issue it almost has to be to keep judges from legislating. Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
I have known gay couples as obviously devoted and in love with each other as any other couple I've known. I have known married hetero couples that were loveless and abusive. Why is the latter considered better for the sanctity of marriage than the former?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Really! I sure haven't heard anything like that.
Nor had I, I thought she was kidding at first :-)
Fisticuffs wrote:
I like reading new things.
My principle resource is a book called 'Brain sex', well worth a read.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I've seen pictures of the males trying to mate with each other, it's quite entertaining
There is such a thing as gay sheep, as well. Other animals may have gay sex when there is no other option, but these sheep are plain gay.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Just thinking out loud at that point, sorry.
That's cool, I was just worried that I'd misrepresented myself.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I bring up your son not as an attack point or anything like that
Oh, I did not take it that way, I was the one who dragged him in to this.
Fisticuffs wrote:
truly genetic and not choice
I'm proposing an essential third option. However, I suspect it's at least possible for it to be a choice amongst some women. YMMV ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
You're damn right he's right. The left has badly miscalculated politically. They have badly overreached and now are caught between their own extremists who demand "principles" (ie Communism) and the center who are more comfortable with the traditional extremism of the far right than they are of the left. And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it but lose. God I love it. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it but lose. God I love it.
In your dreams. Despite the constant bumbling of the left, the failures and depradations of the right are so astounding that you fascists cannot help but lose.
-
From Georgia's version: (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. The second sentence would eliminate hermaphrodites from marrying themselves (since that would be a marriage between persons of the same sex (although I bet some judge would permit it based on there only being one person involved...)
But a hermaphrodite is not the same sex. They have the organs of both sexes.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I agree: a traditional world view born out of ignorance of the mechanics of the biological, chemical, and physical world.
So we are going to enslave our culture to scientific equations and chemical formulas? Every cultural artifact gets tossed aside because it can't be reduced to some kind of mathematical proof? Your political opinion of homosexuality has nothing to do with science in any case. Even if homosexuality is the result of some sort of explicite underlieing genetic cause, that does not mean it therefor must become an accepted component of the lifes of people who have reasons, religlious or otherwise, to not wish to associate with it or to have their legal system redefined to accomodate it. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Which other genetic "infirmities" would you like to root out? Black skin? Slanted eyes? Let's shun all those with Down's syndrome? The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Nice try. Always play the racism card when all else fail. I never said anything about infirmities or that I want 'root out' anything. You're the one trying to force your moral agenda on other people, not me. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Nice try. Always play the racism card when all else fail. I never said anything about infirmities or that I want 'root out' anything. You're the one trying to force your moral agenda on other people, not me. "You get that which you tolerate"
Well, you seemed to be saying that bigotry is just dandy and the fact it's based on a genetic distinction doesn't cut any ice. And I'm trying very hard not to tolerate you but it could be a full time job. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Well, you seemed to be saying that bigotry is just dandy and the fact it's based on a genetic distinction doesn't cut any ice. And I'm trying very hard not to tolerate you but it could be a full time job. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, you seemed to be saying that bigotry is just dandy and the fact it's based on a genetic distinction doesn't cut any ice.
I will say this. I think discrimination against behavior is a basic, fundamental human right, regardless of whether that behavior has genetic causes or not. Otherwise, we have simply taken 'free exercise of religion' out of the constitution. Free exercise of religion means having the ability to apply your personal values in your daily life. If the government can impose some other groups values on you, forcing you to accept some form of behavior that violates your own principles, than you live in a tyranny. People who do not approve of homosexual behavior should not be forced to tolerate it by the state. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, you seemed to be saying that bigotry is just dandy and the fact it's based on a genetic distinction doesn't cut any ice.
I will say this. I think discrimination against behavior is a basic, fundamental human right, regardless of whether that behavior has genetic causes or not. Otherwise, we have simply taken 'free exercise of religion' out of the constitution. Free exercise of religion means having the ability to apply your personal values in your daily life. If the government can impose some other groups values on you, forcing you to accept some form of behavior that violates your own principles, than you live in a tyranny. People who do not approve of homosexual behavior should not be forced to tolerate it by the state. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the government can impose some other groups values on you, forcing you to accept some form of behavior that violates your own principles, than you live in a tyranny.
Now you're getting it. The government forces me to swear on a Bible to give testimony in court, to look at the 10 commandments hanging over the judge, to swear allegiance to the christian god when I try to be patriotic and swear allegiance to the flag. I guess it's only those priciples that YOU agree with that aren't tyrannical. What a hypocrit. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the government can impose some other groups values on you, forcing you to accept some form of behavior that violates your own principles, than you live in a tyranny.
Now you're getting it. The government forces me to swear on a Bible to give testimony in court, to look at the 10 commandments hanging over the judge, to swear allegiance to the christian god when I try to be patriotic and swear allegiance to the flag. I guess it's only those priciples that YOU agree with that aren't tyrannical. What a hypocrit. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess it's only those priciples that YOU agree with that aren't tyrannical. What a hypocrit.
I never said that. They are tyranical. Civilization IS tyranny. Get used to it. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess it's only those priciples that YOU agree with that aren't tyrannical. What a hypocrit.
I never said that. They are tyranical. Civilization IS tyranny. Get used to it. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I never said that. They are tyranical. Civilization IS tyranny. Get used to it.
So you expect me to quietly accept your form of tyranny while you whine about having someone else's form of tyranny imposed on you? Again that sounds awfully hypocritical to me. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.