Graeme

Definitely, but you'll probably have to clarify what exactly you mean. Taking the question literally, I currently love my wife and both of my sons -- that's three people to start with. The type of love is different between the three, but it's still love. If you mean a romantic/sexual love, the answer is still yes. A lot of people do it, but serially. ie. The love one person and then later on, they'll love another. The love is never the same, but that doesn't mean one is inferior to the other -- they are just different because the people involved are different. Love is made up of many things and the mix of those things varies depending on who you are loving. For example, I love both my boys, but what I love about them is different. I love one boy's enthusiasm and keen mind. I love the other boy's imagination and kind heart. Both boys have all four of those things that I love, but in different proportions. The love I have for them is equivalent, but it's not identical. Just my views

My only gay friends are all online, but I consider them close enough that I still said I had a few gay friends. I also said I would like some more gay friends. I would like some real-life gay friends, but I won't be looking for any because I know that my wife wouldn't approve. She knows it is irrational, but she is paranoid that some gay guy is going to come along and steal her husband. Therefore, I make an effort to avoid going to places where I might meet gay guys. I still meet some (one of the customers I work with is gay and single ) but I'm not free to explore a real-life friendship with another gay guy. It's part of the price I'm paying to keep my marriage together. Before anyone comments, I'm happy to pay this price.

My understand of genetics would be that a YY would either not be a viable embryo, or it would be severely crippled. The Y chromosome doesn't have enough active genes to cover those in the X chromosone and that are necessary for human life. There are indications that the Y chromosome is slowly reducing in size, and that the genes on it are very limited in scope.

The Whitsundays is a group of islands inside the Great Barrier Reef in Far North Queensland. The main island is Hamilton Island and it has an airstrip capable of taking jets. The other main access is via Airlie Beach, and then take a ferry out to the islands. There are quite a few resorts in that area, including some very high class ones. http://www.whitsundaytourism.com/ I believe the islands are named after the religious day Whitsunday, probably because they were discovered by the first Europeans on that day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitsunday Since the title is Whitsundays, not Whitsunday, I think it's highly likely that some people, at least, will be travelling to the Whitsunday Islands. Graeme (informal and unpaid Far North Queensland tourism promoter) :mace: PS: I haven't been there for a long time, but it's a lovely area. I had a couple of holidays on one of the islands when I was single.

I think this poll is biased towards people in Kevin's situation. In my case, I have no real-life gay male friends at all, so all of my male friends are straight. How could I want more? I didn't answer "my best friend is straight" simply because I have a best-online friend who is gay. I've never met him, nor have I ever spoken to him, but I still consider him to be one of my best friends.

A good question, but I'm not sure I know how to answer it It means that I feel good about what I do, about what I choose. That I feel that I'm doing things for the 'right' reasons. All of that is very subjective, of course, and I can't really say where I get my opinion about what is 'good' from, though I suspect it is largely from the environment I grew up in (which was partially religious). At one point in the past, I called myself a Christian Agnostic. I didn't know if God existed, but I thought that the basic Christian ethics were good ones to follow, and that's what I try to do. I now consider myself to be a Christian, but I have always recognised that a significant part of my views on right and wrong have been influenced by the Bible, even if I don't feel obliged to "obey" the instructions in it. If you like, I'm as bad as the Christian Fundamentalists, in that I pick and choose the parts of the Bible I want to follow. In my case, I just pick the parts that I think are good

Some Christians.... There are also Christians in favour of stemcell research. As for eugenics, I can't think of many people, religious or not, who are in favour of it. The Nazis gave it a very bad reputation in the middle of the last century. Re: cloning, there are Christians who are in favour of therapeutic cloning, but the cloning of human beings to bring them to birth... well, I don't know personally of anyone who has suggested this. Science isn't a religion and it shouldn't be treated as one. Science is also not the future of humanity. It is a tool to help humanity's future -- no more, no less. Science, like most things, can be used for good or evil. It doesn't guarantee a better future, it just offers the opportunity for a better future. It also offers the opportunity for the end of humanity (I don't think I need to start giving scenarios for this one -- there are certainly enough to choose from). From an ethical point of view, I would actually prefer this new advance to human cloning. Human cloning to me is largely (though not totally) a selfish act. The exception is the cloning of a child or young adult who died in tragic circumstances. Otherwise, it is denying the opportunity for new individuals from the mixing of new genetic material. This new advance eliminates that objection. I still wouldn't approve it until the technology has been well researched and evaluated, but I don't have any significant objections to the basic concept.

I disagree. It is a degree further along than IVF. IVF is allowing the natural process of fertilisation to occur in a non-natural environment (the proverbial test tube), but that is just the environment, not the fertilisation itself. We already have unnatural environments (heating houses in Winter, for example), so that's not too much of stretch. What we're talking about now is going one level deeper and manipulating the components that form a baby, not just allowing the components to interact naturally. The major concern I have is the success of that manipulation. Using cloning as an example, current clones do not appear to be the equivalent of natural fertilised eggs -- the clones have genetic issues at a lot higher rate than natural fertilised eggs. I wouldn't want to even consider this until there was a large body of evidence that the offspring produced were the equivalent, medically and intellectually, of natural offspring. That is going to take decades of research, since they'll have to raise a couple of generations, at least, of monkeys (as an example) to ensure that there is no essential difference between these offspring and their natural born compatriots.

My thought is that it seems that a lot of effort has been spent trying to define a moral structure to live by. Since definitions for something as complex as humanity and human interaction are, almost by definition , flawed because they try to put lines around something that is amorphous, I don't see huge benefit to myself in trying to argue the differences between the points of view. Just look at the discussion above where Jamie (Razor) and Kevin (AFriendlyFace) appear to have two different definitions for the same word (Relativism). The discussion was flawed from the initial statement because they weren't reading the same thing in the same words. The difference of opinion was eventually sorted out, but it is an example of how easy it is to confuse, rather than clarify, by trying to define something. I have my own (poorly defined) moral code and it is what I live by. I'm hoping that my example will help my two boys to develop their own, similar, moral code, but that will be their decision. I tend to lean towards pragmatism -- which means I will go with what works, rather than trying to analyse things too deeply. Pragmatism isn't perfect, but it works for me I'm happy that I'm a moral person and since my opinion is the only one that's important in this area, that's good enough for me :mace:

One of the factors that applies to the older guys compared to the younger guys is simply inertia and history. Think about the responses of your twenty-year-old friends who, when you come out, say "Why didn't you tell me eariler?". Now try that with someone who has known you for ten, twenty or even thirty years as an adult! I'm personally going to be in that situation when I come out to some of my friends. I came out to the best man at our wedding last year (via a phone call, since he now lives in the USA) and he was very cool with it (I expected him to be -- he's that sort of guy). Another friend of mine I see regularly, and have for the last twenty-five years. Telling him is going to be interesting... though again I expect it'll be fine. I've also got my family. After more more than forty years, I'll be telling them I'm gay.... I'm capable of doing that now, but even five years ago I wasn't. I was still hiding from myself. I knew, but I didn't accept. When I finally came out to myself (just before my forty-first birthday) I had only just started the process of coming out. I've got friend who started the same route at the age of thirty-seven. In his case he's not married and so was free to start a relationship -- he and his boyfriend will be celebrating their second year together this coming week When I came out to my wife, she ended up having to get counselling to deal with it. She went to someone who specialised in helping women who learn that their husband is gay. At the end, she was part of a support group of other women in the same situation. One of those husbands accepted he's gay and agreed he wouldn't re-marry if they broke up (something that is very common in this situation). One of the other husbands, however, said he'd remarry if his wife left him -- he couldn't, at the age of fifty, face living as a gay man. He had spent FIFTY years living as a heterosexual and couldn't change. Personally, I'm now ready to come out of the closet if I ever find myself single again (heaven forbid). That wasn't true five years ago, though I was getting close to it and a boyfriend may have helped me (though a boyfriend wasn't an option, of course).

Oh, well, it was worth a try. I don't know what you mean by an MSN email account. The only email account I have with MSN is a hotmail account. Actually, I have a couple -- one quite old -- but I only regularly check one.

Warning: Gingivitis and other mouth/gum diseases can allow HIV into the blood stream from the mouth. I've been trying to find some statistics on the incidence of gingivitis but I haven't been successful. Anecdotally, there is a reasonable number of people with this condition to one degree or another. Someone whose gums bleed easily (eg. after brushing) is at an increased risk of contracting HIV from oral sex.

I'm guessing here, but since MSN and Hotmail are owned by the same people, they may be trying to integrate the two security systems and are having teething problems. I'm assuming that you're accessing both of these on the same computer and they are probably using the same cookies. As a test, try logging into MSN twice in a row -- does it still show the same behaviour, or is it only after you have logged into your Hotmail account?

I believe homosexuality has to be a signficant theme for something to be called gay fiction, but I wouldn't say it has to be the central theme. Using myself as an example, I would still call my short stories "Black Swans" and "Secrets" as gay fiction, but homosexuality is not the central theme in either one. My anthology entry "End of the World" has homosexuality as a significant theme, but it's not the central theme. I'll admit that that blurs the lines about what is gay fiction and what is fiction with gay characters, but then I don't have a problem with that. Trying to put boundaries around artistic endeavours is never particularly successful

I will have to differ in my definition of gay fiction. Gay fiction is fiction where homosexuality is a significant part of the story (though it may not be the major part). It doesn't matter who wrote it. One well known author of gay fiction (Sequoyah) isn't gay, as just one example. Some of the female writers here, like Krista and Viv to name just two, also write great gay fiction, and they aren't gay either.

My understanding is that slash fiction is fan fiction. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding. From that article "slash" comes from the slash between two characters (eg. Kirk/Spock) -- in other words it is fan fiction where a homosexual relationship is postulated between two characters. If you want to know about fiction in general, I write because I enjoy it, and because it's an outlet for my homosexuality. I'm in a situation where I don't want to act on my homosexual desires and writing is one of my releases for the pressures that would otherwise build up. This site, and other similar sites, are some of my other releases. I enjoy the buzz I get from reader feedback, and that's a motivation, but not the primary one. The primary one is to an exploration for myself of what it means to be gay. I just put that exploration into stories

"all agreed"? Definitely not. While some people might have considered it to be just a simple tense ending, some people definitely consider it to be a cliffhanger. :mace: I think the only thing we may have agreed on is to agree to disagree....

I don't personally write slash fiction and don't have any real urge to do so. I don't read it, either, though I recognise that it's popular with some people. Calling it 'gay fiction' seems to be very misleading, because I would call what I write 'gay fiction' but it is definitely not 'slash fiction'. Good luck, Rose! There are a few members here who write slash fiction, so I hope you get the answers you're looking for

G'day, Rose! Welcome to GA. Don't be shy if you've got questions or concerns. Otherwise, just enjoy yourself

I didn't give a spoiler. I'm fully expecting you to change the chapter before it gets posted (as you've done for every other chapter I've seen), so it is quite possible that the words "Brandon" and "Chase" won't appear in the final version... Back to the story for a moment (don't worry, this won't take long). The stage (pun intended) is set -- we have a moderate amount of information about The Scar and his plot (thought not all of it) and have strong suspicions on the role Instinct plays in those plans. We're now just waiting for the fuse to be lit and for the plot to explode. When will that happen and what will be the trigger? My suspicion is that Joe Clump has to play a part in that -- otherwise why is he making a reappearance in the story after all this time?

They are. Check out Lugh's post above. The links in his post are to eBay where the posters are on sale.

Okay, I'll concede... Yes, we have organised bike gangs -- the Hells Angels being one. I don't know how their presence compares with the USA, though. They make the news here from time to time, but generally stay out of the limelight. I don't know much about them, apart from the Ulysses club, whose motto is "Growing Old Disgracefully". That particular biker "gang" has a junior membership for those between 40-50 (I think) and you don't get a full membership you're 50+. They have a generally good reputation. There is also an annual toy drive in December run by the biker gangs, and a blood donation drive each Summer -- they don't all have the reputation of the Hells Angels. However, I don't think there will be anything at the time of the story. There may be something in place once the concerts start, but even there, I doubt it. It is more likely that Jim has managed to establish a contact with one group in Australia, so we might get some 'protection' at one location, but that's about it.

Happy New Year for those celebrating the Chinese or Lunar New Year 2008 is the Year of the Rat Being the first sign of the Chinese zodiacs, rats are leaders, pioneers and conquerors. They are charming, passionate, charismatic, practical and hardworking. Rat people are endowed with great leadership skills and are the most highly organized, meticulous, and systematic of the twelve signs. Intelligent and cunning at the same time, rats are highly ambitious and strong-willed people who are keen and unapologetic promoters of their own agendas, which often include money and power. They are energetic and versatile and can usually find their way around obstacles, and adapt to various environments easily. A rat's natural charm and sharp demeanor make it an appealing friend for almost anyone, but rats are usually highly exclusive and selective when choosing friends and so often have only a few very close friends whom they trust. We're celebrating here in Melbourne by having a partial eclipse of the Sun. It was organised some time ago, and it helps make the day special

You've brought up an important point. It is too easy to fall into the habit of taking the other person for granted. Yes, you love them and they love you, but if you show them that the same way all the time it becomes a habit and routine -- and no longer shows that you love them. Showing someone you love them is a constantly evolving thing. You need to keep finding new ways (even if small ways, or minor variations on existing ways) to show your partner that you love them. I don't mean every day (I think that would strain the imagination too much), but don't settle for the same thing all the time. For someone who doesn't say the words very often, just saying "I love you" shows how much you love them -- because they know you don't say it lightly. For someone who says the words often, add something extra (a surprise gift, for example, or taking them out for dinner). Hmm... I think I'll buy some flowers at lunchtime today. I haven't done that for a few months It'll be a nice surprise when my wife gets home.

I agree. One of my friends has his birthday on 2nd Jan. He's always had a lot trouble having a party because everyone is either partied out by then, or gone away.