I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.
Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.
I dont really care about gays having sex per se
but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening
At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.
Extreme candidates for the House of Representatives do worse than moderates because they mobilize the opposing party to turn out to vote, according to new research from Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson of Stanford University.
Political scientists and campaign experts have been divided for decades about whether candidates are successful when they win over swing voters — those who aren’t loyal to any party — or when they encourage members of their own party to show up at the polls. The research suggests that when it comes to ideologically extreme candidates, the deciding factor might be the other party’s turnout.
That seems to really miss the point though. As with Corbyn if the extreme candidate appeals to the subset who select the candidate/leader then they are the ones who will be standing rather than the moderates. When you have lots of safe seats, either in the US or here, lots of those extreme candidates will then be elected whatever the moderates think about them.
The gerrymandering of Congress has undoubtedly increased extremism on both sides of the aisle and made co-operation positively dangerous to a Congressman's political future.
I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.
Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.
I dont really care about gays having sex per se
but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening
At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.
I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.
Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.
I dont really care about gays having sex per se
but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening
At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.
Extreme candidates for the House of Representatives do worse than moderates because they mobilize the opposing party to turn out to vote, according to new research from Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson of Stanford University.
Political scientists and campaign experts have been divided for decades about whether candidates are successful when they win over swing voters — those who aren’t loyal to any party — or when they encourage members of their own party to show up at the polls. The research suggests that when it comes to ideologically extreme candidates, the deciding factor might be the other party’s turnout.
That seems to really miss the point though. As with Corbyn if the extreme candidate appeals to the subset who select the candidate/leader then they are the ones who will be standing rather than the moderates. When you have lots of safe seats, either in the US or here, lots of those extreme candidates will then be elected whatever the moderates think about them.
The gerrymandering of Congress has undoubtedly increased extremism on both sides of the aisle and made co-operation positively dangerous to a Congressman's political future.
Extremists often also depend on the other option being abysmal. See our election result, for example. Corbyn and the Labour left generally are confusing anti-Tory votes - created by May's general awfulness and her hardline, no surrender Brexit rhetoric - with pro-Socialist ones. This should give the Tories some hope for next time around. If they can move away from extremism themselves, of course.
Having slept on it, I've decided it was stupid of me not to split a stake between Sainz and Vandoorne to win that group. But there we are. It's easier picking winners after events than before.
Extreme candidates for the House of Representatives do worse than moderates because they mobilize the opposing party to turn out to vote, according to new research from Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson of Stanford University.
Political scientists and campaign experts have been divided for decades about whether candidates are successful when they win over swing voters — those who aren’t loyal to any party — or when they encourage members of their own party to show up at the polls. The research suggests that when it comes to ideologically extreme candidates, the deciding factor might be the other party’s turnout.
That seems to really miss the point though. As with Corbyn if the extreme candidate appeals to the subset who select the candidate/leader then they are the ones who will be standing rather than the moderates. When you have lots of safe seats, either in the US or here, lots of those extreme candidates will then be elected whatever the moderates think about them.
The gerrymandering of Congress has undoubtedly increased extremism on both sides of the aisle and made co-operation positively dangerous to a Congressman's political future.
Extremists often also depend on the other option being abysmal. See our election result, for example. Corbyn and the Labour left generally are confusing anti-Tory votes - created by May's general awfulness and her hardline, no surrender Brexit rhetoric - with pro-Socialist ones. This should give the Tories some hope for next time around. If they can move away from extremism themselves, of course.
The general view now seems to be that May is not as hardline on Brexit as Corbyn is and more open to compromise but I agree that in a system like ours where gerrymandering is avoided or at least minimised appealing to the centre works. Where it is built in there is a strong tendency towards extremism because that appeals to the most motivated supporters of that particular brand who select the candidate. This is the mess the US has got itself in and a major reason why its politics are so dysfunctional.
Comments
The gerrymandering of Congress has undoubtedly increased extremism on both sides of the aisle and made co-operation positively dangerous to a Congressman's political future.
http://www.politico.eu/article/german-carmakers-remind-trump-they-create-110000-us-jobs/
what did you expect ?
Maybe Donald gave him some tips
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2017/07/30/01002-20170730ARTFIG00125-face-aux-critiques-macron-revoit-sa-methode.php
F1: Hungary post-mortem analysis up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2017.html
Having slept on it, I've decided it was stupid of me not to split a stake between Sainz and Vandoorne to win that group. But there we are. It's easier picking winners after events than before.
NEW THREAD