Cyprus-Forum.com

[Feisty]

Agios Ionas I think I stated why I believe that in the rest of my post. Many people live together as a couple (being 2 people) but are not afforded the same rights as a married couple. I don't believe gays should be any different.

[Agios Ionas]

Hip hip hooray and welcome Agios Ionas ... I hope you are for real and here to stay.

Highly controversial and definitely not black and white .

The gene for blue eyes exists in many species** (some "older" evolutionarily than us), indeed arisen through convergent, as well as divergent mutation ..... aka Evolution.

Its surface in Homo sapiens can be viewed as a "mutation" on the basis we came out of Africa ... hence our brown-eyed predisposition (or default setting?). Contradicting observation for babies born blue-eyed then turning brown?

But what is the evidence it was not a silent gene re-emerging (to suit a new environment of less sun). Point mutations in the brown gene leading to blue would be most convincing. But hard to distinguish between that and the reverse. I do not known their DNA sequences (off the top of my head ) ... and may look up later. Alignment for homologies should reveal more.

However on the point of "cure"; it can be looked at in many ways. If in Africa, blue eyes may be deemed curable by brown eyes, since blue would present the health hazard ... And vice versa, brown eyes may need curing with blue eyes when greater light-gathering may be on-call.

So the environment dictates which "Colour" is "healthy" and which is "sick".

What do you think?

**

Eye colour in Japanese macaques shows apparent differences between individuals, continuously ranging from orange (bright), through shades of yellow and hazel-blue to dark blue (dark).

First of all, thank you for welcoming me.

I reckon the environment dictates whether a colour is "healthy" or "sick". Not that I think any colour is sick or any colour is healthier than the other though. It would be rather boring if everybody had brown eyes, or blue for that matter. I prefer diversity because different eye colours can be very beautiful in combination with certain hair and skin colours.

[Agios Ionas]

Agios Ionas I think I stated why I believe that in the rest of my post. Many people live together as a couple (being 2 people) but are not afforded the same rights as a married couple. I don't believe gays should be any different.

Yes Feisty, I see your point. But you must agree that two siblings living together is rather different than a pair of lovers... no matter their sex, n'est pas?

If the law dictates that homosexuals are allowed to register their partnership in one way or another they should also be allowed to benefit from the rights that comes with the registration. They also must live up to the obligations that comes with the package too of course.

Then again, the situation you described clearly shows that some kind of legal arrangements has to be made for other people living together. Your example with the two unmarried siblings taking care of their sick parent and elderly grandparents is definitely worth discussing on a political and legal level. It's after all family ties we're talking about... marriage, registered partnership, siblings... even cousins. It's all about family ties and the need for people to have the legal opportunity to cater for the financial well being of their loved ones once they're gone.

Personally I think that anyone who is working, paying taxes, saving in a pension fund etc should be allowed to name a beneficiary in case they die. In the country where I live not even married couples have exclusive rights to their spouse's pension. They get a small percentage, that's it. If I die my wife and kids won't receive the pension money I've earned to far. A small cut, that's it. The rest will be divided and distributed to everybody else who lives long enough to enjoy retirement and pensions.

Anyway, enough OT (sorry). This thread was about gay "marriages", not eye colour or financial situations for households consisting of anything but a married man and woman.

[Oracle]

Hip hip hooray and welcome Agios Ionas ... I hope you are for real and here to stay.

Highly controversial and definitely not black and white .

The gene for blue eyes exists in many species** (some "older" evolutionarily than us), indeed arisen through convergent, as well as divergent mutation ..... aka Evolution.

Its surface in Homo sapiens can be viewed as a "mutation" on the basis we came out of Africa ... hence our brown-eyed predisposition (or default setting?). Contradicting observation for babies born blue-eyed then turning brown?

But what is the evidence it was not a silent gene re-emerging (to suit a new environment of less sun). Point mutations in the brown gene leading to blue would be most convincing. But hard to distinguish between that and the reverse. I do not known their DNA sequences (off the top of my head ) ... and may look up later. Alignment for homologies should reveal more.

However on the point of "cure"; it can be looked at in many ways. If in Africa, blue eyes may be deemed curable by brown eyes, since blue would present the health hazard ... And vice versa, brown eyes may need curing with blue eyes when greater light-gathering may be on-call.

So the environment dictates which "Colour" is "healthy" and which is "sick".

What do you think?

**

Eye colour in Japanese macaques shows apparent differences between individuals, continuously ranging from orange (bright), through shades of yellow and hazel-blue to dark blue (dark).

First of all, thank you for welcoming me.

I reckon the environment dictates whether a colour is "healthy" or "sick". Not that I think any colour is sick or any colour is healthier than the other though. It would be rather boring if everybody had brown eyes, or blue for that matter. I prefer diversity because different eye colours can be very beautiful in combination with certain hair and skin colours.

Diversity, adorable! ... a geneticist's "manna" ... and as you suggest providing delectations for all persuasions.

[tayl0r]

I know for a fact that greece, cyprus and turkey are a little behind the rest of europe (with rights anyway). It's great that the first gay marriage has come about. Just because it isn't progress for my country (England) it is for greece, and i'd love to see it in cyprus.

[Feisty]

Good post Agios Ionas.
I still remain firmly of the opinion that such a marriage should never be sanctioned by religion but do recognise a legal partnership/contract.

[Agios Ionas]

Good post Agios Ionas.
I still remain firmly of the opinion that such a marriage should never be sanctioned by religion but do recognise a legal partnership/contract.

Thank you!

I'm not too fond of the idea that gay couples should be granted the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony either. In my humble opinion a real marriage is to be between man and woman, period. For adults of the same sex a legally binding contract/partnership registration should suffice. Providing it's equal to a real marriage in the eyes of the law.

If the church will change its stance on this issue I will learn to accept it. Not necessarily embrace it, but accept it. I will take comfort in the fact that I haven't been involved in the decision making to begin with.