Gayness & Color Blindness: Accepting the Limitations

bhkad · 02-08-08, 04:31 PM

Gayness & Color Blindness: Accepting the Limitations

There are certain 'conditions' people are born with that can't be cured or changed which make them unsuited for certain activities or functions.

Color blindness is one. According to Wikipedia, color blindness is usually classed as a disability.

Genetic disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Colorblindness Test*

What numbers do you see in the center of these plates?

Vischeck: About Daltonize

This disability precludes those who have it from involvement in certain activities. And in fact, there are some occupations where the lack of perfect color vision can have serious consequences or even be dangerous.

Quote:

Careers/Jobs/Occupations/Industries requiring perfect colour vision.

Armed Forces (British)-
Air Forces - certain grades
Navy - certain grades
Army - certain grades
Civil aviation
Colour matcher in dyeing, textiles, paints, inks, coloured paper, ceramics, cosmetics.
Carpet darner/inspector, spinner, weaver, bobbin winder
Electrical work -
electrician
electronics technician
colour TV mechanic
motor mechanic
telephone installer
Navigation -
pilot
fisherman
railways
Police - certain grades

Careers/Jobs/Occupations/Industries where defective colour vision is a handicap and important consequences might result from errors of colour judgment.

Air traffic controller
Buyers -
textile
yarns
tobacco
food e.g. fruit, cocoa, timber
Car body resprayer, retoucher
Cartographer
Ceramics - painter/decorator of pottery
Ceramics - inspector (quality control)
Chemists and chemicals -
laboratory analysis
food chemist
teacher of chemistry
manufacturer of chemicals and polishes and oils
Colour printer, etcher, retoucher
Colour photographer
Colour TV technician
Coloured pencils/chalks/paints manufacturing
Colourist/colour matcher in paints, paper, pigments, inks, dyes, wallpaper
Cotton grader
Coroner
Forensic scientist
Market gardener e.g. fruit
Meat inspector
Oil refining
Paper making
Pharmacist
Plastics
Paint maker and distributor
Restorer of paintings/works of art
Safety officer
Tanner
Tobacco grader
Industrial and Occupational Requirements

And so, anyone without perfect color vision would be, and should be, prevented from pursuing these careers, jobs, or activities.

From what I gather here, it seems likely there will be a cure for colorblindness some day. And it will involve gene therapy.

Quote:

Gene Research Sheds Light on Cure for Colorblindness

Colorblindness can likely be cured by gene therapy, according to Medical College of Wisconsin researchers who are conducting a treatment trial designed to discover what happens when a specialized set of normal genes is injected directly into the eye.

"I'm sure that, ultimately, gene therapy will cure colorblindness," said Jay Neitz, PhD, Medical College of Wisconsin Professor of Cellular Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy. "It's not a matter of whether it will or not, it's a matter of when. I think the probability is extremely high."

Usually a hereditary condition that is present at birth, colorblindness afflicts more than nine million people in the US. Normal eyes distinguish color through three different photoreceptors located in the retina, some for red, some for blue and some for green. When one set of these many photoreceptors is missing due to genetic mutation, color-vision deficiency occurs to varying degrees depending on the severity of the mutation and which color receptors have been lost.

Dr. Neitz is collaborating on the gene treatment trial with his wife, Maureen Neitz, PhD, who is on the Eye Institute staff and a Medical College Professor of Ophthalmology, and Eye Institute surgeon Thomas B. Connor, MD, Medical College Associate Professor of Ophthalmology. (Quotes in this article are from Dr. Jay Neitz.)

The project is focused on the cone-shaped photoreceptors in the eye, which are responsible for defining color and visual acuity in normal light. The eye employs other photoreceptors, shaped like rods, for vision in dim light.

"If something happens with one of the cone photoreceptors, you have colorblindness," said Dr. Neitz. "If something happens with two out of the three, if they're the red and green ones - the blue cones are so rare - you end up with a blinding condition. So the blue cones are just as important for color vision but they're not very important for the rest of our vision. You can lose your green cones, too, and maybe those would influence your vision. That person's vision may not be 100% normal, but pretty close."

Gene Research Sheds Light on Cure for Colorblindness

However, until that day when color blindness is curable, we will have to dash the hopes of colorblind little boys who wish to fly planes or grade tobacco. They will have to abandon those dreams.

And that's just the way it goes in life.

If nature or nature's creator (I borrowed that phrase from John McCain's CPAC speech

) had intended everyone to have perfect color vision, nature or nature's creator ('nonc' = God, to believers; 'nonc' = evolution to non-believers) would have given everyone perfect color vision.

Should the colorblind lobby Congress to change the laws because THEY want to grade tobacco? No. There are certain things in life that are just not to be. And while the requirement for tobacco graders to have perfect color vision might be important, for pilots, it is absolutely essential because it would risk the lives of many people otherwise. Why this is so? Because pilots must be able to discern the colors of lights, signs and signals that are integral to the conduct of safe aviation.

If a pilot can't see the signs and lights he might do the wrong thing at the wrong time and needlessly jeopardize lives.

There are things that colorblind individuals can't and shouldn't do and no amount of whining can change this nor should it.

Now, let's apply the same rationale to Gayness.

If 'nonc' had intended Gay people to be breeders He would have made Gays straight.

There is no cure for Gayness. But homosexuality isn't viewed as a disability in our society, for the most part, even though it does prevent Gay people from having children UNLESS special measures are taken.

And the argument by Gays is that because the extra special measures can erase most of the differences between Gays and straights and those that can't be erased don't much matter. For most intents and purposes I can support this argument. But not when it comes to Gay parenting. I believe there are very subtle differences in the way a Gay couple parents a child and the way a straight couple parents children. And in the course of one generation or two generations or even three generations we may not be able to see any difference in the attitudes, behaviors or biologies of children raised by Gays. To me that only means that those pushing for Gay marriage and Gay parenting in this country are willing to use the evidence gathered in the course of limited research over 3 generations to alter the course of civilization and hundreds of generations of evidence.

We don't know what effect widespread Gay marriage and parenting will have on society. More research is needed.

Quote:

Bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles potential risk to babies
By David Liu, Ph.D.
Feb 8, 2008 - 12:33:43 PM

FRIDAY FEB 8, 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- A dozen of environmental health organizations in the U.S. and Canada released a report titled "bay's Toxic Bottles" on Feb 7 saying that the major brands of baby bottles made of polycarbonate plastic when heated leach a potentially harmful level of bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen that may pose serious adverse effects in infants.

Bisphenol A, first synthesized in 1895 and found later in 1936 to be a synthetic estrogen (a female hormone) has been used in hard, polycarbonate plastics, epoxy resins used in the linings of some food and beverage containers including baby bottles and toddler sippy cups, dental sealants and other consumer products such as sunglasses and CDs.

The environmental health advocates are calling manufacturers and retailers to phase out use of bisphenol A and plastic with the chemical in baby bottles and urging the state and federal government to adopt policies to restrict use of BPA-containing plastic in baby bottles.

"This is quite concerning. All 19 polycarbonate bottles [investigated in the study] leached BPA when heated. This is clearly showing that BPA is certainly leaching from popular and common consumer products," Judith Robinson, special projects director with the Environmental Health Fund, was quoted by healthday.com as saying at a Thursday teleconference.

The report by The Work Group for Safe Markets, a coalition of U.S. public health and environmental NGOs, was based on both the testing of six major brands of baby bottles and a review of more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on bisphenol A. They came to the conclusion that the level of bisphenol A exposure due to use of polycarbonate-based baby bottles puts babies in danger.

The tested baby bottles were sold under brand names Avent, Disney/The First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex and purchased from nine states at major retailers: Babies "R" Us, CVS, Target, Toys "R" Us, Walgreens and Wal-Mart.

All bottles leached out bisphenol A at a level ranging from 5 to 8 parts per billion (PPB), according to the report. The testing essentially confirmed a 2007 study by Environment California, which found Avent, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber and Playtex baby bottles leached similar levels of bisphenol A. This time, these organizations also found Disney/The First Years are no exception. Bisphenol A from baby bottles potential risk to babies

It's likely that every single one of us was bottle raised. PLASTIC bottle raised.

And if we have kids, they were plastic bottle raised. And if we have parents (

) even THEY were plastic bottle raised.

But only NOW do we discover that the plastic baby bottles are harmful.

That should tell you something!

If NONC had wanted little Johnny to grade tobacco NONC would have given little Johnny perfect color vision.

If NONC had wanted little Heather to be a mother/father NONC would have given little Heather and little Blake a love of the opposite sex.

Trying to change the outcome to suit our desires just won't work. And trying to say that there is no harm in it is just trying to jump to a self serving conclusion.

More research is needed before Gays should be allowed to marry or be parents. However, in ALL other respects they should be given every right that any other person has...even to teach school, Sen. DeMint.

* There are various tests to determine color perception. This is just for illustration purposes.

jfuh · 02-08-08, 05:19 PM

Just a tad bit homophobic today are we?

jallman · 02-08-08, 05:27 PM

But there already is a wealth of study on the subject. Research goes all the way back to 1980. The government has even accepted this research and stated that kids raised by gay parents are no less healthy than kids raised by straight parents. What more do you want? I don't think it's going to suddenly be discovered that gay parents cause cancer.

bhkad · 02-08-08, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Just a tad bit homophobic today are we?

Nope. That would be like saying I'm colorblindphobic.

I'm merely trying to illustrate how certain things just weren't meant to be by the powers that created this Earth and that sometimes when we attempt to change the natural order of things to suit our desires it takes generations or even longer, to see the error of our ways.

In the BPA Baby Bottles story we see there is a way to stop the damage being done to children.

Quote:

The environmental health advocates are calling manufacturers and retailers to phase out use of bisphenol A and plastic with the chemical in baby bottles and urging the state and federal government to adopt policies to restrict use of BPA-containing plastic in baby bottles.

But what happens if we were to discover, perhaps some generations from now, that Gay parenting adversely impacts society in a real and measurable way? We won't be able to un-do the damage nor turn the laws around to make Gay parenting prohibited.

Before we do anything that might jeopardize this society we should conduct more research.

bhkad · 02-08-08, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

But there already is a wealth of study on the subject. Research goes all the way back to 1980. The government has even accepted this research and stated that kids raised by gay parents are no less healthy than kids raised by straight parents. What more do you want? I don't think it's going to suddenly be discovered that gay parents cause cancer.

No, not cancer. But a societal cancer of sorts in society might manifest in any number of ways. None of the wonderful 1960's era liberals in government suspected that, two or three generations down the line, the government's move to provide funding to support dependent children would produce the thug life, gang banging generation we have today. And yet...

And research on plastic baby bottles goes back even farther and is more extensive and measurable. And yet...

jallman · 02-08-08, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

No, not cancer. But a societal cancer of sorts in society might manifest in any number of ways. None of the wonderful 1960's era liberals in government suspected that, two or three generations down the line, the government's move to provide funding to support dependent children would produce the thug life, gang banging generation we have today. And yet...

And research on plastic baby bottles goes back even farther and is more extensive and measurable. And yet...

And yet what? Do we stop people from living their lives because there might be an adverse consequence to some of their actions or there might not be a consequence at all?

You're being alarmist, advocating the devaluation of families because of a forced relationship between color blind kids of gay parents and poisoned baby bottles. And the current and most reliable research we have is in direct opposition to your stance.

bhkad · 02-08-08, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

And yet what? Do we stop people from living their lives because there might be an adverse consequence to some of their actions or there might not be a consequence at all?

You're being alarmist, advocating the devaluation of families because of a forced relationship between color blind kids of gay parents and poisoned baby bottles. And the current and most reliable research we have is in direct opposition to your stance.

And the jury is still out on whether Gay parenting poses a threat to our society or not. Plastic baby bottles have been around for decades upon decades. Who knew there was a danger?

No one until now.

Let this be a lesson to you.

jallman · 02-08-08, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

And the jury is still out on whether Gay parenting poses a threat to our society or not. Plastic baby bottles have been around for decades upon decades. Who knew there was a danger?

No one until now.

Let this be a lesson to you.

Oooookay. There is a more appropriate forum for conspiracy theories.

bhkad · 02-08-08, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Oooookay. There is a more appropriate forum for conspiracy theories.

There is no theory being espoused except that before grand experiments in the very building blocks of society be unleashed, full-blown onto society, that those experiments be tested adequately.

What is wrong with that?

jallman · 02-08-08, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

There is no theory being espoused except that before grand experiments in the very building blocks of society be unleashed, full-blown onto society, that those experiments be tested adequately.

What is wrong with that?

It has been tested adequately. What do you find inadequate about studies dating back over a quarter of a century and almost without fail coming to the same results.