the rover
Footballguy
Real, fake. Hot and lesbian are all that matters.Real lesbians generally aren't as much fun as the ones in the movies I rent. Just thought you might want to know that.
Real, fake. Hot and lesbian are all that matters.Real lesbians generally aren't as much fun as the ones in the movies I rent. Just thought you might want to know that.
Are you kidding? Shouldn't a half dozen vague out of context biblical quotes be clear enough to have us love our neighbors enough to tell them they are going to hell for being whom they are? And of course lets include any and all mention of Sodom as evidence also because this is all about the great sin of homosexality, even though the inerrant bible says otherwise (Ezekiel 16:49-50) Besides what if you are wrong and there really is a loving, perfect God less loving and less perfect then Smoo? He is going to be quite upset if we don't resume stoning homosexuals!These threads absolutely disgusts me. It sickens me and fills me with overwhelming rage that people who claim to be good people can so callously display such ignorant bigotry and prejudice. People who will happily subjugate and dehumanize other people simply because they disagree with their lifestyle. As Men-in-Cleats (who's almost making me wish I were gay so I could reward him properly for outstanding posting here) has repeatedly pointed out, all arguments against gay marriage are vacuous, hollow and completely farcical. It's a weak charade to parade your own fears and discriminations around in the guise of such tripe as "family values" and "tradition", all the while ignoring how completely inapplicable these arguments are. Hypocrites. HYPOCRITES. You want to keep trying to build your master race? Not on my watch.
Actually, I think it is an age thing. Those under 30 wouldn't remember a world when gays were closeted....or maybe there are just a lot of closeted folks that use a football website as a cover.Proof that being against gay marriage is an extreme position, and being for it is not:- it has been shown that there are more republican FBGs than democrats- being for gay marriage always wins these polls
What if a guy does his chick in the ###? That's OK, right?Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.
Nice work .What if a guy does his chick in the ###? That's OK, right?Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.
There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION, and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy. Full stop. Game over. Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society. HYPOCRITES.Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.
Yeah, ofcourse it is.What if a guy does his chick in the ###? That's OK, right?Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.
I don't think you are being fair at all on that statement. Christians are the main ones who get this wrong. Christians are the ones who say homosexuals are going to hell, and it is the opposers that say that is crap. Also, I know not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin, only the hypocritical ones.Every time the subject of homosexuality or gay marriage comes up, some members of the atheist/agnostic camp always get a key part of Christian theology incorrect. Homosexuals aren't automatically condemned to Hell, as many atheists/agnostics claim (and to be fair, many Christians get this wrong, too).
WhateverI don't think you are being fair at all on that statement. Christians are the main ones who get this wrong. Christians are the ones who say homosexuals are going to hell, and it is the opposers that say that is crap. Also, I know not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin, only the hypocritical ones.Every time the subject of homosexuality or gay marriage comes up, some members of the atheist/agnostic camp always get a key part of Christian theology incorrect. Homosexuals aren't automatically condemned to Hell, as many atheists/agnostics claim (and to be fair, many Christians get this wrong, too).
I am not convinced that homosexuality is genetically driven. If it were, I would grant you that it IS a civil rights issue. Since I am not convinced, then I am forced to say that to compare the gay marriage struggle to the civil rights struggle faced by African Americans or the suffrage movement is blatantly unfair and is actually demeaning to those other two examples of civil rights movements.Don't get me wrong I AM open to reading new material if you provide any links. My stance currently can only be based on my moral code, short of being proven that gays just can't help themselves (i.e., they are born this way).Please explain....... I fail to see it.1. Prohibition of Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue, and to say it is is a slap in the face to those that fought their way through Racism.
2. The financial concerns (e.g., MacArtists example of a significant other not having rights of survivorship) are blatant exaggerations which are easily handled under current law.
3. The slippery slope argument is true, but the slippery slope didn't begin with gay marriage - it began 30 years ago when the link between marriage, sex, and the family unit was irreversibly severed.
More later on these 3 topics. I am tired now. I am reading a book on this topic because - a. one of my co-workers is gay and b. another friend of mine who is not gay is an active supporter of gay marriage and is always arguing with me about the issue.
I agree. :rotflmao: This issue with me has never been Tax breaks or benifits. I have no problem if the Govt wants to give Homosexual couples these things. When the question is asked if you support Gay Marriage my answer will ALWAYS be NO.I can speak for myself when I say it is not a choice that I am repulsed by naked men.
Good point. If we disallow gay marriage for religious and moral reasons, we should also do away with divorce. From my days as a Christian, I was under the impression that divorce is a sin. The problem is, bigots do not view divorce as immoral, so it is ok.Mr. Know-It-All:Many of you had no problem with changing the definition of Religious Marriage to suit your own needs did you? What happen to the "until death do us part" section of the definition.
I can quote Jesus on Divorce, can you quote him on homosexuality?
My gay friends will tell you that Matthew 19:11-12 is at least partially about homosexuality, but they also agree their arguement is not generally accepted. Since conservative Christians like to fall back on "What if you are wrong?", I'll ask "What if my friends are right?" Where will the "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" cop out of an excuse do for you on judgement day?
[Edited to fix bold tags]
How do you know the family has been straight all the way down the line? Almost every family has a gay second cousin or something somewhere, if gays are about 2%-3% of the population.In any event, plenty of people whose ancestors never hand sickle-cell anemia are born with sickle-cell anemia. And yet sickle-cell anemia is genetic. This is not some kind of paradoxical riddle. It has to do with heterozygous advantage, and is a normal (if unusual) aspect of how genetics work. It wouldn't be shocking if a similar kind of thing were going on with homosexuality. (Although while I believe sickle-cell is about 100% heritable, most identical twin studies put homosexuality in the range of being 30%-70% heritable.)I don't really think there are genetics involved in homosexuality because if that was the case, how does a family that has been straight all the way down the line suddenly give birth to a gay child?
will your religious conception of marriage change? Like the poster above, he is married civilly, but not religiously. Why can't you just treat this the same way. No one is saying YOUR church has to allow this, just that the governmental sanction of marriage applied to all people equally. It's so obvious, you can't help but know the reason a MAJORITY of proponents of these bills is because they find gay people disgusting sinners and you and everyone else knows it.Because it is already and was originally a religious contract.How about marriage as a non-religious contract?Marriage as a religious contract . . .
asterisks, too.Sorry, I'll wait for the ***OFFICIAL*** poll.Sorry, too many asteriks.********OFFICIAL********
When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?Well, let me just say this - do hot women sometimes give you an involuntary "rise"?Isn't that a biological reaction? It has nothing to do with choice. I can speak for myself when I say it is not a choice that I am repulsed by naked men.I am not convinced that homosexuality is genetically driven. If it were, I would grant you that it IS a civil rights issue. Since I am not convinced, then I am forced to say that to compare the gay marriage struggle to the civil rights struggle faced by African Americans or the suffrage movement is blatantly unfair and is actually demeaning to those other two examples of civil rights movements.Don't get me wrong I AM open to reading new material if you provide any links. My stance currently can only be based on my moral code, short of being proven that gays just can't help themselves (i.e., they are born this way).Please explain....... I fail to see it.1. Prohibition of Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue, and to say it is is a slap in the face to those that fought their way through Racism.
2. The financial concerns (e.g., MacArtists example of a significant other not having rights of survivorship) are blatant exaggerations which are easily handled under current law.
3. The slippery slope argument is true, but the slippery slope didn't begin with gay marriage - it began 30 years ago when the link between marriage, sex, and the family unit was irreversibly severed.
More later on these 3 topics. I am tired now. I am reading a book on this topic because - a. one of my co-workers is gay and b. another friend of mine who is not gay is an active supporter of gay marriage and is always arguing with me about the issue.
Kudos for using the word 'realize' and not 'decide'. We're making progress.When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?
I would've used "Decide"Kudos for using the word 'realize' and not 'decide'. We're making progress.When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?
I know. We can only make rational progress with rational people.I would've used "Decide"Kudos for using the word 'realize' and not 'decide'. We're making progress.When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?
Translation = Believe as I, or be wrong Thats good info Smoo.I know. We can only make rational progress with rational people.I would've used "Decide"Kudos for using the word 'realize' and not 'decide'. We're making progress.When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?
Until you are gay, then you are certainly have no authority to be the one to decide whether or not gay people choose to be gay.I agree being gay is just as wrong as getting a divorce. It's a shame divorce is now so readily accepted in our society.I view being gay the same way as I view obesity. Its a weakness a lot of people struggle with and society coddles to them because (insert your excuse here).Its a DECISION people make...
I too have not seen a credible study to suggest there is a gay gene. What purpose would it serve? It prevents the organism from reproducing itself. Does it cull the herd somehow (half-joke)?Unfortunately, studying the origin of homosexuality (be it pathological, genetic or psychological) is politically incorrect, so unlikely to ever be funded. Likely there is no one reason for it.Can gays help themselves for having homosexual feelings? Does it matter? The feelings are only part of the equation. The other part is acting on those feelings. That may be more easily controlled, but the truth is it doesn't matter. A person's bedroom is the most private place in his world, unless he/she opens it up to the rest of us.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?I'm not sure how all this relates to gay marriage though. I'll tell you what I've always believed. Gays as a group enjoy pushing the envelope and they are also clamoring for acceptance. There is much to the legal contract issue of a relationship that could be addressed in a way similar to marriage, but I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us. It is probably a generation too soon.I am not convinced that homosexuality is genetically driven. Don't get me wrong I AM open to reading new material if you provide any links. My stance currently can only be based on my moral code, short of being proven that gays just can't help themselves (i.e., they are born this way).
Hipple, my views have nothing to do with religion. I have recruiting my own pantheon, though Jerismoo has not yet accepted the role equivalent to Loki.will your religious conception of marriage change? Like the poster above, he is married civilly, but not religiously. Why can't you just treat this the same way. No one is saying YOUR church has to allow this, just that the governmental sanction of marriage applied to all people equally. It's so obvious, you can't help but know the reason a MAJORITY of proponents of these bills is because they find gay people disgusting sinners and you and everyone else knows it.Because it is already and was originally a religious contract.How about marriage as a non-religious contract?Marriage as a religious contract . . .
Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
Their "Flamboyancy" gets the better of them. They seem to Like to cram there gayness down your throat so if you appear aggitated by it, then they get to make a big scene and call you a Homophobe or something cool like that.I'm not sure how all this relates to gay marriage though. I'll tell you what I've always believed. Gays as a group enjoy pushing the envelope and they are also clamoring for acceptance.
It doesn't prevent anyone from reproducing, and there are several ways in which the gene may be favored below some equilibrium frequency in a population. (And when I say "the gene," that's a metaphor. There is no gay gene, just like there is no height gene -- but sexual preference and height are both determined in part by genes and in part by other factors.)I too have not seen a credible study to suggest there is a gay gene. What purpose would it serve? It prevents the organism from reproducing itself.
It's true that there's likely no one reason for it. It's likely a combination of things -- genes, maybe hormone levels in the womb, maybe ealy childhood experiences -- but not choice. Thinking that people choose whom they're attracted to is not only contrary to every single person's experience, but it's also just an inherently stupid idea. That doesn't stop some fundies from believing it, but they're pretty much the only ones.Unfortunately, studying the origin of homosexuality (be it pathological, genetic or psychological) is politically incorrect, so unlikely to ever be funded. Likely there is no one reason for it.
Can straights help themselves for having heterosexual feelings?Can gays help themselves for having homosexual feelings?
The rest of your post was quite reasonable.After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
Jesus bueno, do you think before you write this stuff?Historically homosexuals have been discriminated against with violence and social stigmatization, so I would say that society has traditionally done the defining.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
I agree with you completely, except for one clarification. Many laws are written to give married couples an advantage based on the assumption that they will pro-create. Granted many will not, but that is one of the basic motivations for the governmnet - the creation of more taxpayers. A gay union is a sterile union (okay, a lesbian can get a donor sperm or implantation, but generally). There will be several laws which may have to be rewritten that were based on the assumption of a fertile union. You may hear the civil rights screams there too.For many the problem is a semantic one. Right or wrong, marriage has a history of being defined as a union between a man and woman. I believe currently only 2 countries (Netherlands and Belgium) recognize same-sex marriage nationwide. More may follow.As I understand it some of the concerns of same-sex marriage opponents include:1) Objections on religious grounds2) Changing the definition may start a slippery slope leading to legalized polygamy3) Will lead to unions based solely for monetary gain or tax purposes4) Will lead to lawsuits forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't approve of5) Some are opposed to any government sanctioned marriage including opposite sex unions6) Those who believe the purpose of marriage is for procreation and same-sex unions are inherently sterileProponents of same-sex marriage point out:1) There are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. A legal denial of rights or benefits afforded to others directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law, meaning that rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another.2) Traditional concepts of marriage have already given way to liberalization in other areas, such as the availability of no-fault divorce and the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws.3) Many people in modern societies no longer subscribe to the religious beliefs which inform traditional limits upon marriage, and no longer wish these beliefs to constitute the law, and that their laws should be protected from religion under the principle of separation of church and state. In fact, there are some religions that celebrate same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies already.I'm not sure where I come down on this. My gut reaction was that ideally the government should get out of the marriage business completely. It should recognize civil unions between any two adults. The laws should be rewritten so that marital status is not a factor but a civil union is. Any religious organization can continue to perform marriage ceremonies and include or exclude homosexuals.Perhaps this is a solution that pleases noone, which could be very good or very bad.
Just like left-handers wanted to push acceptance of their lifestyle on us, to the point of not only having us refrain from burning them at the stake, but also giving them their own special baseball mitts and scissors! The nerve!!No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect. Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.Are you going to tell me it is a group therapy thing? I don't think so. It is dobne for the shock value.Gays came up with that name themselves. They used to be called a lot worse.Jesus bueno, do you think before you write this stuff?Historically homosexuals have been discriminated against with violence and social stigmatization, so I would say that society has traditionally done the defining.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
This is a well-informed post.There are tons and tons of traits that don't appear to have any adaptive value, but which arise through the "unfortunate" combination of genes that DO have adaptive value.And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component. The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business. Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.Edit - crystal already pointed out some "non-genetic, non-choice" possibilities above. Even more well-informed than I thought!It doesn't prevent anyone from reproducing, and there are several ways in which the gene may be favored below some equilibrium frequency in a population. (And when I say "the gene," that's a metaphor. There is no gay gene, just like there is no height gene -- but sexual preference and height are both determined in part by genes and in part by other factors.)I too have not seen a credible study to suggest there is a gay gene. What purpose would it serve? It prevents the organism from reproducing itself.It's true that there's likely no one reason for it. It's likely a combination of things -- genes, maybe hormone levels in the womb, maybe ealy childhood experiences -- but not choice. Thinking that people choose whom they're attracted to is not only contrary to every single person's experience, but it's also just an inherently stupid idea. That doesn't stop some fundies from believing it, but they're pretty much the only ones.Unfortunately, studying the origin of homosexuality (be it pathological, genetic or psychological) is politically incorrect, so unlikely to ever be funded. Likely there is no one reason for it.Can straights help themselves for having heterosexual feelings?Can gays help themselves for having homosexual feelings?The rest of your post was quite reasonable.After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
Yeah - like they have sinistral swims and lefty luncheons!Just like left-handers wanted to push acceptance of their lifestyle on us, to the point of not only having us refrain from burning them at the stake, but also giving them their own special baseball mitts and scissors! The nerve!!No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
Among the subset of gays that do that kind of thing there is probably a sub-subset that is just doing it for shock value, but lots of things are done for shock value by lots of different kinds of people. I'm sure there's a spectrum of opinion among gays about those kinds of overt and theatrical statements of sexuality.But if that's the thing that annoys you, treating gays as equals socially, legally and economically will, I'm sure, reduce the behavior. It'll also give the damn drama queens fewer things to chant and march about, which you should be all for.Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect. Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.Are you going to tell me it is a group therapy thing? I don't think so. It is dobne for the shock value.Gays came up with that name themselves. They used to be called a lot worse.Jesus bueno, do you think before you write this stuff?Historically homosexuals have been discriminated against with violence and social stigmatization, so I would say that society has traditionally done the defining.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component. The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business. Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.
Dude, do you know how ignorant that still sounds? 'Acceptance'? 'Tolerance'? Of what? What are they doing that makes your life so utterly difficult? Tell me.No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
:rotflmao:Just like left-handers wanted to push acceptance of their lifestyle on us, to the point of not only having us refrain from burning them at the stake, but also giving them their own special baseball mitts and scissors! The nerve!!No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
You do realize I have argued for treating gays equally legally don't you? My concern is doing it in a way that works for everybody - the fundamentalists and the gays.I'm not trying to make it a win-lose issue.Among the subset of gays that do that kind of thing there is probably a sub-subset that is just doing it for shock value, but lots of things are done for shock value by lots of different kinds of people. I'm sure there's a spectrum of opinion among gays about those kinds of overt and theatrical statements of sexuality.But if that's the thing that annoys you, treating gays as equals socially, legally and economically will, I'm sure, reduce the behavior. It'll also give the damn drama queens fewer things to chant and march about, which you should be all for.Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect. Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.Are you going to tell me it is a group therapy thing? I don't think so. It is dobne for the shock value.Gays came up with that name themselves. They used to be called a lot worse.Jesus bueno, do you think before you write this stuff?Historically homosexuals have been discriminated against with violence and social stigmatization, so I would say that society has traditionally done the defining.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?
As I have said in the past - I don't care what people do in their bedroom - until they figuratively shove it in my face.Dude, do you know how ignorant that still sounds? 'Acceptance'? 'Tolerance'? Of what? What are they doing that makes your life so utterly difficult? Tell me.No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.
However you want to spin it, if that's the underlying material reason for homosexuality, then that's what it is. It's more of a defect from an adaptionist view, since presumably we're attracted to the opposite sex to increase the chance that we'll mate and have offspring. But since gays don't seem to have any physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, or creative deficiencies as a group (and in fact have an atypically heightened sense of fashion), then I don't think they'd mind it if it were pointed out that they're deficient in the narrow sense of Darwinian fitness. And besides, it's not as if they can't reproduce. It's just that they don't want to engage in the truly reproductive act.I don't know - MacArtist is (or was) here. Would you be offended if someone pointed out that your sexual preference was due to an atypical, non-adaptive wiring of your fetal brain?Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component. The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business. Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.
I just went to strange visual place.cramming my gayness down their throat.
So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.
Why less the incentives? Should the incentives be taken away from infertile straight couples who adopt, too?So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.