"Gay Rights"

[CARLHAYDEN]

Can I just say for the record, being gay is not the result of bad parenting. My mother and father are the greatest people in the world to me and encouraged me every step of the way in what I wanted to do in my life both personally and academically.

Neither would they, or I be pleased to hear of anyone insinuating otherwise. They raised four kids and four bloody good kids at that in exactly the same way, with the same care and the same patience. It just so happens one of them is gay. Likewise with my partner and my other gay friends.

To me, the very possibility that people are simply born gay is too much for some people and their beliefs, sensibilities or predjudices. So they screen it out. It becomes 'white noise' and then attack the findings, and the people who propose them for upsetting their comforting held views on the matter.

Of course, as with all threads on this issue we have veered off course

Can I point out to you that the gay rights movement is the US is at a differnent pace from that in say the UK. We have rights and abilities that we now take for granted, (civil partnerships, adoption, serving in the armed forces) that America will be unwilling to grant, even on many state levels for a generation.

There are three seperate points which have developed in this thread:

First, are so-called 'gay rights' merely limited to 'gay marriage'?  The answer to this is clearly no.  Many homosexuals in the United States (I will not comment about those in other lands) are interested in gaining access to minor children, and getting religious bodies to abandon traditional doctrine.

Second, is the issue of the extent of homosexuality in the United States.  The generally accepted percentage is between two and three per cent, not ten per cent as alledged by some.

Third, is the issue as to the cause of homosexuality.  Despite claims to the contrary, no valid scientific evidence has been produced of a 'gene' which causes homosexuality. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes, some are, CARLy, but alas, mostly just for the incredibly dull and unsexy purpose of parenting. 

That, I have to admit, is spot on. There is no sinister motive in gay people wishing to adopt despite Carls' protestations to the contrary. They simply wish to be another rung on the childcare ladder for foster or adopted children who have been rejected by their parents or by wider society. Something that a lot of gay people can empathise with.

Well, lets check into the proper usage of the english language.

First, 'many' does not mean all or most, just more than a few.

Second, are YOU asserting that NO 'gay people' wish to adopt for "sinister motive(s)" (you used the term, I didn't).

Third, I am not suprised that you agree with Obepo, as he has posted approval of sexual intercourse between minors and adults.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Third, I am not suprised that you agree with Obepo, as he has posted approval of sexual intercourse between minors and adults.

Are you implying that I approve of sexual intercourse between minors and adults?

Second, are YOU asserting that NO 'gay people' wish to adopt for "sinister motive(s)" (you used the term, I didn't).

No. But it is the general reality. There may be some, just as there are many straight couples who sexually abuse their adopted kids, but they are in the tiny, almost insignificant minority also.

First, its nice to know you diagree with Opebo about adults using minors.

Second, it also nice of you to now acknowledge that "there may be some" homosexuals who seek to adopt kids for "sinister motives."

Now, turning to the issue of environment as opposed to genetic baais for homosexuality, I have yet to see any credible evidence of genetic evidence of homosexuality.

What strikes me as interesting is that I have not seen any credible studies as to the sexual orientation of children (upon reaching adulthood) raised by heterosexuals versus children raised by homosexuals.  I suspect that when such studies are reported they will indicate a major differentiation in the sexual orientation of the two groups, giving further credance to the environmental theory. 


Oh, and to return to my original post.

Is it your contention that religious doctrine should be changed to comport with the wishes of homosexual activists?

If you had told told Episcopalians a hundred years ago that their church would end up endorsing homosexuality, they would have told you that you were nuts (for one example).

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, its nice to know you diagree with Opebo about adults using minors.

Does that mean that you thought I did agree with him beforehand? If that is the case, accusing me of condoning paedophilia would be a reportable offense to the moderator.

Second, it also nice of you to now acknowledge that "there may be some" homosexuals who seek to adopt kids for "sinister motives."

Would you also be so nice to acknowledge that there may be some heterosexuals who also seek to adopt kids for 'sinister motives'?

Unfortunately, yes, there are heterosexuals who seek to adopt children for "sinister" and 'venal' motives.  I hope you will join me in supporting efforts to prosecute those who sexually abuse minors.

I note that you both omitted to reply to my other points, and instead chose to combine an inference with a threat.  Hmm. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

I note that you both omitted to reply to my other points, and instead chose to combine an inference with a threat.  Hmm. 

Only because you refused to answer mine. Did you, or did you not imply or presume that I condoned sex with minors until I gave you an answer on the matter?

I thought that I made it clear in my previous post.

You inferred something I did NOT state.

Clear enough?

Now, will you respond to my other points without inferences or threats?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You inferred something I did NOT state.

I didn't say you stated it, I said you inferred it in the following post.

Third, I am not suprised that you agree with Obepo, as he has posted approval of sexual intercourse between minors and adults.

It inferred that you believed, in fact were 'not suprised' that I agreed with Opebo, because he posted approval of sexual relations with minors. This inferred that I agreed with him or at least condoned his position on sexual relations with minors which is catagorically not the case.

All you had to do was state, when I asked you the first time, that this was not your position.

Secondly, as you wish me to respond to your points I will.

1. Sexual Orientation and the causes of it are still an open book. The End.

2. I do not believe that religious doctrine should be changed universally, it is up to inidividual denominations to do so should they wish. (I'm a church going Catholic, but I don't demand the Church change its position simply because it is against my own) I also believe, through the study of theology that the translation of the original Greek in the NT, in particular the word 'aresenokoites' is incorrect, but it is up to scholars and churches to debate that issue should they also wish.

I. Inference

Ah, I am reminded of a debate between Congresswoman Clare Booth Luce and then Congressman J. William Fulbright.

Halfbright had the same problem with the English language which Luce corrected.

Now, Merriam-Webster defines infer as
 

Main Entry: in·fer
Pronunciation: in-'f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·ferred; in·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French inferer, from Latin inferre, literally, to carry or bring into, from in- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive verb
1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire -- L. A. White> -- compare IMPLY
2 : GUESS, SURMISE <your letter...allows me to infer that you are as well as ever --

So, you inferred something.  Simply put, an inference is something created by the reader/viewer/listener, not the sender.

II. Causation of homosexual orientation & children

Next, as to the causation of homosexual orientation, I once again note a lack of credible data to support the allegation of genetic predisposition.

Further, I would suggest that tolerance of adult homosexuality (if it were genetically based) would, in a couple of generations, largely resolve the matter.  Homosexuals should not be presured by societal norms to 'live a lie' and procreate with non-homosexuals.

Given the possibilty (which you appear to have acknowledged) that homosexual orientation is environmentally caused, should children be placed in an environment where homosexuality if promoted?

Now, I maintain that we need more data to accurately assess the environmental factors which may promote homosexual orientation.  Unfortunately, in part due to hysteria in many quarters, researchers are reluctant to conduct studies in this area.

III. Religious doctrine

Finally, it is nice to see that you appear to concur that religious doctrine should NOT be changed simply by a majority vote in a religious body.

As to problems with translations of Christian publications, I agree that there have been problems for centuries in this area.  Although I personally like the beauty of the language in the King James bible, I am aware that some of the wording is NOT faithful to original texts (have you ever had the opportunity to visit the Dead Sea Scrolls project at the Huntington Library).

Currently, in the United States, a couple of old line Protestant denominations are disintegrating based on efforts to rewrite dogma based on political correctness.  This is a major area in the United States of so-called 'gay rights' in the United States which is really angering a lot of people.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets review:

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) stated:

"There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research ionto sexual orientation which means that any reported findings must ve view with caution."

The rest of the articles are about as credible as the psuedoscienc of 'phrenology.'