"Gay Rights"

[afleitch]

All it takes is another person as brave as Hitler, and problem solved.

Must be Jake's split persona talking

Such rights do mean much more than marriage and can, depending on the person, exclude marriage, they mean a right to simply 'be'; without harrasment or being hauled out of your bed or being fired on a whim because someone takes objection to anything but your ability.

[afleitch]

Initially, it simply meant the right to go out publicly as a gay person without being arrested or beaten.

And as Joke Jake still takes pleasure in the idea of such things happening then it's clear alot more has to be done by the movement when it comes to the basics!

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

Many homosexuals in the United States (I will not comment about those in other lands) are interested in gaining access to minor children

Replace the word 'many' with 'some' and the word 'homosexual' with 'paedophile' - why you refuse to make that distinction is beyond me

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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'?

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

Oh dear.

Carl, have you not grasped the fact that I have pretty much been winding you up? You get very uptight and pedantic and I knew you would react this way (consulting dictionaries and fussing over the precise meanings of words) when faced with such arguments which is why I laboured the point.

However this

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

Is easily challenged. Have a look around some of the reports and you will find alot of study has gone into this field.

Though, since you like your proof read this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

and this

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/22/1728_56075?src=Inktomi&condition=Home%20&%20Top%20Stories

This from the American Psychological Association

'What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.'

found here http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses

And then search Google- there is a world of information out there.

There are a variety of reasons as to why and what causes homosexuality and biological factorsa are part of this (but not all). By trying to exclude it from the debate you are dismissing decades of research by people who do this sort of thing for a living!

[afleitch]

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.

Look how fast things have changed. Only 7 years ago, some expected it to take a generation (or more) for gays to be able to serve openly in the military, which one can already do. Also, a lot of US states have already allowed for gays to marry, including the largest one California. And quite a few more are expected to allow marriage equality within the next year or two, including Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey. Also a few states like Colorado, are allowing gays to form civil unions. A majority of Americans already support gay marriage, quite a reversal since 5-6 year ago. And many analysts are expecting the US Supreme Court to rule that marriage equality is a constitutional right for all Americans within the not too distant future, let's say within the next 5-6 years, perhaps sooner.

On issues like this, my heart leaps at being proven wrong