Ustwo

Sure, but then lets be honest about it.

Teach it for what it is, a birth defect. Its normal the same way dwarfism or trisomy 21 is 'normal'. Its a mistake of genetics or pre-natal developement, I think both, but reguardless its not a "lifestyle" its people who through no fault of their own were born with part of them not working properly.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Like being left handed is a birth defect? Like being a red head with freckles is a birth defect? I really don't think the word "defect" is apt. The world is overpopulated, how do we know that this isn't a natural reaction to overpopulation?

pig

NCB, as far I understand it, this statement is categorically false. Weather patterns are undeniably normal. It rains, it shines, tornados form, and so do hurricanes. There are entire University Departments dedicated to why and how weather patterns occur. Such The University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Science. Corrosion is a completely natural process, and yet there are entire societies dedicated to studying and understanding it, such as NACE. Homosexuality is completely normal, in the sense that it occurs naturally. It exists. It may not be "normal" in the sense of adhering to the average behavior, but that doesn't make it some twisted perversion of reality, any more than having red hair or being left-handed.

As far as indoctrination of our youth into homosexuality via sex education, I just don't really buy it. As I remember sex ed, the teachers were uncomfortable, the students were uncomfortable, and there were no seminars on sexual technique or practices. I was pretty close with most of my teachers, and from playing various sports I knew all the coaches. In our schools, it was usually the gym coaches who ended up teaching sex ed as a part of physical education. Despite the fact that I had demonstrably heterosexual gym coaches all the way through high school, I never had one of them teach me how to give oral sex to my girlfriend, or suggest that missionary style wasn't the way to go. No bondage discussion, no role playing, no "Superman takes on WonderWoman with the Lasso of Truth Session" discussions. I don't doubt some of these guys tied their wives up and played Erik the Red pillages the coast of Iceland, but somehow they never got around to sharing these secrets with me. Now you're seriously telling me that one of these guys, if required to mention that you aren't a complete freakjob if you have homosexual leanings in highschool, or that its not a huge deal and there's no reason to beat each other up over it, etc - that my old soccer coach would have been trying to secretly get me juggle eggsacks in my cheeks? I really just don't think so. I don't really recall any direct discussion of actual sexual practices, beyond how to avoid disease and if you get a lump on your nut, you should probably have a doctor take a look at it.

This whole thing is just a distraction from the primary issue raised in these threads, which is that there is no solid rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to settle down into the house with the picket fence, dog and a cat with 1-1/2 kids.

edit: shit will, can you just get out of my mind for second post-jinx.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Lady Sage

Could you imagine how boring life would be if everyone were "normal". What IS "normal" anyway?

Agree with it or not it is done. All you negative Nancys are gonna have to life with homosexuality, its not going away. Stop fighting and start with the group hugs.

(Nancy was the first name that came to mind and is not meant to offend anyone who may have that name here on TFP)

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Gilda

Why should the government be involved in promoting normalcy of heterosexuality and why should the public schools trump the values of families who think heterosexuality is a vile and deviant behavior?

I'd like to point out, once again, that homosexuality is a state, not a behavior.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Psycho Dad

IMHO the schools shouldn't do either. But face it, how many homes these days have parents that will take the time to do it themselves?

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

filtherton

I know, and i feel for you and the holocaust deniers and the pi = 3'ers, and the creationists, whose perspectives are also trumped by the public school's teaching policies.

You still can't explain why teaching kids about homosexuality in school is a bad thing, aside from the fact that it will somehow "normalize" homosexuality. If you're afraid of the broad acceptance of homosexuality, just do what the racists did when segregation happened; use your influence as a parent to convince your children that it's great to be a bigot, that people who aren't like you aren't your equals, and that there's some sort of vast liberal conspiracy to allow homosexuals to not hate themselves.

Ok, i see. Being gay is like being retarded. I seem to remember you mentioning this in your "Let the retards get married if it will shut them up" thread. How do you feel about the normalization of the retard lifestyle in the public schools?

Gilda

Recent episode of Friday Night Lights: A teenage boy has been paralyzed in a football game and is recovering in the hospital. Another guy in a wheelchair (the same obnoxious jerk from the movie Murderball) calls him "gay". He follows this up with, "Oh, come on. I didn't mean it like that. I meant gay as in retarded." He's quickly shot up to my second least favorite character on the show, just behind the obsessed "backer".

Homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. It is neither abnormal nor deviant. It causes no harm to others and no harm to the homosexual.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Infinite_Loser

Wait... Around 7 - 8% of the total population is gay, correct? By standards of human variation, this percentage is EXTREMELY low. In fact, some genetic mutations and birth defects which are considered 'abnormal' have a higher occurance than homosexuality does. Whether or not it causes harm to the individual or even others is irrelevent.

A weird definition of the word 'normal', you have.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

So, is being left handed normal? Some estimates put left-handedness in between 10 and 30%.

The word deviant is funny, because all it really means is that someone or something doesn't share a specific characteristic with the majority of people/things. By this definition, marriages that don't end in divorce are deviant. Evangelical christians are deviant. Jesus was a deviant. With enough examination of all the things that are deviant, only the most stubborn person wouldn't admit that the details of the specific characteristic in question are much more important than whether the characteristic qualifies as deviant.

The word natural is similar, since really, everything that happens is natural. My computer is completely natural, so are buttfucking and apple pie.

You could go the other way, though, and say that anything that follows the fits withing the framework of evolutionary success is natural, everything else is deviant. That's great, but those who like this idea generally aren't experts in evolutionary theory and don't see that just because something appears on a very superficial level to hinder one's ability to pass on genes, doesn't mean it doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose, or that many things that make a species successful in the short term can often lead to massive amounts of species-specific death in the long run. Reproductive success isn't the only factor in the success of a species, in fact, in some instances, reproducing too much could theoretically cause the downfall of a species.

All these different ways of condemning homosexuality by comparing it to nature of the majority fall flat, because there is an endless supply of things that are just as "deviant" and just as "unnatural" as homosexuality that the proponents of the arguments could seemingly care less about.

Willravel

Less than 10% of the population has red hair. It's obviouslt a birth defect, too, and we shouldn't let them get married.

Infinite_Loser

So you mean that less than 10% of the total population has red hair and the other 90%+ has, say, blonde hair? As we all know, this isn't true. The other 90%+ of people who don't have red hair have either black, brown or blonde hair (I'm sure there's a color I'm missing). Let's try this with human sexuality. You can either be heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. 90%+ of humans are heterosexual, less than 10% of humans are homosexual and very few, if any, are asexual.

If one state (In this case, heterosexuality in humans) occupies more than 90% of the sample size for the human population, it's safe to assume that it's the norm.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, beastial, asexual.

Brown, sandy, blonde, red, black.

That's 5 and 5. Look how well that works.

Bottom line, don't be a bigot. Homosexuality obviously isn't a defect, as it is obviously functional at reducing overpopulation. Suggesting homosexuality is a birth defect is like saying that being pro choice is a birth defect. The topic has, is, and always will be political, based on religous impositions on the political arena. To pretend that it's biological is to ignore biology. To aknowledge it's essentially a religous argument is to admit that you're imposing your version of Jesus on another person who isn't hurting you, so thus ends the argument.

Gilda

I mean that it is healthy and natural, and thus lacks some of the additional connotations that the word "abnormal" usually carries. "Normal" can be a statistical descriptor or it can carry with it, as it generally does in common usage, especially as it applies to sexuality, moral, ethical, or psychological connotations. In my experience, it's often accompanied by an implication or outright statement that the behavior is sick, clearly adding a psychological or moral component. None of those extra connotations are accurate descriptors.

If you mean "normal" solely as a statistical descriptor without any relationship to moral or ethical standards, using it solely as a mathematical descriptor, then yes, homosexuality is statistically uncommon. By that definition many more things that don't ordinarily get that label are not normal, but aren't labeled as such. In the United States, being Jewish or Native American is about as common or less common than being homosexual. Is being Jewish abnormal? Residents of Wyoming make up 0.6% of the US population. Is being a resident of Wyoming abnormal?

In terms of world population, Americans are about 4.5%. That's in the same neighborhood as the rate of homosexuality. Is being an American abnormal?

The problem with the "homosexuality isn't normal because it's uncommon" reasoning is that that's a line of reasoning that gets applied only when someone disapproves of the behavior or a moral or ethical connotation is added. This is why "abnormal" in psychological terms and "deviant" in sociological terms carry with them the additional criterion of dysfunction, or as I put it, harm. Psychologically, a behavior is "abnormal" only if it is statistically uncommon and causes harm to the person exhibiting it or to others. Collecting comic books is statistically uncommon, but not abnormal. Sociologically, a behavior is "deviant" if it is statistically uncommon and it violates the norms of a culture, subculture, or group or represents a failure to act within the norms of the culture. In religious doctrine, those terms usually imply that the behavior is a violation of the specific doctrine of the organization making the judgment.

Homosexuality fails the test on all those grounds save for religious purposes.

This makes the use of "normal" and "abnormal" loaded words. Defending the labeling of homosexuality as "abnormal" on a purely statistical basis fails because there is in that usage a connotation of moral, ethical, or psychological dysfunction. Homosexuality isn't dysfunctional in any of those ways, so using deviant or abnormal when you don't mean to imply that there is some dysfunction inherent to the condition is at best deceptive.

But for the sake of clarification, because we're operating from different definitions of the word, I'll rephrase: Homosexuality is a healthy, natural variant of human sexuality.

Is it statistically uncommon? Sure. It's also a healthy variant of human sexuality that causes neither the individual nor others in the society harm, nor does it impair in any way a person's being able to function according to other societal norms.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

highthief

Then every member of the Sambia tribe of New Guinea is defective? Because every male in the tribe lives as a homosexual for several years.

Americans and Europeans are more "defective" than say, Arabs or Chinese, because there is a higher incidence of homosexuality here than in those lands?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Infinite_Loser

Still, notice how 90%+ of all humans fall into the category of 'heterosexual' while there is no such disparity in your comparisons to hair color? If the overwhelming majority of a sample population can be grouped into one category, then we state that this is the natural tendency of that group.

The notion that homosexuality is useful at reducing overpopulation is more plausible than the assumption there is as "Gay gene", as there have been studies done on mice and monkey's which prove that they exhibit homosexual tendencies only when they begin to run out of space to effectively live. Assuming that it is a recessive trait, basic evolution would state that homosexuality should have killed itself off by now, as it's not advantageous to procreation. Of course, this would beg the question as to why China and India don't have rather large homosexual movements since they are the two most overpopulated regions of the world. The notion that there is a "Gay gene" in humans is absurd as, by the basic principles biology/evolution, it would either have to be a recessive trait or have nothing to do with genes at all.

Who mentioned anything about a Judeo-Christian belief?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

Well I can make another comparison, but the comparions seem to distract from the discussion. Moving on...
It may not be a recessive trait. It may be that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, combined with the 7% of the population thing. A gene that creates the tendancy for homosexulaity might be the same as a gene that makes someone more or less likely to be proned to addiction or proned to likeing big or small boobs...it's a tendency, but it isn't always the rule. I have addiction going back on both sides of my family for generations. I'm not addicted to anything. My brother isn't addicted to anyhing. We could have been, but it's dependant on so many environmental and other genetic factors. I imagine that homosexulaity is dependantfirst on the "gay gene", then other genes, then the environment. Isn't it possible that the environment is what activates homosexulaity, just like the environment can tweak and change heterosexuality?

For example: what if as populations rise, the tendency towards equality rises as the elite and rare smartest people come to liberal power. As equality rises, latent homosexuals that normally just try to live life as heterosexuals are free to live life as a homosexual. I don't know how likely it is, but it does explain the homosexual tendency as a gene.
More like Abrahamic belief, but it's the idea that homosexuality is wrong that comes from that line of morality. Where does that morality come from? Abrahamic religons: Judism, Christianity, and Islam. That morality is a lot older than genetics.

host

I think that we all need to educate ourselves and make an effort to always remind ourselves that everyone else is also struggling to maintain their self esteem. That is a foundation of awareness of equality, tolerance, and mutual respect, IMO.

Ustwo

Lets handle this one at a time. This one I have time for.

They are not homosexuals, but taught to have male-male sex if it’s the same tribe I'm thinking of. They learn it as boys but still dream of when they are allowed to have sex with women. Its not the same as being a homosexual in the true sense.

Yes in terms of this condition. Many conditions are more common in one race than another. Due to the nature of arab culture I'd be willing to bet their incidence of homosexuality is higher than reported, I don't know the Chinese rate off hand but lets take it at face value. I'd be MORE surprised if there was no difference in races.

I see homosexuality as a birth 'defect' because it directly interferes with reproduction. Genetics doesn't care about what kind of person you are, if your genes die out and die out due to something in their makeup, it’s a defect.

This is a purely dispassionate scientific assessment of the condition. The next logical argument would be to ask if healthy heterosexual couples who do not have children are 'defective' and the answer depends on the reason they don't have children. If there is a genetic tendency not have children then it would qualify as a birth defect. They were born that way, and it’s a dead end for the line. Now my guess is that it is a psychological thing and a conscious decision. Its still a dead end but the same genes under a different social environment could have had 12 kids happily. The same can't be same for homosexuals who I think would be gay under any circumstance since its genetically linked.

Either one accepts the genetic component to homosexuality and if you have an understanding of genetics you can see where this would be a defect (there is an argument I can think of that would make it a possible benefit but I'll see if someone else comes up with that one, its weak but worth mentioning) or homosexuality is somehow psychological and therefore can be cured or prevented in children. That was the thought up until the late 70's and guess how well that worked?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

Genes don't exist in a vacuum, though, and your interpretation of what does and doesn't allow genes to survive is overly simple. Plenty of gay people have children, and being gay isn't an insurmountable barrier to having children.

Lady Sage

People should be more interested in keeping their own lives straight than trying to run everyone elses. While they are at it some people should concentrate on keeping up their fantasy worlds.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Willravel

If it's genetic, then it's a condition until it's proven to be detrimental or a negative in some real way. If it is found to be a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection, then it becomes a defect. Until that imperfection is proven, and it has not been so far, this has been and will remain a condition.

If it's environmental, why cure it? I mean that's like curing someone from enjoying musical theater or for preferring blondes. Who cares? It's clearly not harmful. It doesn't actually harm in any way the people around them (despite what some may say). As stated before, it can even be helpful as it combats overpopulation!

Getting back to gay marriage, I couldn't be happier. It's about time we show these people the respect set fourth by legal precedent. In Lawrence v Texas, 2003, the Supreme Court considered sodomy laws regarding homosexuals. You see, Texas thought it would be funny, between beers and wife beating, to say that sodomy is illegal between homosexuals but legal between heterosexuals. In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overruled Texas' ruling in Bowers v Hardwick and ruled that the state "lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults." I'm sure you've all heard of the Equal Protection Clause. Scalia threw a fit, of course, but the decision stands.

Infinite_Loser

Let's put it this way: Any trait which would prevent a species from reproducing is lost over time and, as we all know, homosexuals rarely ever have children. Anything which would inhibit any given organism from reproducing is considered unwanted/a defect. Thefore, the notion that homosexuality is genetic in humans is-- For lack of a better word-- Preposterous.

If you don't agree, then take it up with basic Darwinism.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

ratbastid

What a depressingly black-and-white world the gay-suppression proponents live in. Of course, it's a lot simpler when you don't have to worry about things like gray areas and nuance...

Either a person IS gay or IS not (never mind that all the research on the subject shows that people's sexuality falls somewhere on a spectrum). Gay people DON'T procreate (never mind that many of them do). Marriage IS for procreation (never mind how many marriages don't produce children or how many children don't come from married parents). It's all about absolutes, because that requires no thinking or self-examination.

There's a complex, messy, interesting world out here just waiting to be lived in. I find it sad that some people's rigid, fixed and absolute view of the world prevents them from inhabiting reality. I mean--how do you deal with somebody who says, in a nutshell, "My opinion is absolute truth", when their opinion is different from yours and isn't supported by anything that appears rational? Shrug your shoulders? That's about what I've come to.

My personal philosophy is to be skeptical of absolutes. Things are usually more complicated than can be summed up in a neat verbal equation.

Willravel

Some of the writings from Ancient Greece explain how homosexuality was a normal part of a man's life. That suggests that homosexuality isn't something new, so you're probably wrong. As a matter of fact, as animals become more social as they evolve, it is observed that homosexuality becomes more prevenalt. It has been documented consistantly from anything from penguins (March of the Penguins 2: Queen of the Nile), bison, sheep, dogs, cats, dolphins, and pigs, so you're completly wrong. Preposterous, indeed.

Jerks would have been removed from the gene pool hundreds of thousands of years ago if your simplistic description of darwinism was true.

pig

Holy Crap. So now we're down to trying to determine whether or not being gay is genetically disfavored, based on the assumption that there is an overpowering gay gene? There's lots of things that don't have any use in reproduction. I have two of them. They are called my nipples. I like 'em just fine, but they'll never excrete the sweet sweet milk of paternal sustanence to any child I begot upon some unluckly lady. Shrill, tawdry crazy shrew she would have to be let me do all my begotting and whatnot. Why do I have nipples? Why damn it? Hold on, Ustwo's going to explain something about lack of differentiation in early child development whilst we lie in the womb. Ok, my tonsils have nothing to do with reproduction. Neither does my knee cap.
One also has to wonder if the formation of stable family units produces situations such that successful survival of any offspring born in the larger family unit are increased. Thus, as not all members of a homosexual household are likely to be homosexual, the safety and support offered by the formation of the stable family unit favors the survival of any child produced. As ratbastid directly just pointed out, it's not a cut and dry situation.

Holy sweet what-the-hell on a slinky. Whether or not someone regards homosexuality as some sort of genetically recessive trait disfavorable to the active direct production of children is not the issue with gay marriage.

Hold on, who was it that sang the following?

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

JumpinJesus

There is so much talk on whether homosexuality is a birth defect and whether homosexuality is unfit in an evolutionary sense and that marriage is for procreation and so on that I can't quote just one post to focus on. So allow me to give a general reply.


First off, to whether homosexuality is a defect that will result in the dying out of homosexuality in humans: do homosexuals have homosexual parents? Sometimes, I'm sure, but oftentimes they have straight parents. What could this possibly mean?

As to whether homosexuality is contrary to the propagation of the species and therefore will die out: fine, but until they do (which could take millions of years, considering how slow evolution works) are they not protected by the same constitution by which every other American is protected?

If a man and a woman marry and it turns out that one of them is infertile, can the state then void their marriage, since they aren't going to procreate? And isn't infertility contrary to the propagation of the species? Should we make fertility tests a requirement for marriage?

I'm not sure just how thought out some of the "logical" anti-gay marriage arguments are.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Infinite_Loser

Erm... When did I say that homosexuality was a new concept?

Did you not read any of my responses thus far? I said this once before, but I'll say it again. I believe it's been a few years, but scientists conducting an experiment to see when, and if, homosexuality occurs in a population. They first did it with mice and then with monkeys. It was observed that homosexuality occurs only when space became an issue; When a portion of the population died off, then they went back to being heterosexual.

Homosexuality in humans doesn't just occur in situations of overpopulization nor is a particularly effective means of population control in humans, either. The difference between humans and animals is that, unlike animals which are driven by mear instinct, humans are able to rationalize and can thusly make choices. If homosexuality were genetic, then it would only manifest itself when it's needed and at the times it's needed, much like in animals. Of course, it doesn't.

What are you talking about? Women are attracted to jerks like a fly to rotten meat.

Oh! And it's not a simplistic form of Darwinism. It's the cold, hard truth.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

pig

I think his point was that if it were strongly predispositioned to be phased out through evolution, it could have easily already happened. I don't know about the timescale involved, that whole course of analysis is far too simplified in the first place...but that was sort of will's point, I think.


That's just girls...women are attracted to jerks with lots of $$$

Regardless, I think this thread's just about busted. I'll second a congrats to the peoples up in Jersey. I guess we'll see how this one plays out.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

Let's put it this way: It's not that simple. We don't live in the woods any more. The only thing preventing most homosexuals from reproducing is the fact that many of them don't want to have children. Human have found numerous ways around untold "defects". It's called adaptation, and there are a great many things that you probably consider genetic flaws that are mostly irrelevant because we've figured out ways around them.

Now, i'm not saying homosexuality is genetic, just that you claiming that if it was it would have been bred out of us by now is wrong.

DaElf

cool people in NJ with the same genetalia can share medical insurance. happy for you. please sit down.

do homosexual ladies go to man prison? Because if not, that's hot.

__________________
I'm sitting at my desk right now waiting for you to reply to the above message.

Ustwo

I can't do basic Darwinism anymore, but I can do advanced evolutionary biology.

Many negative traits do stick around for quite a long time. Homosexuality may be a negative trait to reproduction, but its obviously around and as homosexuals have been considered perverts for much of history in many cultures, I'd find it odd that so many people would pick to be a pervert. So far no evidence exists for it being anything else than genetic or VERY early in development. You can teach someone to be bisexual, you can't teach them to be gay. This btw is a mistake many seem to be making here. Greek/Roman homosexuality as so freely talked about was really bisexuality, and there is a WORLD of difference between the two in genetic terms. Greek/Roman homosexuals would not have been considered normal in their tastes.

There is apparently a fragile period in human development where sexuality is imprinted on the brain. Some genetic combinations seem to be susceptible for errors at this time. Its negative to survival but so are a lot of traits. As long as enough do survive into the next generation it continues. There may be unknown benefits as well to that genetic combination, much like the sickle cell trait in Africans. It may be that the traits which favor reproduction outweigh the impact of having a non-reproducing possibility.

Likewise I doubt there will be one ‘gay gene’ an in fact its due to multiple genes. Many traits are not the Mendelian genetics you get taught in 5th grade, but are in fact field effects where multiple genes overlap.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pig

Know what else is interesting? I had a roommate back in school who was studying classic Greek and Roman literature. Not only was it really insulting for a man to take it in the can...but it turns out that men of character fucked each other behind the knees. That's right - apparently they wedged that sucker behind a bent knee and went at it. They were notoriously pederasts, but they typically had wives. And to tie it all together (like a good rug), they kept those wives for reproductive purposes.

Maybe this sucker's not busted yet afterall.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

highthief

I think this is where you're going off the rails. Leaving aside the vast numbers of groups around the world - both currently and historically - who have practised on a wide scale and condoned same sex behaviour and orientation (such as the Sambia or ancient Greeks), the "birth defect" argument assumes that homosexuality is caused by genetics. We have no idea that this is the case. Upbringing may be the predominant role, exposure to various hormones at certain stages of development might do it, or there may be a "gay" gene. You're focusing on only one potential cause, without considering the other strong possibilites, which is hardly a very scientific or dispassionate way of looking at things as you claim to do.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Lady Sage

A spinoff on Mr. Highthiefs fabulous point.

What if enjoying Chocolate is a "birth defect". What if we are all supposed to like Vanilla?

Hope this put some things into perspective for some people.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

NCB

Oh, yeah? How does that happen?

__________________

Lady Sage

Adoption, invitro, my aunt had a child with a husband before admitting she was a lesbian.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

ratbastid

Well, let's see. I know one gay man who's been in a very stable relationship for about 20 years. 15 years ago or so they decided they wanted a child, so he and a close female friend did artificial insemination and had one. He's a great kid too--one of the most well-adjusted children I've ever met. And, in case you're wondering if he caught gay from his two daddies, he has a lovely girlfriend. So, anecdotally at least, so much for both nature and nurture.

A lesbian couple I know is doing artificial insemination right now. They've done a couple rounds of it with no luck yet, but they're still trying.

My fifth grade teacher, who I'm still in touch with, had two kids with her husband before divorcing him and coming out. She's in a wonderful relationship, which her kids support wholeheartedly. Both of them are married to people of the opposite sex.

Then there's adoption cases--and there are PLENTY of those.

This happens A LOT. Way more than you might think if you didn't actually know any gay people.

NCB

But its not a child born from the two of them.
Thanks for proving my point. For some normal couples, they have to go through exceptional measure sto have a child, and some of the time, it will still be a child between them. For homosexual couples, it is an absolute requirement that they jump through hoops to "have" a child, and ALL of the time, it is not a child born between the two of them.

And oh, btw, I thought that homosexuality was a natural reaction to overpopulation? Why are homosexuals "having" children to begin with if nature intended them not to "have" children?

Be sure to lock when you leave

__________________

highthief

I think I'm for Neopolitan myself!

Mmm, ice cream ...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.