Thoughts on gay rights?

[Xan]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/08/how ... ientation/

A small excerpt:

Our emotional responses to our president are caused by our prior judgments, our prior evaluation of whether our president is good for us and the things we value dearly, or bad for us and the things we value dearly. Sometime in our past, we made evaluations not only of the president, but also of what things in the world are fundamentally important to us. All of these prior evaluations are choices.
The Tricky Relationship Between Emotions and Choice

On the recent anniversary of D-Day, I attended a reception for U.S. veterans of World War II and the Korean War. When we sang “God Bless America,” many of the Veterans and guests were moved to tears. Did we choose to weep at that moment? Of course not. But sometime in our past, we made judgments about our country and about the men and women who fight for it, and about the importance of those things to us. Those past judgments are the cause of our present tears when we honor our military heroes.

[Michellebell]

Here's an article on promiscuity amongst gay males:

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-s ... uth-about/

I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality.  But some people asked for statistics so here are some.

[moda0306]

Here's an article on promiscuity amongst gay males:

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-s ... uth-about/

I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality.  But some people asked for statistics so here are some.

A lot of that research is done some-time ago.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the average gay person who was open enough to come out in 1968 would be much more likely to have... alternative... views on traditional relationship roles and promiscuity.

I'm not saying there isn't a higher correlation there, however.  I think it's more of a correlation thing, though.

But what does it mean to have "mixed feelings?"  To me, issues like this can MOSTLY get split up into four categories:

1) Personal: I really, really don't like the idea of personally being gay.  Very disgusting to me, in-fact.  Luckily, it's not forced upon me in the least.

2) Social: I am a-ok with being friends, colleagues with them.  The super flamboyant ones are pretty weird and annoying, but isn't the flamboyant extreme of any social group (Bible thumpers, rednecks, gangstas, feminists, anarchists, etc).  On-average I've found them to be great people, but my sample is admittedly extremely limited and biased.

3) Societal/Cultural: I have about as much general fear of them worsening society as I do feminism.  Men are pansies today not because of gayness and feminism, but Xbox, Domino's Pizza, and comforts/stimulation galore at little/no cost/effort. 

4) Political:  I think they should have the same political rights as any of us.  Including marriage.  Including adoption.  However, I don't like the idea of forcing businesses to hire, promote or serve people that they don't want to.

Perhaps there are other categories, but I think this mostly sums it up.

[Libertarian666]

Gays shouldn't really have rights because they are not mentally sound.

Regardless of what you personally believe about homosexuality itself being a mental disorder, they all (100%) have secondary mental disorders, which they quite frequently attempt to self medicate with wanton illicit drug use. They all seem to be bipolar, alcoholic and addicted to meth and a few other drugs of choice.

Secondly, their sexuality in itself is more fixated on promiscuity and outright orgies than anything sensible or healthy. They have bloody buttsex with dozens of new men per week. Gay establishments such as gyms and bars often proudly declare that they feature "hookup rooms" for casual sex. Often this casual sex is used to pay for drugs.

Lastly, they are aggressive and proselyte. They actively try to recruit young men into homosexuality, and actively try to molest little boys.

They shouldn't have rights, they're mental cases. They should be institutionalized. Whether or not it's their "fault" is up for debate, but the fact remains that each and every single one unleashes such horror on society with their "lifestyle" that they couldn't possibly do enough good, individually or collectively, to offset it.

An important point to consider: whatever you reward and encourage in society, you get more of. We currently reward and encourage coming home to find that our 11 year old son did not return home from school because a strange man talked him into letting a room full of strange men take turns snorting cocaine out of his butthole.

That we allow and even encourage this "lifestyle" is all the proof I need to know that we live in an insane cartoon world.

inb4 "wow just wow" and "it's (current year)!" etc.

It's not polite to barge into a conversation in a group of which you are a recent member and in effect insult everyone before you as being crazy for not having the same opinion as you do.

That is an indication of "oppositional defiant disorder".

I disagree, Libertarian666.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic.  He was invited to share his opinions, no matter how tolerant vs. intolerant of homosexuality they are.  They are his views, and although he didn't fill it with disclaimers or "IMO's" I think we are all intelligent enough to know that they are his own personal views, whether based on research or observations. 

I expected a range of views here and wanted to get an honest picture of how people feel about it. 

Now if Blood went to a gay pride parade announcing this stuff, that would be a different story,  but I don't think that's the kind of thing he does.

Ok, you're the OP, so you are pretty much entitled to decide whether he's being disruptive on your thread.

But I still think his approach is unnecessarily abrasive. It also isn't going to get him very far in this crowd of independent thinkers, but that's his problem.

[Fred]

When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.

[BearBones]

Seemed appropriate. 

... M

If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING...

Just read through 4 pages of absolutely nothing that made any difference in my life (except wanting to get more involved in med school selection committees  ). Until I came to this. Wow! knocked my socks off. Thanks for sharing.

[BearBones]

I disagree, Libertarian666.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic...

Curious. Did you or anyone really learn anything from this dialog? I don't mean that to sound obnoxious. Just really curious is anyone fundamentally changes their options based on such discussions?

Yeah it was a bit surprising to me how tolerant the group is on this subject. Even those with strong religious beliefs. And surprising that the most extreme opinion was from a medical student (that I pray does NOT go into anesthesia). But nothing fundamentally shifted.

[BearBones]

To just follow up on one of your examples: if the mallard drake pairs never mated with females, then according to naturalistic evolutionary theory, they would not reproduce and whatever genetic trait contributed to them wanting to hang out with other drakes could not be naturally selected and hence would tend to die out.  If morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms, then one would expect traits that don't lead to reproduction to be viewed as immoral. 

For what it's worth, I have no moral difficulties with your vibrator.  I would recommend you keep it away from your perverted dog, however.

Who said morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms? And when/if it does, is this a perfect enough derivation to be fully trusted? Everything that is not of evolutionary benefit is immoral? And, conversely, all that furthers the propagation of one's genome, moral?

[jafs]

When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.

That may be true, but doesn't answer my question.

Did you choose your sexual orientation?

And, there's obviously a huge difference between being able to have sex and get married, and not being able to do those things.

[jafs]

In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this, but it seems like you have breeding and morality mixed up. Yes, racism is illogical. Luckily, in Yellowstone, young daughter wolf may sneak off with someone from another pack that daddy wolf does not approve of, so that trumps daddy wolf's "racist" feelings.

Homophobia is every bit as illogical as racism. If you woke up one day and the entire world were gay, it would be logical to fear that the human race would not reproduce and carry on. But that's got nothing to do with homophobia, or limiting a gay person's rights to marry, enjoy tax benefits, and do all the things straight people do. And, it's got nothing to do with morality. How is that a "default moral position?"

My point was that if one is a naturalist, and that morality simply evolved along with modern humans, it would be quite natural for homosexuality to be found immoral simply on practical grounds.  In other words, homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, thus wouldn't be naturally selected.  Of course I don't personally feel that the source of morality can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, so I don't personally hold this view.  But it seems quite inconsistent for a committed naturalist to try to make a moral argument in favor of homosexuality.

It would be problematic if every human being were gay or lesbian, for sure.  But it's not at all problematic for a small percentage to be that way, from a naturalistic viewpoint.  Especially now, when we're overpopulating the planet.

[Michellebell]

Okay let me explain my mixed feelings a little more . 

I do want to hear your opinions, however brash or accepting they are, because I have not yet formed my own opinions.  I don't care how convincing you all are really.  I just want to know what the attitudes are, partially because I want to know how people I care about will be viewed by others if they choose a gay lifestyle.  I am trying to make sense of my own thoughts by talking to what I perceive as a group of pretty intelligent people who are interested in the world around them.

I personally have an aversion to homosexuality.  I guess that qualifies me as homophobic.  And yet I have a sister whom I love who is choosing a gay lifestyle.  We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion.

Here's an article that goes over survey results of children raised by homosexuals:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

In terms of adoption, I have met several couples who have adopted, and in more cases than not, those children have many issues.  Many of their biological parents were unstable or on drugs.  The parents are very admirable in their calling to raise and love these children.  However I think these children will be best off if placed in the most stable environment possible . 

Homosexual relationships IMO are not as stable.  They do not last as long, many male relationships are open relationships, many lesbian relationships are full of drama.  My mom is an ObGyn and she said that the lesbian couples she sees are just over the top with drama.  I also knew a girl who told me that although she's bisexual and slightly more attracted to women than men, she refuses to date women anymore because she can't handle the drama.  Her relationships are much better with men.

Now you might say, who cares?  Well maybe it's just a curiosity thing for me.  I wonder if my sister will be happy as a lesbian.  She claims she's bisexual but hasn't tried dating any men.  Why would she when lesbianism is so "cool" these days?  But her first girlfriend had a lot of issues and tried to commit suicide several times.  Her next girlfriend struggled with gender identity and has been going back and forth between identifying as a female vs a male. 

I know another woman who married a woman and then left her because the relationship was so unstable.  She identified herself as a lesbian and became friends almost exclusively with lesbians.  When she started dating men again (she's married now), her friends were really angry at her and her boss even sexually harassed her.

You might say these are isolated cases, but I think they're still worth thinking about.  My sister may not know if she might actually like being in a relationship with a man.  I don't think she'd be able to attract a man honestly.  She is beautiful, tall and thin, blond...a classic beauty like Grace Kelly, but she looks like a lesbian (short hair, dresses like a boy, gets mistaken for a boy sometimes, etc.).  Shes also genius-level smart.

I can tell my dad is having a hard time accepting this but he loves her and doesn't want to alienate her.  I really avoid talking about it with her.  My father told me once he would be very upset if I became a lesbian, not because he would take offense, but because my life would be so much harder if I chose that route.

As far as the statistics on homosexual males, yes those stats are very old...  But I read somewhere that even after all the HIV awareness, they have remained a much more promiscuous group. 

[WiseOne]

Sounds to me like the person you want to talk to is your sister.  She's probably just as confused as you are, and would appreciate hashing out her thoughts with you.  Here's a suggested place to start: whether your sister feels she has "chosen" a homosexual lifestyle.  She may not feel comfortable with that description.  I do suggest trying not to be judgmental when you're talking to her, just listen.  There are a lot of judgmental red flags in your post.

The question of legal status for gays is sort of secondary to the above, I think.  Interesting topic to be sure, but not your main concern just now.  But, let me put to rest the idea that homosexuals are inherently mentally disordered.  They're approximately as disordered as everyone else.

Like BearBones, I hope very much that a certain medical student on this board goes into radiology or pathology.  Better opportunities for part-time work and no interaction with patients.  Some of whom might be gay.  Incidentally, about 10% of his medical school classmates and teaching attendings are gay, and chances are he doesn't know who those are.

[Mountaineer]

<snip> We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion. <end snip>

Michellebell,

Eugenics is no longer popular like it was in the early 1900s; it seemed to reach its peak in Nazi Germany but may be making a comeback via assisted reproductive technology.  Those who are concerned about over populating the planet (typically those more liberal in their thoughts and actions, e.g. the media, e.g. acedemia) need something to replace eugenics (an aim of which was to create smarter peope who will save us) without the stigma of the word eugenics.  It appears they have chosen to make abortion and homosexuality glamorous as the current strategy to save us (via limiting successful births) from ourselves.  You may wish to counsel your sister about other possibilities for her chosen lifestyle and help her see how she is likely being manipulated by pop culture.  All my opinion.

... M

[jafs]

That's a serious misstatement of liberal thought on homosexuality.

The comments about overpopulation are in direct response to concerns that homosexuality is a threat to the species, and that we'll die out if we accept it.

Those concerns are clearly unfounded unless a vast percentage of human beings were homosexual, and that's just not the case.

[BearBones]

Well, I've managed to put myself in the position of arguing a point I don't agree with, but I'm doing so for a reason.  As a Christian, I think morality is prescribed.  But before becoming a Christian, I of course thought a lot about morality, its origins, and frankly its usefulness.  To be a true naturalist, as many on this forum are, one has to view morality as something that has simply evolved or occurred.  There is no external source of morality, it is simply something that humans have somehow invented.  Perhaps the invention wasn't strictly evolutionary in its source, but still we must think about it as being accidental, since our very existence is accidental. 

I like and respect that, Desert. I think that morals are human constructs that generally are beneficial for individuals, relationships, and societies. But not always. And not being dogmatically religious, I prefer looking at each for how accurate and helpful it might be in a given moment and situation.

Pork used to be loaded with parasites. So it made sense to refrain from including in a diet. And even prescribing as a moral duty, I guess. No longer, so I think it is kind of crazy to make it morally objectionable.

Great quote by Dawkins. Thanks.

[Greg]

DISCLAIMER: Religious-tilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... l_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... l_behavior

I myself view homosexuality as an abnormality that may be affected by genetics and environment. From a Biblical perspective, we all have issues, and certain things that we need to suppress such as the desire to lie, or anger, or alcohol addiction, etc. Not everyone has the same issues that plague them and some people have to deal with homosexuality. We should still be kind towards everyone and help those we can regardless because I am to love my neighbor as I do myself.

I find it interesting however from these wikipedia articles above that they speak about homosexual behavior, not turning it into a lifestyle like humans do. (almost more like a bi-curious/bisexual versus fully homosexual). I feel like people then make an identity/culture out of homosexuality and it keeps on dividing further and further (people wanting to change genders now, etc.) As above again, everyone has their own self-conscience and they know themselves better than I know them so I can't fully feel what they feel. They may feel a very strong pull towards homosexuality that I just don't have, but then they might not have the pull towards video game addiction that I had as a young teenager (I make this comparison not to slight homosexuality, just that everyone has different things that they have to deal with).

As for gay marriage, I see the point of marriage as to provide a stable family unit for having and raising children. That way, the children are able to learn about both men and women, what each are, what makes each one special and unique in their differences. You're not going to get that day-to-day experiences without having both sides of the story. While I think it is honorable for a gay couple to want to have a child, they just can't provide the experiences to fully round out the child unless there is another close member of the opposite sex that the child can look to and learn from.

I think homosexuals should be treated as what they are: imperfect humans, just as the rest of us are imperfect humans with each of our own addictions and shortcomings. Marriage, for me, is to provide for a stable unit that each person is now financially/emotionally/physically tied to to make an ideally unbreakable bond for children. I'm not stating you have to have kids if you get married, but just that marriage makes it harder to break-out of the family if you have kids and decide it isn't for you and want to get out of the "contract".

I believe God gave Adam a helper so that he wouldn't be alone and that they would be able to do more and better things by sticking together. I think that Adam can have another Adam, or Eve another Eve, and they can both rely on each other for help to live life more comfortably, but that this shouldn't be considered as marriage.

Relativism is a slippery slope.

[BearBones]

Sounds to me like the person you want to talk to is your sister.

+1
But you may be doing that.

Btw, watch a bit of the documentary "growing up trans" if you get a chance. Really sad. Omg. To say that an 8 year old is "choosing" to live a totally agonizing life of wishing to be the opposite sex is preposterous to me. Not quite the same, I know, but I do think that a certain percentage of the population gets "wired" in a way that is not conducive to propagation. Or to an easy, happy life.

In this context, I feel bad for your sister. And for you.

Here is my last word for this thread. Negative judgements of others generally don't help very much. For others or for ourselves. The world would be so much a better place if we all just focused more on own own imperfections and less on those of others.

And when we do feel judgement or irritation? It usually comes from an insecurity or weak place within ourselves. Take a really close look.

[Libertarian666]

I wonder if my sister will be happy as a lesbian.  She claims she's bisexual but hasn't tried dating any men.  Why would she when lesbianism is so "cool" these days?  But her first girlfriend had a lot of issues and tried to commit suicide several times.  Her next girlfriend struggled with gender identity and has been going back and forth between identifying as a female vs a male. 

I know another woman who married a woman and then left her because the relationship was so unstable.  She identified herself as a lesbian and became friends almost exclusively with lesbians.  When she started dating men again (she's married now), her friends were really angry at her and her boss even sexually harassed her.

You might say these are isolated cases, but I think they're still worth thinking about.  My sister may not know if she might actually like being in a relationship with a man.  I don't think she'd be able to attract a man honestly.  She is beautiful, tall and thin, blond...a classic beauty like Grace Kelly, but she looks like a lesbian (short hair, dresses like a boy, gets mistaken for a boy sometimes, etc.).  Shes also genius-level smart.

If she is that pretty, she shouldn't have any trouble attracting a man, unless her personality is quite off-putting. However, of course it would help if she dressed like a woman and grew her hair longer.

BTW, this is another way in which men and women are quite different. Most men are either straight or gay, and the straight ones don't have any interest in sex with another man. Women seem to be considerably more fluid in that regard.

[Greg]

I'll be reading this a bit later, but it seems interesting to learn more about:

http://www.gaychurch.org/homosexuality-and-the-bible/

[dualstow]

DISCLAIMER: Religious-tilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... l_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... l_behavior

I haven't looked at the link lately, although I think I've read that page before. This is not a reply to your specific post, Greg, but the link reminds me that once upon a time males did not exist in nature. In *any* species. Reproduction still happened. And there are cases of all females of a species on an island, where the females transform into a male and reproduction happens.

[Michellebell]

Sounds to me like the person you want to talk to is your sister.  She's probably just as confused as you are, and would appreciate hashing out her thoughts with you.  Here's a suggested place to start: whether your sister feels she has "chosen" a homosexual lifestyle.  She may not feel comfortable with that description.  I do suggest trying not to be judgmental when you're talking to her, just listen.  There are a lot of judgmental red flags in your post.

The question of legal status for gays is sort of secondary to the above, I think.  Interesting topic to be sure, but not your main concern just now.  But, let me put to rest the idea that homosexuals are inherently mentally disordered.  They're approximately as disordered as everyone else.

Like BearBones, I hope very much that a certain medical student on this board goes into radiology or pathology.  Better opportunities for part-time work and no interaction with patients.  Some of whom might be gay.  Incidentally, about 10% of his medical school classmates and teaching attendings are gay, and chances are he doesn't know who those are.

I am very aware my post sounded judgmental.  I would never say these things to a gay person I cared about.  I'm sharing my thoughts here because I feel safe on here discussing it.  I really never say these things aloud.

Part of me wants to talk to her about it but I'm pretty afraid to do it, just as I think my dad is afraid to do it.  My husband's cousin recently almost married a woman, to the shock of everyone, as she had always dated men before.  She called off the wedding due to different goals regarding having kids, and now she is engaged to a man.  As far as I know, most people didn't anything to her about it though when she was a lesbian.  I think they were too afraid.

[Michellebell]

DISCLAIMER: Religious-tilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... l_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... l_behavior

I myself view homosexuality as an abnormality that may be affected by genetics and environment. From a Biblical perspective, we all have issues, and certain things that we need to suppress such as the desire to lie, or anger, or alcohol addiction, etc. Not everyone has the same issues that plague them and some people have to deal with homosexuality. We should still be kind towards everyone and help those we can regardless because I am to love my neighbor as I do myself.

I find it interesting however from these wikipedia articles above that they speak about homosexual behavior, not turning it into a lifestyle like humans do. (almost more like a bi-curious/bisexual versus fully homosexual). I feel like people then make an identity/culture out of homosexuality and it keeps on dividing further and further (people wanting to change genders now, etc.) As above again, everyone has their own self-conscience and they know themselves better than I know them so I can't fully feel what they feel. They may feel a very strong pull towards homosexuality that I just don't have, but then they might not have the pull towards video game addiction that I had as a young teenager (I make this comparison not to slight homosexuality, just that everyone has different things that they have to deal with).

As for gay marriage, I see the point of marriage as to provide a stable family unit for having and raising children. That way, the children are able to learn about both men and women, what each are, what makes each one special and unique in their differences. You're not going to get that day-to-day experiences without having both sides of the story. While I think it is honorable for a gay couple to want to have a child, they just can't provide the experiences to fully round out the child unless there is another close member of the opposite sex that the child can look to and learn from.

I think homosexuals should be treated as what they are: imperfect humans, just as the rest of us are imperfect humans with each of our own addictions and shortcomings. Marriage, for me, is to provide for a stable unit that each person is now financially/emotionally/physically tied to to make an ideally unbreakable bond for children. I'm not stating you have to have kids if you get married, but just that marriage makes it harder to break-out of the family if you have kids and decide it isn't for you and want to get out of the "contract".

I believe God gave Adam a helper so that he wouldn't be alone and that they would be able to do more and better things by sticking together. I think that Adam can have another Adam, or Eve another Eve, and they can both rely on each other for help to live life more comfortably, but that this shouldn't be considered as marriage.

Relativism is a slippery slope.

I found this response very interesting.  As a civilized society, there are norms and values that promote stability and well being.  We all are filled with natural urges but we have to decide which ones to indulge and which ones to control.  We have to control overeating and desires to commit adultery.  I personally have a binge drinking problem, which is why I have not had a drink in eight years.  Should I say I was born with the alcoholic gene and throw up my hands and say there is nothing I can do about it because it's not my choice?  Yes I can't enjoy the occasional glass of wine or have fun at a party like other people around me, but I have accepted that I have a problem with this and have chosen to abstain from it. 

As far as cultural ramifications of homosexuality, I am not worried about under population of course.  However I am worried about the percentages of children that are raised in stable heterosexual married families.  The nuclear family is no longer being seen as the highest standard for raising kids.  It is becoming just one of so many options, each considered just as good as any other.  I feel like our society is viewing families as a free-for-all, make-it-up-and-call-it-a-family type deal.  Two dads? Sure.  Two moms? Sure.  Open relationships? Sure.  How about polygamy?  This is all in the name of being tolerant and nonjudgmental. 

People are becoming afraid to teach their values to young people who are now exploring so many avenues believing they are all as good as any other. 

However I might feel completely different if my attraction toward men were viewed as taboo by the rest of the world and I really felt I had no choice in the matter. 

[Greg]

As far as cultural ramifications of homosexuality, I am not worried about under population of course.  However I am worried about the percentages of children that are raised in stable heterosexual married families.  The nuclear family is no longer being seen as the highest standard for raising kids.  It is becoming just one of so many options, each considered just as good as any other.  I feel like our society is viewing families as a free-for-all, make-it-up-and-call-it-a-family type deal.  Two dads? Sure.  Two moms? Sure.  Open relationships? Sure.  How about polygamy?  This is all in the name of being tolerant and nonjudgmental. 

People are becoming afraid to teach their values to young people who are now exploring so many avenues believing they are all as good as any other. 

However I might feel completely different if my attraction toward men were viewed as taboo by the rest of the world and I really felt I had no choice in the matter.

Sexual relativism I think can be an especially "slippery slope" because it can be perverted so easily. There is no objective standard then as to what is correct and that which is not. We state that we make laws to be objective but even those are then crafted by people that have subjective opinions, the issue of the "problem of the majority". For instance, I am a male that is heterosexual and I have a wife and we have a monogamous relationship. This to me, is the standard. You are either a.) single, b.) married to a person of the opposite sex.

By saying that homosexuality is acceptable, there is no stop point. Using this logic, why wouldn't it be different to say a male is attracted to female children. Is this any worse than homosexuality? One is an age of consent issue, the other is of two people who's parts physically don't fit together (i.e. two keys or two locks versus a lock/key combo).

By accepting all of this, as I said, there is no endpoint. Anything can be acceptable if you can get the majority to side with you on it, or a vocal and strong minority. Look at NAMBLA for instance, is that wrong? Why is it wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... ssociation. Objective morals I think are very important for determining how we ought to behave. Subjective morals can different from person to person which really makes them useless. 2+2 = 4 to one person and 2+2=5 to another. It collapses on itself.

I think this also goes into the debate of are people inherently good or bad? Based on my religious views and common sense (in my opinion), believing people are inherently bad makes sense. That's why we have to live by laws and our society is organized by laws. Without laws, things fall into chaos because we're imperfect creatures.

Life isn't fair and we all have desires that we either can't quench or shouldn't quench. Not everyone is the same, but we should all be helping out others as we also help ourselves to reach towards what we morally ought to be, not what we always want to be.

The point is, pluralism, or a variety of ideas, are not all correct. You are still fundamentally missing a side of the story when you're growing up and by steering away from this, there are other things that negatively pop up.

[jafs]

Can you really not see the huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?

One involves consenting adults, and the other doesn't, and that's a major difference between them.

[Greg]

People are becoming afraid to teach their values to young people who are now exploring so many avenues believing they are all as good as any other. 

While I'll have more to read up on this, I thought these were interesting:

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research (Statistics on Homosexual families with children).

And a separate one for non-nuclear families

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rimes.html