Gay Marrige post from another forum

[hoi polloi]

I am on a professional forum and posted a question about gay marriage and the following post seems to obfuscate the issue. Where, or how could I begin to reply to this inane post?

The post follows:

<<Gay marriage diminishes conventional marriage by "cheapening" the whole concept. For instance, if medical degrees were available online for a nominal fee to anyone who wanted to purchase one, the entire concpet of being educated and liscenced would mean nothing. Those people who had abided by the law to obtain their degrees would find they are now worthless. By the same measure, gay marriage would demean the whole concept of traditional marriage.
-Once we start legitimizing gay unions, we have started on a slippery slope toward many other unorthodox types of marriage. For instance, polygamy has been outlawed primarily because many of the women are coerced and abused. But the practice between consenting adults is really not much different from conventional marriage. The next step may be marriage between cousins or siblings who are not willing or able to have biological children. After all, with the exception of potential recessive genetic abnormalities, no one else is likely to be hurt. In fact, marriages between close relatives have been and still are common in some places and times.
-There are many, many wonderful hetero couples waiting to adopt children. All else being equal, children benefit tremendously from having both a male and a female role model. If gay marriages are recognized as being equal, then many hetero couples will have to complete with them for adoption.
-Homosexuality is not "normal". It is a biological error that by its very nature would be self-limiting in the rest of the animal kingdom. In other words, if an animal would not have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, and if homosexuality were entirely genetic, then those genes would not be passed along. Therefore, by condoning gay marriage we are condoning "abnormal" behavior. We should instead by trying to treat it.
-And finally, the root of the issue is fear. Many people either do not understand why others are attracted to the same sax, or they have homosexual urges themselves. (Seinfeld has a great routine where he talks about how men are afraid they can be talked into anything) So it is either a fear of the unknown or a fear of themselves. We all know how people respond to fear. They act in self defense and find reasons to do so (the bible says it is a sin).

There may be other reasons, but these are the ones that I have heard the most and that I find easiest to believe. If you really want to win this debate, you have to understand all the arguments on both sides - know thine enemies - if you will.>>

Thanks for any comments you might have.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. A little off the marriage issue, but in that letter was this line:

"There are many, many wonderful hetero couples waiting to adopt children. All else being equal, children benefit tremendously from having both a male and a female role model. If gay marriages are recognized as being equal, then many hetero couples will have to complete with them for adoption."

Ask if these "many wonderful hetero couples" would be willing to adopt a black kid or a Hispanic kid or a kid with a drug addicted mother and all the attendant birth defects that are possible. That statement is wildly out of sync with the facts.

[JimmyJazz]

2. First of all,. more than 50% of marriages end in divorce

so it couldn't possibly get any more demeaning. Not only that, but the porn industry is a multi-billion dollar industry - do you think all those people dropping their dollars are single? Hardly.

BTW - This whole argument is total bullshit and I'm not buying it for a second. What lovely flamebait you have posted here at DU - good luck.

[grumpy old fart]

7. Bingo on the B.S. observation....

the "professional forum" statement gave it away...but I responded anyway below.

[JimmyJazz]

8. you hungry?

[hoi polloi]

9. Jimmy Jazz

The last thing I would try to do here is flame anyone. I am a sincere person posting a truthful message and asking for sincere answers. If you don't have any, please don't accuse me of something that I am not doing. Thank you.

[JimmyJazz]

13. Whatever.

this is flamebait pure and simple. You don't show your profile so I can't know how long you have been here, but if you were here immediately after the election you would know better than to put up a bullshit post like this to antagonize those who have already been to hell and back and are there still.

If it's not flame bait, then the post is ill conceived, poorly timed and in bad taste - there - is that better?

[sleepyhead]

16. Hi, JimmyJazz

I can vouch for the stuff that hoi polloi has posted. I am on the same professional board and have seen that post. It is indeed there and has not been posted as flamebait. If I wasn't half dead with the flu I would get involved with this - but I will comment that there are lots of folks on that particular board that are freepers and don't even deserve the time of day. Hoi polloi posted a legitimate question about marriage and was greeted with the aforementioned screed and was at a loss as to how to answer it. I agree that the post was full of shit, but he was trying to figure out a way to reply. I personally couldn't even address it without using multiple profanities, and thus declined to respond on the board. It really is a professional board, despite the obvious ignorance of the poster.

[JimmyJazz]

18. You know as well as I that typical freeper posts start with

"help me debunk this" or "what do I tell my freeper friend about..."

It's just a totally stupid thing to try to debate because you can't - they are totally convinced that gays and lesbians are what's wrong with our society and that really stinks. These are people who are CONVINCED that gays and lesbians intentionally recruit young people into their fold - so to suggest that there is an argument to be made with them that will convince them of the error of their ways is ridiculous.

And, posting it here is not productive. He/she can take all of our responses back to the freeper site and it will be for naught.

[sleepyhead]

26. "it will be for naught"

Perhaps true, but there are some comments that should not be allowed to stand. I would prefer to think that anyone with even a rudimentary education would at least read a rebuttal of their opinion and maybe even give some thought to it. It's not a freeper site - it's a site for members of a particular profession (PM me if you are in the least curious) who happen to be by and large conservative in their views. I cannot allow stupidity to remain unchallenged, and I think that once in a great while we can fight it. Just call me Pollyanna tonight!

[JimmyJazz]

31. I'm telling you that you can't argue with those people. I've tried

and it doesn't work. Neocons think they have the Lord and the Bible on their side and no amount of good logical and critial thinking is going to change that.

And as far as being interested in joining a conservative site or even lurking, thanks but I'll pass. I'm not trying to be rude, but I can barely stand to read a newspaper these days. I'm a socialist and hardly fit in with conservatives.

You might as well build a brick wall in your back yard and beat your head against it. It will have the same effect as arguing with a freeper. If you doubt me, I suggest a quick perusal of the hate mail bag.

I do thank you for your input and appreciate your comments. You seem genuine and sincere. Thanks.

[sleepyhead]

35. "I can barely stand to read a newspaper these days"

You and me both! Agreed about the Bible-thumpers. I go to that site because it has the latest and best information about my profession, not because I necessarily agree with the political views expressed there. And yes, I do read the hate mail bag regularly. Same thing. I never beat my head against the wall arguing with a lost soul, but I continue to think that I might one day be able to bring a fence-sitter around. I did do that with Mr. Sleepyhead, and he is now as much of a loony lefty as I am!

[Boosterman]

43. You have already spent enough time

debunking him whereas you could have conceivably helped him.

[China_cat]

3. Just a few observations

<Gay marriage diminishes conventional marriage by "cheapening" the whole concept. For instance, if medical degrees were available online for a nominal fee to anyone who wanted to purchase one, the entire concpet of being educated and liscenced would mean nothing. Those people who had abided by the law to obtain their degrees would find they are now worthless.

Diploma mills already sell degrees. Including medical. When they get caught doing it, they go to jail for fraud. Two people loving each other and wanting to make a committment is not fraudulent.

There are many, many wonderful hetero couples waiting to adopt children. All else being equal, children benefit tremendously from having both a male and a female role model. If gay marriages are recognized as being equal, then many hetero couples will have to complete with them for adoption.

Most heterosexual couple will not qualify for or receive the ok for adoption if what they want is a perfect white infant. So far there are many, many older children, children of color and mixed race, and those with special needs who have no chance of being adopted...except for some gay couples who just want a child and see past what isn't there to what is. Besides, what's wrong with having families compete for children for a change? For too long it's been the children competing for the chance at a family...and too often losing out.

Homosexuality is not "normal". It is a biological error that by its very nature would be self-limiting in the rest of the animal kingdom. In other words, if an animal would not have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, and if homosexuality were entirely genetic, then those genes would not be passed along.

I guess he's never heard of Bonobo chimps, has he? (Or met my cat Moe) Plus the fact that homosexuality MUST be 'normal'...after all 'normal' parents produce gay kids, don't they?

[livinginphotographs]

4. I'll play..

"<<Gay marriage diminishes conventional marriage by "cheapening" the whole concept. For instance, if medical degrees were available online for a nominal fee to anyone who wanted to purchase one, the entire concpet of being educated and liscenced would mean nothing. Those people who had abided by the law to obtain their degrees would find they are now worthless. By the same measure, gay marriage would demean the whole concept of traditional marriage."

Once again, we've got someone who thinks that the religious aspect and the legal aspect of marriage are the same thing. I don't give a shit whether a church does or does not want to marry gay couples, or does or does not want to marry a pig. If they believe marriage is purely religious, they should remove all legal benefits for heterosexual couples. That way, marriage will be purely a religious institution. Otherwise, churches should have no say in whom the government grants "marriage" rights.

"-Once we start legitimizing gay unions, we have started on a slippery slope toward many other unorthodox types of marriage. For instance, polygamy has been outlawed primarily because many of the women are coerced and abused. But the practice between consenting adults is really not much different from conventional marriage. The next step may be marriage between cousins or siblings who are not willing or able to have biological children. After all, with the exception of potential recessive genetic abnormalities, no one else is likely to be hurt. In fact, marriages between close relatives have been and still are common in some places and times."

How the hell does this person get from gay marriage to women being coerced and abused? He or she seems to have absolutely no point in this paragraph. And besides, this slippery-slope argument was used to keep interracial marriages illegal as well. The fact of the matter is that the government should not get to pick and choose which two consenting adults get to make legal arrangements with each other. Once again, it's a legal issue, not a religious issue.


"-There are many, many wonderful hetero couples waiting to adopt children. All else being equal, children benefit tremendously from having both a male and a female role model. If gay marriages are recognized as being equal, then many hetero couples will have to complete with them for adoption."

I'd like to see his statistics where children benefit from only an opposite-sex couple. Personally, I believe that children benefit from seeing a relationship with two people who care for each other. And what the fuck is this about competing? It's not a contest; adoption is the chance for one or two people to give a child a loving home.

"-Homosexuality is not "normal". It is a biological error that by its very nature would be self-limiting in the rest of the animal kingdom. In other words, if an animal would not have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, and if homosexuality were entirely genetic, then those genes would not be passed along. Therefore, by condoning gay marriage we are condoning "abnormal" behavior. We should instead by trying to treat it."

So homosexuality is not "normal" because more people are heterosexual? Well, I guess anyone other than Catholics are not normal, since more people in the world practice Catholicism than any other religion. And I guess black people aren't "normal" since there's more white people in America. Hey, even men aren't "normal," since there's more women in this country than men. This entire paragraph is the most ridiculous logic.

And as far as animals, does this guy intend to produce a child everytime he has sex? If not, then he's a hypocrite. Sex between humans is not as much about producing children as it is about pleasure. And I don't know what he means by "treating" homosexuals, but that's been proven long ago to be completely ineffective. Maybe he should seek treatment for his raging homophobia instead.

"-And finally, the root of the issue is fear. Many people either do not understand why others are attracted to the same sax, or they have homosexual urges themselves. (Seinfeld has a great routine where he talks about how men are afraid they can be talked into anything) So it is either a fear of the unknown or a fear of themselves. We all know how people respond to fear. They act in self defense and find reasons to do so (the bible says it is a sin)."

Once again, before you go making political statements, learn how to fucking write and put forth an idea clearly. I'm not sure what they are getting at here. Is he saying that gay marriage should not be allowed because so many people are afraid of it?

To sum it up: this person is an ignorant bigot. I've seem homophobic rants that could wipe the floor with this illiterate crap. And I've been drinking all day, and could still pull something out of my ass that identifies this drivel for the bullshit that it is. ;)

[Maat]

11. This mom says, "stop drinking!"

You are too smart and articulate for that.

Take care of yourself!

(Uh-oh ... LivinginPhotographs ... I'm starting to sound like my mom...)

Very well-written reply.

[livinginphotographs]

17. I've already got a mom who says that...

But you can never have to many. (Moms, that is).

[hoi polloi]

29. livingphotographs

I like your post and am considering using much of it in my reply, although I'll have to edit some of the explectives. By the way the person is a woman, not a man who posted this.
Thanks for your reply.

[grumpy old fart]

5. From a "professional forum"?

Sounds like it's written by someone with less than advanced degrees. But then again, some doctors I've spoken to are entirely clueless about the real world. Guess they were just too wrapped up in what can be a rather demanding academic field to have time for reflection and common sense. The "arguments" posited can easily be refuted point by point.

Medical degree analogy: What qualifications are there for marriage? Any two pieces of trailer trash can, and do, get married. Just a silly argument on its face.

Slippery slope: I learned early in law school that the simple answer to any "slippery slope" argument is that limits can be easily set, and routinely are. Why we are concerned about consenting adults promising to love and honor one another in a monogamous relationship till death is beyond me.

Adoption: There are more than enough unwanted, unloved, children to go around. This is just total B.S.

Abnormal: Well, there are just a mountain of research on this. It's just not a choice dammit. Anyone who actually knows gay folks understands this. The "fear" argument, if it is an argument, is just that people always fear what they don't know. Many folks fear black men, especially if they don't personally know any.

[Maat]

14. So true, Grumpy Old Fart.

Wow. You guys wrote great replies. Guess I don't have to try to be articulate and coherent, and address this drivel.

And, yes, this retired social worker assures all that there are enough children that need homes.

[readmoreoften]

6. You can't. I mean. What can you say?

The world is full of these people who spout garbage science and garbage logic to support opinions that they've convinced themselves are fact.

Tell him (I have a feeling it's a 'him') that the 'homosexuality is a biological error' comment is impossible to substantiate. He claims that it is genetic (biological error) and then says that it cannot be 'entirely genetic' because 'those genes would not be passed along'.

The nonsense about gay couples wanting to compete with straights for adoptable infants is specious. Gay couples tend to want to adopt 'hard-to-adopt' kids. Lesbians often have their own children. Gay men often do as well, with a straight or lesbian woman who is willing to raise a child with them.

Then the whole spiel about 'the root of the issue is fear' and then he goes on to explain this as heterosexual fear of gay men... I can't even fathom what that's about. SO... the reason why straight people should be against gay marriage is that they are irrationally afraid of gay people because they're afraid they might try it out themselves.

Maybe the author of the post is sending himself a message in that last point.

[Kingshakabobo]

10. Do you have a link? To this "other forum"?

Good thing you didn't write this jumbled up piece of shit work because then I would feel bad about calling the author a fucking moron.

From what kind of "professional" forum did this come? May I ask?


I'll take a guess or three:

Carnival Workers of America?
American Ball Washers?
Society For Toothless Hillbilly Trailer Park Managers?

[readmoreoften]

12. American Ball Washers

I really like that.

[sleepyhead]

20. Indeed.

I belong to the above forum, as I have said, and I am aghast at some of the posts there. I know it's hard to believe, but there are ignoramuses in every profession and this one is no exception.

[grumpy old fart]

22. what forum? n/t

[sleepyhead]

30. I will PM you if you want.

Don't feel comfortable revealing it to all and sundry, but let me know if you are interested. I can holler all day and night about my reactionary profession.

[hoi polloi]

21. Carnival Worker

This forum is protected by privacy. I cannot just take something out of here and announce it to the world. Similarly, if I pos;t your answers in the professional forum, you name will not be included, nor will the forum (DU)where I asked the question. Can you understand that?
To bad that I asked a sincere question and get grief that I didn't expect.
I said what I said because I am looking for answers to this post. Do you have any that I can pass on to this uninformed person?
Thanks.

[grumpy old fart]

23. Haven't you read any of our posts?

There's plenty in here you can use....hmmmmmm

[hoi polloi]

37. grumpy old fart

I have a coffee cup that says "Old Fart" but it's not for sale.

Here is my thought on how to begin to answer this post:

<<For instance, if medical degrees were available online for a nominal fee to anyone who wanted to purchase one, the entire concpet of being educated and liscenced would mean nothing. Those people who had abided by the law to obtain their degrees would find they are now worthless. By the same measure, gay marriage would demean the whole concept of traditional marriage.>>

I would argue that those people who abided by the law (obviously heterosexual marriage) love each other, while the gays must purchase a marriage contract by skulduggery, because it isn't that they love each other, but only to have a license so that they can demean real marriage.
I really want to answer the post, although as JimmyJazz said, it will be a waste of time. Those in the forum already accused me of being a part of the Eastern liberal class because of my posts.
Thanks for any ideas.

[grumpy old fart]

40. ???????????????? n/t

[rhyfeddu]

39. Ah. More hillbilly bashing...

...got to work it in, somehow... :crazy:

[BOSSHOG]

15. "The Bible says its a sin?"

Is he referring to homosexuality? If so, the bible also says those who work on the sabbath should be stoned to death. Why is he not out stoning those who work on the sabbath. I'm heterosexual, but I wish to god almighty that holier than thou heteros would concentrate their efforts on cleaning up the hetero mess of divorce, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy and incest. Hetero couples wanting to adopt? There are heteros right now, as we speak, praying on young girls on the internet. Fuck these constitution hating bastards. I'm sure this fascist son of a bitch is sad we had to contend with the "slippery slope" after slavery was done away with. Conservative values on display.

As I like to splain here in Mississippi, one should not cast stones, when one lives in a glass manufactured home.

[grumpy old fart]

19. Literal readings of the Bible are just so....

well, ignorant. I am a Christian, but thankfully as an Episcopalian I am not required to park my brain at the door. There is so much in the Bible that cannot, and should not, be reconciled with reality. God's word is God speaking to me. It's not some textbook written by Man.

[miss_kitty]

24. Asshats said the same thing about 'allowing' interracial marriage

"If you really want to win this debate, you have to understand all the arguments on both sides - know thine enemies - if you will." Hardly.

Just more bigoted shite coming from gobshites, who would shit their drawers post haste if then came to a conclusion using critical thinking, obviously a skill they do not possess.

"If gay marriages are recognized as being equal, then many hetero couples will have to complete with them for adoption." What's the point? So the fuck what? Loving couples having to compete with other loving couples for kids? GOOD!

"if homosexuality were entirely genetic, then those genes would not be passed along..." horseshit. Tay-Sachs and haemophilia are two genetically carried conditions that KILL the young that inherit those genes and they are passed along (And by citing the two examples, I in no way am equating homosexuality with defect or disease. I am saying that there are recessive traits that aren't readily apparent. There are also spontaneous changes in genetic structure). And interestingly enough, non-scientific one (who ever came up with that POS 'reasoning') haemopiliacs themselves don't pass the disease along if the make it to adulthood and reproduce.
So are you saying the gay penguin couple in the Brooklyn Zoo got queer from TV? :eyes:
Don't forget all the Gay People who have to marry straight to prove they are straight and happy and able to breed. There's your genes.

"the bible says it is a sin" Who cares what the bible says? The bible also says to kill your kids if they disobey, slavery is okay, you have to share your home with homeless people if they ask, and you have to give up a portion of your crops if hungry people want food. Why aren't they bringing THAT up? Is it the 'Pick-and-Choose' Bible?
Shit. I have never seen a reason why 2 people of the same sex can't have a legal union.

To deny them of that right is to deny them 'Equal protection under the law', which is a denial of basic human rights.

[JimmyJazz]

27. Apparently - separation of church and state doesn't apply

so they want to apply religious principals to a state institution (which marriage really is - if it were strictly a religious institution, agnostics and athiests wouldn't marry)

[miss_kitty]

34. If they find 'Gay Sex' so repulsive

they should just. quit. thinking. about it.

:P

[Mike L]

25. Only the "polygamy" argument is even debatable.

The others are easily defeated. Polygamy is a marriage between (assume) consenting adults. The only difference is that there are more than two people in the marriage. Polygamy is an accepted marriage relationship in some cultures, and non-traditional in others. I find it difficult logically to argue in favor of recognizing gay marriage (which I support), while banning polygamy.

Is the answer that polygamy should be legally recognized? Is the right to enter into a polygamous marriage a civil rights issue?

[readmoreoften]

28. This is a big concern underlying the SoMA

They are even more terrified of the Mormons getting their right to polygamy than homosexuals, but they don't say so too openly because the mormons are great allies for burning queers.

[Mike L]

33. What's the "SoMA"?

[miss_kitty]

32. you know if five women or twenty five women

want to share one guy, I could care less. Not. My. Business.
I do have big problems with the child bride crap that apparently goes on in some sectors of that culture, but it is made easier for them to do it since they are separate from the rest of society because they are outlaws according to the status quo.

As long as it doesn't involve keying my car, or taking my stuff, what a bunch of consenting adults gets up to is not my concern. And yes, perhaps, the civil rights issue could be cited. They are, after all, consenting adults. If gay people and polygamists started telling heteros who they could not marry, I imagine there would be great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Edit: Misspell

[Mike L]

36. I agree. I think the only logical conclusion is that polygamy is also a

civil rights issue. At least, I can't think of a reason to make a distinction. The number 2 is no more special than the number 3..............or 4, or 5, or.....

[Ready2Snap]

38. Gay Marriage

The poster offers the simplest reason in the second paragraph to allow gay marriage: “After all . . . no one else is likely to be hurt.”
But, in reply to the argument:
The first point: gay marriage would “cheapen” conventional marriage is specious. Since marriage is by definition a bonding between 2 individuals, it therefore applies only to them and not anyone else. Ergo, one marriage has no affect on another.
The second point: the slippery slope argument. Part 1-“polygamy has been outlawed primarily because many of the women are coerced and abused.” What that implies is abduction and slavery through warfare and conquest. Do we still do that? But, in fact, polygamy is still practiced in many cultures. The reason it was outlawed in Western culture is due to the Judeo-Christian construct of marriage as being between two people, and only two people. Part2- Relatives unable to conceive: So what’s the problem? Part 3- “In fact, marriages between close relatives have been and still are common in some places and times.” I would offer the European aristocracy as Exhibit #1. Again, so what’s the problem?
The third point: competition for adoptees. Again, a specious argument: There are far more children in need of parent(s) than all the perspective adopters (no matter what the relationship) COMBINED!
The fourth point: The “Not Normal” argument. This person obviously has no knowledge of societal constructs in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is common in almost all species from mice to chimpanzees to humans. A major factor in homosexual behavior is the parameters in which the individual finds themselves. Therefore, homosexuality is a natural response to social parameters and cannot be considered abnormal. Forcing someone into “treatment” (read brainwashing) is abnormal, reprehensible and fascist.
The last point: good old “sin” – You might point out that back when the old testament was written survival of the species was everybody’s business. Infant mortality and life expectancy made prodigious reproduction of offspring the most important factor in the survival of the clan, tribe, village and nation. And, still they had homoes, else why would they have mentioned it? Also, didn’t they invent the concept of guilt way back then? Its been shown to be a most effective control mechanism.
You should suggest they seek “treatment” for themselves. It’s their problem, not mine and not yours. I believe it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said, “You are the only person who can make you feel inferior.” Or some such thing.
Now, go forth, armed with truth, and with all humility- rip ‘em a new one!

[hoi polloi]

41. Ready2Snap

I posted most of your message as an argument on the forum in question. Thanks for you considered input.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi Ready2Snap!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KnowerOfLogic]

42. Suggest you check alt.politics.homosexuality; every one of

these bogus arguments has been debunked a million times over; the sad fact is that it really doesn't matter, because the people who offer them are really just looking to rationalize their fear, superstition, and clannishness.

[uhhuh]

44. I'll take a whack at it too

Reagarding the first point, the cheapening of marriage, if any two consenting male/female couple can do it, whether or not they are taking their commitment seriously (see Spears, Britney, over 50% divorce rate, etc.), how would the inclusion of same sex couples in the equation change anything? Hetero couples have taken care of "cheapening" marriage.

Next comes the slippery slope.

"If gays can get married, where will it stop? Horrors!!"

It's true other unions may eventually be permitted. And???


If two or more people would like to enter in a spousal contract with each other, how is that your business? That includes relatives if they want, in my opinion, as long as they are capable of agreeing to do so and understand the nature of the contract they are entering into. Risking biological defects in progeny does not stop people from being allowed to drink or eat unhealthy food or any of many possible risks to their offspring.(At least, not yet.)

Let's move on.

Those poor hetero couples would have to compete with gay couples to adopt!!

You would think that if there were tons of people clamoring to adopt all those kids, those couples would have to really shine as potential parents. I think this would improve the chances that these kids would get good adoptive and foster homes. It's win-win.
The last I checked, there was no shortage of kids available. There seems to be a shortage of perfect kids or babies though. It sucks that hetero couples may not have the option to "settle" for one of those less disirable children if homosexual couples get a chance too.

To add to this last point, Homosexual couples are already permitted to adopt children as far as I know, they just can't get married. This point doesn't even belong in this argument, unless this person is asking for more anti gay regulation than just denying marriage rights.

And here it comes....

"Homosexuality as aberration..."

This is almost to stupid to address, but here goes:

JUust because something can be genetically based, does not mean it will manefest in every generation. In some cases, even when it does, people, as thinking animals, may go against their nature and try to fit societal norms. Not all people who would identify as gay have always lived their lives that way, or have only exclusively had intercourse with the same sex. Some people are even bisexual, and if there is a genetic link to homosexuality, those may have only manefested an aspect of the genetic trait.
I don't know myself how to describe my feelings about the extent to which genetics plays in homosexuality. I think it's more complicated than genetics only. That being said, I think that it is just as right and natural as heterosexuality, but mostly I don't think who one is attracted to is something that people should be concerned about. There are more than enough heterosexuals to overpopulate the planet now. In as much as there is a genetic disposition toward homosexuality in some, it may have been a brilliant act of nature to limit the number of people who will breed, so we don't birth ourselves into extinction. Treat it? I think we should celebrate it as the possible salvation of this overburdened planet.

The last point doesn't make any sense at all. People are afraid of what they don't understand so it's okay to come up with any bullshit to justify bigotry? Is that it?

I'll try one more time to get it. If people are uncomfortable about something, either something they see in others or something they see in themselves, they have the right to be protected from dealing with their fears and personal issues to the detriment of others who are just being themselves and not directly harming them in any way?

I think this last point is the one this person was getting to and trying so hard to justify.

[azoth]

45. Tell he/she/it that the issue is answered in their own post.

"So it is either a fear of the unknown or a fear of themselves. We all know how people respond to fear. They act in self defense and find reasons to do so (the bible says it is a sin)."

Sounds like your fellow poster is afraid that some "gay cooties" might rub off on them, because every "reason" they list in that hate-filled yammer session is a major crock of nothing.

Bottom line is this: What right does another human have to judge someone else's L-O-V-E? The answer, every single time, is "none as long as they're consenting adults."

Period - end of story. Everything else can be tossed into the trash can, because it's all garbage.

[mark414]

46. re: the adoption thing

they are WAY more kids up for adoption than they are people who want to adopt them

so that argument is right out the window right there

[quaker bill]

48. On the pseudo-evolutionary "biological error" notion.

The author apparently understands very little about the mechanism for extinction of recessive genetic traits or theories about gene activation.

Recessive traits are very rarely removed from a population through selective pressure. Strong negative selective pressure can reduce the frequency of such a trait, but once the trait becomes infrequent enough, it will be expressed so rarely that selective pressure has little influence on gene frequency.

Beyond the concept of recessive traits lies the concept of gene activation. A gene may be activated by stress of one form or another. Certain genes may be activated when the individual possessing it is exposed to a chemical for example and may never be activated without such exposure.

The fact that you carry a gene in and of itself does not mean that it is ever expressed. Genes that are not expressed are not subject to selective pressure.

Many species of animals are well documented to begin to display homosexual behavior in situations where they are overcrowded. This may, under those circumstances, have a survival benefit. Now if you buy that this behavior is genetically controlled, then it is clear that the gene is predominantly expressed under the stress of overcrowding. It is very unlikely that such a trait could be extinguished by natural selection.

By definition, a trait that confers selective advantage under certain circumstances (selective pressures), is precisely not a "biological error".