President Obama now supports gay marriage. Gee... it must be getting close to election time:

Les

Don't ya love Desperation. I think he would win even without that.
You can expect Gas to get pretty cheap also.

Well he lost my vote!

actually hey wait > he never had my vote to begin with

---------------------------------

But on the subject > I am not a gay hater or anything like that
But I believe that the marriage institution should be a union
between a man and a woman

thats my view on the subject

I've had gay friends over the years and I'm not some Bible thumper. But I agree with you, a marriage is between a man and a woman.

MSU

I'm with you Mark. Not religious by any means but I do believe in values and it bothers me to see values that made this country great thrown aside. There are a lot of screwed up kids today and I'm concerned for the kids that gay couples are trying to raise. Seems that kids need both male and female influence growing up and this can't be provided in a gay household. Kids too can be pretty cruel to anyone who is "different" and I'm going to imagine that when classmates find out about the arrangement the poor kid will be bear the brunt of a lot of abuse.

Les

I've seen his video before. I can't imagine any parents (man and woman, two women, or two men) who wouldn't be happy to call him their son.

I think this quote is key:

"In my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple."

If you had to judge his upbringing without ever knowing his parents' identity, you'd likely judge it favorably. It's a shame that someone might reassess this simply because he has two moms instead of a mom and a dad.

Ugly reactionary bullshit!

Why do the segregationists come to mind? Much like their ignorant fearful thinking, the shameful nonsense that's preceeded me in this thread will soon be another part of your history you'll all be embarrassed to recall.

Shameful nonsense?

Embarrassed to recall? No, maybe try afraid to recall for fear of being ridiculed and ostracized or worse. Bring in the thought police...

MSU

If I say anything more it won't be pretty and I'll more than likely be asked to leave this forum.

I'm absolutely incensed! And thoroughly disappointed.

Why are any opinions other than your own not allowed? And why do you get so incensed about opinions other than your own?

MSU

If opinions differing from mine are not allowed here it must be newly introduced forum policy.

Others are entitled to display prejudice and ignorance and I am equally entitled to shine a light.

Injustice has always had the unsettling ability to cause me to become incensed. A character flaw, perhaps?

I didn't meant that opinions other than yours were not allowed here in the forum. I meant that you personally do not allow differing opinions without becoming incensed and flying off the deep end.

MSU

As I stated, a character flaw. And if it's wallowing in the deep end to become angry when you hear others speak offhandedly of denying 10% of our brothers and sisters the basic human right to share the responsibilities and benefits of a legal partnership with a mate of their choosing then fill the pool to brimming and point out the dark water.

And if it is not ignorance and blind prejudice speaking when these same people are branded immoral and unfit to raise children outside of some arbitrary societal definition of what constitutes an acceptable family, then I'd be interested to know what else it is. There is absolutely no proof that children raised under circumstances that differ from the so called familial "building block" of one man and one woman are any less well adjusted than those who are. If anything, I would argue that because of the fearful societal cruelty a family guided by homosexual partners has to endure and overcome together, those children are even better prepared not only to face the certain injustice of a fucked up world, but to make that world a better place for the children of "normal" parents who have loosed their offspring among us wearing the same blindfold as they.

The President of your United States of America was not raised by June and Ward Cleaver, for Christ sake. Here is a man brought up by a single mom, with the aid of extended family, who has raised himself to the highest political office on the planet. Were he born only two generations previous a person in his situation could have aspired to blacking boots, operating an elevator, or carrying bags in a train station. Because of the color of his skin, he would have found himself trapped by fear and ignorance in a world made hellish by the same sort of ignorant (there is no better word to describe it) prejudice that is faced today by the gay and lesbian community.

That's why I say that you all who argue the decline of moral standards, and use this most vulnerable community as an example of that, will someday feel as ashamed of those statements as hopefully today are the adults who, fifty years ago, spat on black children whose parents only crime was to want equal treatment for their babies.

It has nothing to do with prejudice or ignorance, James. Marriage IS a union of a man and a woman, and is the foundation of something sorely lacking in today's world, which is a true family, with all of the attendant values. Gays, lesbians, etc. can have any lifestyle choice they wish, and I would never disapprove, but to confuse that with the concept of marriage is a farce and a disgrace. The two have nothing in common.

It's this collapse of values, as has been mentioned here by others, that is creating the accelerated erosion of our society. I feel sorry for a large number of the kids being brought up today. They don't even know what family values are.

Dave

I'll say it once again. I'm very disappointed.

There are some here who skim the surface with their thinking. I thought much better of you.

"Bring in the thought police"

You hit the nail right on the Head.
It is so easy to get crucified over voicing your own opinion.
Make sure your "Politically Correct".

You don't need to be.

The way I look at it is it would depend on your definition of Marriage.
If your going by the Religious Definition of Marriage then its "Man(Male) + Woman(Female)" joined in a union, only.

Technically anything can be "Married"

Married or "Joined in a Union".
Bricks, Sticks and People. Gay, Straight or bisexual.

That's my opinion about it.

The word "Marriage"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Then there is the religion where where all of their ordained women marry a dead man. They even get special tax be benefits because of that Union.


Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

It's about time that the White House makes such a statement. I have no problem with different words for different Unions, if they are respectful and give all couples the same legal rights. There are many heterosexual couples who decide not to be parents and there are many Homosexual couple who raise well balanced children to be productive members of society. Recognizing Homosexuality frees society to get on with real issues. Whether you like it or not it is there.


Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

I am absolutely with James, Ethan and your President.

I don't see anyone here debating that aspect. The debate here is marriage. No one here is saying they can't be a couple. It should be a civil union though, not a marriage.

MSU

Call it what you will. What upset me was the we/they nonsense, and that a person's sexual orientation somehow determined one's fitness to participate fully in society.

Thank you James, for rationally voicing your opinion and presenting the other side of this argument. I believe our history will show the ignorance slowly giving way to logic and acceptance. Unfortunately, the keyword is "slowly". Thankfully, President Obama's announcement and the resulting discussions are pushing the process along a little bit faster.

Jason,

Unless the definition of marriage is changed, your comment is probably incorrect. What you seem to be advocating, and maybe that would be the answer here, is to redefine the word and concept. Until that happens, however, marriage IS the union of two parties of opposite sex.

Hell, there may be some that advocate defining marriage as the union of a doberman and a human. Would that also need to be allowed to meet the 'acceptance' being bantered about here?

Dave

No, since a dog (or any non-human entity) can't enter into a contract. Neither can a child so this excludes any "gay marriage will lead to adults marrying kids" talk.

Historically, marriage wasn't always one man and one woman. There were times when it was one man and various number of women or even one woman and various number of men. Yes, in the United States, marriage has been mostly one woman and one man, but it even this has changed over the years. (See my "interracial marriage" comment.) If two adults of consenting age want to marry, then the only reason I can see to deny them this seems to be for purposes of discrimination.

MSU

Right, I know that. I was simply addressing his statement that our laws and morals don't apply to others. That's why I said I was going out in left field

MSU

That comes as no surprise at all.

I hadn't considered pedophiles. We're talking about consenting adults. I suppose consenting adults might decide to rob a bank also. That would be illegal, but in some instances, it just might be moral.

It wasn't that long ago that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. States enacted laws declaring unions between mixed race couples illegal. Mixed race couples were looked upon as an abomination who were trying to subvert the natural way of things and who were sullying the sanctity of marriage.

To me, there are two definitions of marriage: Religious and Government. We can put religious marriage aside right away since nobody is saying that churches/temples/etc should be forced to marry two men or two women. (I know people who never had any religious marriage and their marriage is no less valid than someone who had a big church wedding.)

As for the Government definition, this is a civil contract between two consenting adults. Part of this contract authorizes monetary permissions (e.g. if I pass away with no will, my money/possessions go to my wife), part grants health care rights (e.g. my wife can make medical decisions for me if I can't make them for myself), part is pure government recognition (e.g. declaring income taxes together).

These are the social/economic/political rights that gay people desire and I see no reason why they shouldn't have them. Would they treat marriage any worse than the heterosexual couples who marry in Vegas and then get a divorce a month later? Or the married folks who sleep around until they are caught and then ditch their spouse for the other woman/man?

I've also heard it claimed that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because marriage is only for purposes of procreation. Does this mean that a man with a vasectomy or a woman with a tubal ligation can't marry? What about an elderly couple or a couple who don't want any kids? What about a couple with fertility problems? Should they be given a time limit to produce offspring lest their marriage be dissolved?

If you don't believe gay marriage is right, then don't marry someone of your same gender. However, two men (or two women) marrying is not going to impact the strength of anyone else's marriage. I won't suddenly file for divorce from my wife because gays married. I see no reason to deny them this basic right simply because "this is the way it's always been done."*

* This doesn't even get into the fact that marriage has changed a lot over the years including man having more than one wife. Or that "we can't ever change the way we do things" would mean a lot of the advances we take for granted today (e.g. civil rights, technology) would never have taken place.

Thank you very much for your statement Jason. I couldn't have said it any better.
********************************************************************************

And for Les.

Your statement, to me, appears to be leaning toward the "male" side of Homosexuality and Marriage and how disgusting it is. What about the Female side of Marriage. I'll bet any amount of money, you know of at least one Woman who has raised children all by themselves, and I'll bet you know of Women living together who are living together with Children. Hell!! that's almost the norm now days. And I'm willing to bet that their kids are no better or worst off than any other kids except probably Economically.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even give a Damn if "Two" women live like that, but if it's "Two" Males, ... well that's different.

Men are supposed to be Macho.

In not to many years, your way of thinking will be gone , ... like the Dinosaur.

End of Rant.

Ken:

And another one skewing what was said. Neither Les nor anyone else has said anything against two men or two women living together in a relationship. In fact, the very same ones voicing their opinion against same-sex marriage, have said that they are fine with same-sex partners.

MSU

You were so close Ken, except for implying that males are incapable of raising children. Regardless of sexual orientation or marital status, males are perfectly capable of raising children too.

Since you brought it up. I happen to be single with no woman in the picture and have two kids. A 14 year old girl and an 11 year old boy. I cook for them, help them with homework, take them to the doctor and dentist, do their laundry, take them to their soccer and baseball practices and games, host sleepovers, go to school functions, etc.

MSU

I hope you are recognizing the difference between 'want' and 'need' with respect to your comment. I feel parents today fail because they are often unable, or unwilling, to differentiate between the two. The best way to ruin a child is to give in to all of their wants. Address their needs, absolutely, and indulge in a select few wants out of love and fairness.

I was raised in a very poor setting, with little money for anything other than necessities, yet I never felt one bit poorer as a result. I learned to appreciate and accept all that was available to me and to not concern myself with that which I could not reasonably have. To this day, I respect property, whether it is mine or someone else's, and live within my means with no worries. Too many kids today are used to all their wants and desires being met, with the result that they respect little, demand immediate gratification most of the time, and appreciate nothing.

Dave

MSU

Ken you seem to have missed the point of my post. I'm concerned for the children being raised by same sex couples and I don't care if they're male or female.

I was fortunate to have grown up in a typical middle class family with a mom, a dad, and a sister. My dad taught me the role of the male in a family. He took me hunting and fishing, taught me how to ride a motorcycle and drive a car, how to use tools, the importance of honesty and hard work and being true to your word. Mom on the other hand taught me the importance of kindness and the gentleness of a woman's touch. Dad could never take away the sting of a knee scrape like my mom with her Mercurochrome bottle and blowing on the wound to take away the burn. From them both I learned about true love, devotion and a commitment to a lifelong partner. I grew up quite well adjusted and have passed those same values on to my son. These values and commitment to a family have been the mainstay of why America became one of the greatest nations in the world.

I know there are children of a single parent who have grown up well adjusted but they do not have to deal with the problems of their own emerging sexuality while having to live with a mom or dad being openly affectionate and sexual with a person of the same gender. Along that line how many times has it been brought out that a criminal on trial came from a broken home? Are there same sex couples capable of raising a "normal" child? Probably but I imagine there is an equal probability of a child emerging as a transsexual or homosexual or just totally confused and unable to establish and maintain a normal, healthy heterosexual relationship. Then there is the issue of the teasing, taunting and cruelty of other children when it becomes known that he or she is the result of some unknown sperm donor since same sex couples cannot themselves produce offspring. I really don't care what adults do with their personal lives but it saddens me to see children who have no say being brought into the environment.

Les

As I said earlier in the thread, perhaps you'd like to hear from someone that was raised by a gay couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

I'm sorry if you think I missed the point, but that's not the way I interpreted your Post.

Here's another thing that confuses me. See a sipet of your Post below.

Quote:

Probably but I imagine there is an equal probability of a child emerging as a transsexual or homosexual or just totally confused and unable to establish and maintain a normal, healthy heterosexual relationship.

End Quote:

That doesn't wash. In case you weren't aware, people don't Emerge as anything. You are Born what you are, Heterosexual, Gay or lesbian or whatever. You're not indoctrinated or coerced, period. It doesn't work that way.

Ken:

No one can look into a Mirror and say. "Today I am Gay" and be Gay.
It's like having brown eyes and looking in a Mirror Saying "Today my Eyes are Blue"
Some things you just can not Change.

We are "ALL" what we are and not by any choices. There are very few people, outside of bisexual prostitutes, that have the ability to choose something like that. I Think where people get confused is by seeing the behavior of Bisexual People.
There are Bisexual people.
The Bisexual did not make that choice either because that is how "they" also were born.
As far as Marriage goes we should not be getting caught up with a
Politically correct word.
Call it whatever you want but millions of people are getting ripped off because of how the Laws are now.
Many of the things that most people take for granted are just not available to them because of how they "Need" to Love.
They are unfairly judged and treated mainly because of Ignorance and misguided individuals who make or enforce those Laws.
It is very difficult to change old habits and redo how you may have been taught or brought up. In this case that is what you need to do. Just look at the Facts.

And no child of a legally married heterosexual couple has ever been battered, sexually abused, mentally mistreated etc by their parents?

The overwhelming majority of child molesters (physical or sexual) suffered similar fates at the hands of their parents, and since even now the majority of parents are legally married...well, you do the math.

Paul, your generally very well thought out comments seem lacking here. I doubt the issue is heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever. Faulty children are most likely the result of defective parenting, irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. Having only one parent, however, does tend to make things a lot more difficult for both the parent and the resulting children.

This thread is so off-topic from the original discussion that it amazes me. What was being discussed was simply the concept of marriage which, by definition, is the union of two parties of opposite sexes. All the other issues being discussed are not relevant. Persons trying to redefine marriage to what they would like it to mean is the subject. That would be like my trying to define large as something less than everything else in size, just because it seems to be what I want it to be. Ridiculous is the word that comes to mind.

Dave

I disagree. My post was a valid response to the narrow point of view espoused by Les. In fact if you think about it, what I posted is largely in agreement with what you posted.

I particularly take issue with the comment "...but I imagine there is an equal probability of a child emerging as a transsexual or homosexual or just totally confused and unable to establish and maintain a normal, healthy heterosexual relationship."

Let's not forget that Les started this thread as an attack on President Obama, not out of any evident concern one way or another on what you see as the thread topic. His narrow personal views have only become evident as the thread progressed.

Speaking of gas prices, they seem to have stopped dropping where I come from.

Dave

It's clear to me, not withstanding the price of gas, that this issue, judging by the back & forth going on in this forum, is clearly going to be on the agenda of many voters in November.

We'll see then how the country feels as a whole.

As we near November, many wise people will turn off their TV news for being massively overloaded by crap from both parties.


Fred

You may well have grown up well adjusted, but somewhere along the way someone must have dropped the ball when it came to your sexual education -- because you, sir, as everyone here is trying to tell you, are sadly misinformed.

You guys are surprising me. Why do you all know so much about homosexuality it's causes and effects?

Les

Good Question Les.
I think because it seems to be what you call "En Vogue"
There is always things in the News, everywhere you look
it's mentioned. It has caught the attention of the public it
seems.
Personally Animal Abuse,something I hate, has also been in the News a lot more in recent times. That seems to be "En Vogue" also.

Yeah, it's about as "en vogue" as was the civil rights movement back in the sixties. And as equally trivial.

Why do you?

I haven't claimed any irrefutable facts concerning the subject at hand. I say I "imagine" which indicates it's only what I think and not presented as fact as others have done.

This thread sort of wandered away from the original post anyhow. Not that I care though because it generated some interesting, albeit a bit heated discussion. That said..... I still don't trust the prez .

Les

I've actually enjoyed this conversation. Both sides presented their arguments in a calm manner without any name calling or bad language. Even if nobody changes their opinion at all, this is the perfect way to discuss issues.

Good work everyone, no matter which side of the argument you fall on!

Speaking for myself, I listen to what gay and lesbian folks (straight from the horse's mouth) and the scientific and medical communities are telling me.

And that is that homosexuality is genetic -- it is wired in as is the color of the eyes and the eventual shoe size. It is wired in as is, I assume, your heterosexuality. It is unavoidable, unshakable, undeniable and unaffected by environment or circumstance. And since it is not an infection or disease (the way some insinuate here) it is impervious to both penicillin and extra-strength Tylenol.

It is also not contagious or triggered by exposure or suggestion, so when daddy number one pats daddy number two affectionately on the bum or gives him a peck on the cheek in the vicinity of adopted Junior number one, unless Junior's brain had the the gay circuit installed in utero, Junior is not going to be tempted to run out and subscribe to a plethora of body-building magazines. Unless, that is, somebody at the beach has been kicking sand in Junior's face.

Anyhow, that is where I've gathered my info. Perhaps, as Paul has asked, you could fill us in on where you're getting yours. Hopefully, it's not from that hairy-knuckled bunch who prop up the bar down at the Knights of Columbus hall.

That's exactly what I've been hearing from my friends. About the only thing that little Billy will learn from his dads Joe and John is that love can come in many forms and he shouldn't discriminate against someone who loves a man versus a woman (either way). Will there be bad gay parents? I'm sure, but they probably won't have a higher incidence than bad straight parents. In any case, gay parents definitely won't "infect" their kids with "the gay" just like seeing a gay married couple won't suddenly cause my marriage to spontaneously crumble to dust.

That's what all the evidence points to. It's a damned shame that some just can't get past the fear and loathing.

Thank you for your comments. Well stated and I agree totally.

Dave

I was taunted and teased a lot growing up. Sometimes, it was in relation to my being raised by Jewish parents (and thus being Jewish myself) when "the norm" is Christian parents. Does that mean we should forbid any non-Christians from being parents lest their offspring be teased? Heck, some Christians would say that I'm going to hell for not believing in Jesus and by raising my kids Jewish that I'm consigning them to hell also. By that logic, I'm committing child abuse and should have my kids taken away.

Of course, the difference here is that being gay isn't a choice, it's genetic. If Joe and John adopt a kid, the kid isn't going to "turn gay" by seeing his parents kissing. When he hits puberty, his hormones will kick in and he'll seek out girls or guys based on what his genes tell him he likes. Plenty of gay parents raise heterosexual kids who themselves have no desire to engage in homosexual relations just like plenty of heterosexual parents raise homosexual kids who have no desire to engage in heterosexual relations.

As far as "broken homes", that doesn't refer to "mom and dad" being replaced by "dad and dad" or "mom and mom." It refers to a parent being abusive (verbally and/or physically), a parent being a criminal (and thus putting strain on the family with their actions), or a parent just leaving when things get rough.

NOTE: The last item isn't meant to imply that single parents raise criminals. I have nothing but respect for single parents. (As a parent, I couldn't imagine having to do both my job and my wife's job without cracking.) Instead, I'm worried that the kids would think that the best reaction to difficult times is to toss all responsibility and flee (ala the deadbeat parent). This lack of responsibility could lead to criminal behavior.

Jason,

You have repeatedly made the statement (as if fact) that a person being gay is a genetic thing. This is still being argued among the 'professionals'. It appears to still be uncertain as to what causes many types of behavior, from gay sexual tendencies on. To label it as a definitive fact is not substantiated. It may be likely, although I would think a number of factors may lead to homosexuality, at least one of them being environment.

Dave

It's extremely vague, as are the 'facts' of the professionals. There is no proof that I have heard of. Professionals have been spouting varying opinions, based on beliefs and very limited test data, but no one can say for certain.

For me to provide definitive proof would elevate my knowledge and understanding above individuals who spend their entire lives in the field. I claim no such capabilities. I am merely regurgitating the sum average of what I have read, coupled with the common sense logic and limited observation I have made in my lifetime. I don't know what has your britches in such a knot regarding this topic. It is atypical of you, and surprises me, to say the least.

Dave

That's interesting about Genetic thing. They must of blocked that news
from us Yanks. I always felt that to be true none the less.
I also feel that we are "predisposed" to be "X" but some environmental things can affect it. Say for instance someone is "bisexual" I would think they could be swayed to go all one way or the other. Some folks don't believe in anyone being Bisexual.
What have you heard about something like that James? Does science recognize that yet? There is very little ever said about that.
One thing for Sure is they never go without a date.

I could definitely see someone who is bisexual only having heterosexual relations if they feel pressure/discrimination against homosexuality. In addition, there are plenty of homosexuals who repress themselves in a desire to "fit in". (Some of these people, perhaps in a fit of self-loathing, actually wind up supporting anti-gay legislation and then later come out as gay themselves.)

In that way, I could see how "environmental factors" could come into play, but it would be a suppression of a person's true nature. I don't see how external forces would make someone sleep with the same gender when they're only attracted to the opposite gender.

"In that way, I could see how "environmental factors" could come into play, but it would be a suppression of a person's true nature. I don't see how external forces would make someone sleep with the same gender when they're only attracted to the opposite gender."

All we can do is look at ourselves and totally agree with your statement. You like what you like. I think some people put being Gay/bi
in the same category as a Drug abuser. Lack of self control. It kind of
makes you think they could repressing something from themselves.
If you really think about it. They Are.

Actually, the most recent research is pointing to a genetic cause for sexual orientation. Of course, environment could cause one to express oneself differently (for example, in areas where discrimination against homosexuals is rampant, someone who is gay could enter into denial and try acting as a "normal heterosexual). There was also degrees of sexuality. Some people are attracted to one sex, some to another, some to both.

Might little Billy (raised by John and Joe) consider whether or not he's attracted to men when he hits puberty? Probably. In fact, he might consider it more seriously than someone with a heterosexual upbringing. However, that consideration will be tossed aside if Billy's genes determine that he is heterosexual. Just as little Bobby who was raised by Tom and Mary might consider girls but will settle on liking boys if his genes say so.

I'm curious how they could conclude that genetics determine sexual preferences. Not trying to be a smart ass but have they actually found a homosexual gene in people who are homosexual vs people who are heterosexual? If for example a little boy was raised in a female household with a couple of sisters and was continually playing with dolls and being dressed in girls cloths would it not be a probability that he would mature into a transvestite? If a little girl is born into a lesbian household and does not hear a daddy's voice or have interaction with a male figure is it possible that a deep seated psychological pattern has been established leading to problems forming a heterosexual relationship?

Les

"would mature into a transvestite?"

No, there is very little chance he would for the same reason two
completely Straight People can unknowingly or knowingly raise a Gay Child.

I just found this which was written by a transvestite:

Les

I have trouble saying "Cross Dressing" is a Sexual Preference.
That would be more of a "Fetish"

I believe there 3 sexual preferences ST8, Gay, Bi

A man can be totally ST8 and want to be a Woman and Dress Like One.
This man would be called ST8. He prefers to have sex with the Ladies but also feels he was born in the wrong body.

If a man wants to dress and look like a woman he is not necessarily
Gay.

Human sexuality is very complicated and get confusing.

How can you explain a bible thumping ST8 couple giving birth and raising
a Transsexual Bisexual? This is possible.

So?

Where does it say that the parents of the child in question were anything other than a "normal" (I'm using that word VERY loosely) heterosexual couple?

Since they can't procreate naturally, it's pretty safe to assume that same sex couples who have children actually want them. The same cannot be said for many (a minority, sure, but still many) children of "normal" couples.

The point I was trying to make, apparently not very well, is that this guy was influenced by his environment to have an "abnormal" desire. My thinking is that it must be possible for the same type of familial influence to propel a susceptible child into a homesexual life style.

Les

About as possible as you learning to sing a different tune.

And how about you James? You seem to think yours is the only tune in the concert and your tune is always the same. I'm merely expressing thoughts and ideas and if that upsets you might I suggest you skip this thread.

Les

The erroneous thoughts and ideas you're submitting here are both disturbing and destructive to a community of people who are struggling to achieve equality under the law, not to mention they and their like contribute enormously to the hatred born of ignorance and fear that places homosexual and trans-gender persons literally in harms way.

As long as you insist on submitting such balderdash for serious consideration, I'll continue seriously to oppose.

That you think I should quit this exchange gives me all the more incentive to continue.

James,
If you'd like others to share your viewpoint, belittling them probably isn't the best method. Please harness your frustration and get back to posting reasonable arguments that stick to the topic.