[OldManMac]

Thankfully, it won't be as long as you think. I don't know how old you are, but the younger generations accept this for what it should be; a non-issue. They don't get all emotionally wrapped up trying to invent logic to prevent something they realize is none of their business, and doesn't affect them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

No, I stopped reading right here.

You're nothing if not consistent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Thankfully, it won't be as long as you think. I don't know how old you are, but the younger generations accept this for what it should be; a non-issue. They don't get all emotionally wrapped up trying to invent logic to prevent something they realize is none of their business, and doesn't affect them.

poopy-butt stinky face is only four words. You really could be saving yourself a lot more time around here.

I'm younger than you.

There are a great many things that do not affect me personally. This isn't always the alpha and omega of sound logic and societal governance. I know, typing is more fun than reading.

[OldManMac]

Wow; you sure told me. Your typical condescending reply, but it still isn't going to change anything. If you need to continue "discussing" this issue, to prove to yourself how right you are, please do so. Have a nice day, seriously.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So let's see. To sum it all up, homosexuality is either an adverse reaction to external stimuli OR a genetic malfunction that we someday will identify so it can be "treated". What a load of crap.

I can only imagine how our descendants will look back on all of this and laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all.

Life imitates art.

[Uncle Skeleton]

heh

GAYTTACA™

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Most who disagree on this issue disagree on the nature of homosexuality. They simply feel there is no sufficient reason to accommodate behaviors related to mental illness and that the long-term implications of suspending this "unwritten" rule are destructive. This is approximately half the country. They may indeed laugh, but I assure you it will be some time.

ebuddy, when are you going to answer the question as to whether or not YOU think homosexuality is a mental illness or a set of behaviors resulting from mental illness?

Your answer to this question earlier explained how you thought homosexuality developed as a "result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing" but doesn't indicate what you think of the nature of homosexuality. So, I will ask you again, do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or a set of behaviors resulting from mental illness?

Will you answer the question? It's a very simply question with a very simply Yes/No answer. (Granted, the explanation for the answer could be lengthy, like mine was, but the answer to the question itself is either Yes or No.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You really have no definition of "victim" so I'm not certain your definition of "bigot" based on "victimization" holds up very well.

All that matters is whether the "bigot" perceives a "victim," not whether I do. Get it now?

Wow, you've not talked to many homosexuals have you?

Because I think there is such a thing as "gay pride?" Where did I ever get that idea from? Maybe in the midwest you don't have it -- oh wait, this thread was about Iowa

No, it was more an indication of my lacking regard for the seriousness of the question posed to me.

It looks more like indication of your lacking an answer to the question posed to you

I never said anything remotely close to children being denied "straight" couples. I said they're denied a "mother" and a "father".

I don't see the difference, ebuddy, it doesn't make any sense either way. Under what circumstance would a gay marriage ever deny a child to a mother or a father? And how would that mother or father (not "couple" as you have just emphasized) not be one of the "unstable" broken homes you lament?

You're doing it again. Obviously, you got caught with your poor reading comp hanging out. I personally don't care whether or not people have a homo or hetero relationship. Sinking in yet??? Here it comes... watch for it... I think there should be civil unions for any two people who wish to enter into a "spousal" commitment, let the churches "marry" whom they deem fit.

It hasn't escaped me that you are arguing that you don't oppose gay marriage, but rather arguing that others who do oppose it are not bigots. This way, when your argument fails you can say that you are not your argument, hoping that everyone will forget that I am talking about your argument in the first place, not about you at all. Sorry, you didn't fool me, better luck next time.

You're certainly welcome to marginalize the plight of people hung by trees en masse for the color of their skin, but I'll leave you to it.

Gays get lynched too, but I'm not going to welcome you to "marginalize their plight."

Once again for people to not fall in line behind your line of reasoning makes them uncivil.

No, it's being uncivil that makes them fall outside my reasoning.

The point is you cannot legislate validation. You cannot legislate acceptance.

But you can legislate marriage, which is what we're talking about.

If I cited three more studies, would you concede that homosexuality is a mental illness? Of course not, I'm not even that certain my friend.

I would be interested to see them nonetheless. You might remember I said if there were a "cure" then I would be happy to reconsider your comparison. If your studies constitute any progress towards that, I would be curious to read them.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Most who disagree on this issue disagree on the nature of homosexuality. They simply feel there is no sufficient reason to accommodate behaviors related to mental illness and that the long-term implications of suspending this "unwritten" rule are destructive. This is approximately half the country. They may indeed laugh, but I assure you it will be some time.

"Related to mental illness?" Oh, that old bit in the DSM II, which itself was based on an organized group of anti-gay shrinks who forced it into the text? That's not only very old news, it's also been deprecated in a number of ways, including some very contrite wording in both DSM III and IV.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Related to mental illness?" Oh, that old bit in the DSM II, which itself was based on an organized group of anti-gay shrinks who forced it into the text? That's not only very old news, it's also been deprecated in a number of ways, including some very contrite wording in both DSM III and IV.

I am quite medically ignorant but what little I do not about the medical approach to analysing and treating homosexuality reminds me of the late-19th-century ideas about female behavior and hysteria. Now as then, it seems an assignment of mental or physical deficiency in a person served to help diminish that person's claims and by medicalising the person's behavior, applied a taint of inferiority to the person receiving such a diagnosis.

And to reiterate a point I made earlier, I think homosexuals can suffer from mental illnesses but I do not think the existence of homosexuality is a sign of mental illness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All that matters is whether the "bigot" perceives a "victim," not whether I do. Get it now?

You're indicting others of bigotry. Doesn't it kind of behoove you to have some basis for this other than that they disagree with you? I mean, if we're all potentially bigots based on our perception of "victims", then... can't we just all be humans and get along? Why such incivility?

Because I think there is such a thing as "gay pride?" Where did I ever get that idea from? Maybe in the midwest you don't have it -- oh wait, this thread was about Iowa

... and "closeted gays?" Crazy I know. Iowa's more "west" than "mid" anyway. Wait, they shot down prop 8 in California.

It looks more like indication of your lacking an answer to the question posed to you

It was a bogus question that didn't even have got'cha potential Uncle. Tempt me to respond. Please.

I don't see the difference, ebuddy, it doesn't make any sense either way. Under what circumstance would a gay marriage ever deny a child to a mother or a father? And how would that mother or father (not "couple" as you have just emphasized) not be one of the "unstable" broken homes you lament?

omg. I didn't say a "mother" OR a "father", I said a "mother" AND a "father". A situation in which two healthy (meaning non-abusive, skilled at parenting...), committed people can provide the best of each perspective.
I have a hunch the qualification in parenthesis won't matter

It hasn't escaped me that you are arguing that you don't oppose gay marriage, but rather arguing that others who do oppose it are not bigots. This way, when your argument fails you can say that you are not your argument, hoping that everyone will forget that I am talking about your argument in the first place, not about you at all. Sorry, you didn't fool me, better luck next time.

Yeah cuz of course I'm being all sneaky about it. I've already answered twice that I lean towards the notion (and will clarify for dc later) that homosexuality stems from mental illness. That piece of the argument is certainly my own and much to the shagrin of those who oppose gay marriage, I do not personally feel there is enough compelling reason to deny them the right to have a "marriage". However, I do not regard those who are otherwise non-bigoted as bigots because they happen to believe there's no compelling reason to grant them the right or because they do not acknowledge homosexuality as a class worthy of Federal privilege.

As far as my argument; I've never made arguments comparing gays and straights or arguing for them not to be different or to be like me or to have a hetero-marriage and "don't divorce". When you're ready to actually address the points I'm making instead of trying to frame the debate in whatever bizarre manner you think will work for those who happen to already agree with you, let me know.

Gays get lynched too, but I'm not going to welcome you to "marginalize their plight."

Marginalization #3.

No, it's being uncivil that makes them fall outside my reasoning.

I guess I'm left wondering then why your reasoning requires so much incivility?

But you can legislate marriage, which is what we're talking about.

You can legislate spousal arrangements perhaps in some states, but in the example I gave of California it doesn't matter. I'd argue that you could do away with "marriage" entirely, call them all civil unions affording any two people who wish to enter into a commitment the exact same "spousal" rights and that will still not suffice.

I would be interested to see them nonetheless. You might remember I said if there were a "cure" then I would be happy to reconsider your comparison. If your studies constitute any progress towards that, I would be curious to read them.

Given that the whole question is a red herring, you're really too conflicted for this "curiosity" already Uncle. I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer.

The Michael Jackson pic had me on the floor though.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

omg. I didn't say a "mother" OR a "father", I said a "mother" AND a "father". A situation in which two healthy (meaning non-abusive, skilled at parenting...), committed people can provide the best of each perspective.

Right there we have an explanation as to why most Americans likely don't consider "gay marriage" a question of "equal rights", since there's something totally unequal about what it can provide to society.

As far as whether the condition of homosexuality should be considered a "mental illness" - stripping out the politics and moral judgements, would any other human condition which only effects a small portion of the populace in a way that would pretty much cause the extinction of our species if every one had the same "condition" be deemed anything other than an illness or mental/genetic deformation? Especially given that it causes it's "victims" (loaded word, I know) emotional pain due to it making it harder to enjoy normal human experiences like creating genetic offspring?

Is being physically unable to have children seen as a "normal" response in the human condition in any area other than in those who have no desire to engage in procreation with a member of the opposite sex the way it naturally happens?

In other words, it looks to me that the mental health education elites in the past 30 years or so aren't relying on science for their definitions, but rather their own personal morality.

[OldManMac]

I have to give you credit for your tenaciousness, stupendous; you never give up with your red herring about what gays can't provide to society and the furtherance of the species, while neglecting to point out that many married heterosexual couples provide nothing to the furtherance of the species either. Sadly, you don't get it, and probably never will.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I have to give you credit for your tenaciousness, stupendous; you never give up with your red herring about what gays can't provide to society and the furtherance of the species, while neglecting to point out that many married heterosexual couples provide nothing to the furtherance of the species either. Sadly, you don't get it, and probably never will.

...and I'll always give you credit for time and time again being able to ignore the fact that we almost never means test benefits we give as affirmative actions to a certain class of people to the point where we exclude the small minority that would generally fit into the class, but may be an exception to the rule.

Homosexuals can never provide the sought standard (as ebuddy illustrates). Married people often time find themselves furthering the species when they didn't plan on it otherwise, and can provide the standard ebuddy mentioned for children who are not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do no further the species themselves. Homosexuals can't in any case. They can be eliminated as a recipient because no one belonging to that class will ever be able to meet the desired standard and it requires no medical tests or ability to predict the future in order to determine this. That's a reasonable standard to use in order to limit the class of benefit recipients to those who could use them most.

Sadly, you don't get it and probably never will.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Related to mental illness?" Oh, that old bit in the DSM II, which itself was based on an organized group of anti-gay shrinks who forced it into the text? That's not only very old news, it's also been deprecated in a number of ways, including some very contrite wording in both DSM III and IV.

Old bit in the DSM II? Then replaced by the old bit in DSM III, then IV, and in 2012; V? It won't be long before there's a DSM VI and VII... Is it possible that the gay lobby and gay activism have had some impact in the results of the changes in these publications ghporter or do "organized groups of anti/pro shrinks" begin and end with only those "hostile" to gays?

I always love an argument that while in reality works both ways, only acknowledges one way; the way that helps the argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

ebuddy, when are you going to answer the question as to whether or not YOU think homosexuality is a mental illness or a set of behaviors resulting from mental illness?

Your answer to this question earlier explained how you thought homosexuality developed as a "result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing" but doesn't indicate what you think of the nature of homosexuality. So, I will ask you again, do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or a set of behaviors resulting from mental illness?

You originally asked; Well then, what is your view on homosexuality as a mental illness? Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

I answered; "I lean toward 'yes'" which is an answer to your question. If you're having trouble getting an answer, pose the question you want an answer to.

Will you answer the question? It's a very simply question with a very simply Yes/No answer. (Granted, the explanation for the answer could be lengthy, like mine was, but the answer to the question itself is either Yes or No.)

How will "yes" or "no" answer the question; do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or a set of behaviors resulting from mental illness? Okay, yes. See the problem you're having here?

Now, to the third attempt at your question; I lean towards believing that homosexuality is, but one manifestation (symptom) of mental illness.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's a reasonable standard to use in order to limit the class of benefit recipients to those who could use them most.

No, it isn't, as homosexuals make up such a small minority that they have no impact on the furtherance of the species, even being unable to reproduce. You just find that a convenient excuse.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You originally asked; Well then, what is your view on homosexuality as a mental illness? Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

I answered; "I lean toward 'yes'" which is an answer to your question.

Except you didn't. You answered "I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing." Unless the preposition "it" was supposed to be a pronoun standing in for "homosexuality is a mental illness" you didn't actually answer my question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're having trouble getting an answer, pose the question you want an answer to.

Twice I posed the question for which I wanted an answer and twice you provided a vague, un-specific answer.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now, to the third attempt at your question; I lean towards believing that homosexuality is, but one manifestation (symptom) of mental illness.

See how easy it is when you use declarative statements in the active voice. With this sentence I have no doubt what was your answer to the question. Third times the charm, eh?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now, to the third attempt at your question; I lean towards believing that homosexuality is, but one manifestation (symptom) of mental illness.

So, what type of mental illness do you think has homosexuality (or homosexual behavior) as a symptom?
--Do you think it is a type of sexual- or gender-identity disorder?
--Do you think it is a manifestation of some Oedipal/Elektra syndrome gone overboard? (That's more psychological than psychiatric, I know.)
--Do you think it is the result of hormonal imbalances due to too little/much contact with one parent at not the other?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and I'll always give you credit for time and time again being able to ignore the fact that we almost never means test benefits we give as affirmative actions to a certain class of people to the point where we exclude the small minority that would generally fit into the class, but may be an exception to the rule.

Except heterosexual couples who do not or can not have children are not a small minority of the class. I will have to search for the statistics but I think it is about 60% - 65% of the opposite-sex couples that produce %100 of the children born to opposite-sex couples. So, that would make a good one-third of the class an "exception to the rule". I would not consider that a "small minority".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Homosexuals can never provide the sought standard (as ebuddy illustrates).

Why is opposite-sex couples the "sought standard" for raising children? Why is opposite-sex couples the "desired standard" for raising children? (You used this phrase elsewhere in your reply.) I use the term raising children instead of creating children because as you said, married people "can provide the standard mentioned for children who are not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do no further the species themselves." So, it would seem that ability to raise children is just as much a criteria for inclusion in the class as ability to have children.

Because, if "providing the standard mentioned" to someone else's offspring meets the criteria for inclusion in the class of married people, then the criteria for inclusion in the class is not really the ability to reproduce, is it? If one can meet the standard for inclusion without reproducing or the ability/willingness to reproduce then the standard for inclusion cannot be the ability/willingness to reproduce. When you said people who come together "can provide the standard mentioned for children who are not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do not further the species themselves" you made it clear that the inability/unwillingess to further the species is not an exclusionary condition for inclusion in the class.

So, why should an inability to further the species (among homosexuals) be an exclusionary condition for inclusion in the class?

What I am trying to get at is reconciling your arguments that inclusion in the class of married people is only for opposite-sex couples because they meet the standard of maybe being able to reproduce and raise children. But then you argue that inclusion in the class is also for couples (you don't specify that it has to be opposite-sex couples) who can raise children "not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do not further the species". It seems to me these criteria for marriage are not logically consistent. One criteria is only for opposite-sex couples because they may be able to reproduce but then the other criteria is for any couple that can raise children "not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do no further the species themselves". Your second argument for inclusion in the class does not apply only to opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples are just as able to raise children "not of their own biological creation even if they themselves do not further the species".

So, how do you reconcile these logical inconsistencies and continue to insist that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples?

[dcmacdaddy]

@stupendousman,

I have a simple question for you.

(For the moment, let's remove the ability to produce a child from the discussion and discuss just the ability to raise a child.)

Do you think a same-sex couple can raise an adopted child as well as an opposite-sex couple could raise the same child?
In other words, do you think opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equally capable of raising a child?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Really, who cares if it is genetic or not? I find the whole argument completely irrelevant.

So why discuss it at all? Why wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you like to clear up the big mystery?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Being gay doesn't NEED to be excused, justified or quantified. If two men or women want to get together their reasoning shouldn't even come into the equation. It's no one's concern.

Yes, but is that "Natural" or is something 'wrong' ?? Sex is a reproduction methodology correct? So explain why like sexes practicing this behavior are not deviants. Reasoning? LOL

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Someone please explain to me why the WHY of it SO important? Does genetic automatically mean good or ok? Are we trying to search for a cure? Is it somehow going to change the minds of the kind of people who talk to their invisible friend(s) and believe in talking snakes?

Genetic means the CAUSE IS GENETIC, NOT CULTURE or some other reason. Why would we care about other types of Deviants and nutcases?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Help me out here because I am missing something.

[Chongo]

So, if it is proven to be genetic, would it screened for like Down Syndrome? Would abortion suddenly become a bad thing because parents would choose to abort those found to be carrying the "gay" gene?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, it isn't, as homosexuals make up such a small minority that they have no impact on the furtherance of the species, even being unable to reproduce. You just find that a convenient excuse.

"A small minority", which unlike the minority in question, can be easily screened and eliminated in order provide special affirmative action for the preferential arrangement in question. There's a bunch of other "small minorities" which also are currently screened for that do not require intrusive questions or tests. Being blood relatives, being already married, etc.

The difference between homosexuals and people who MAY NOT end up reproducing is that the homosexuals can be filtered easily. No so the other party in question.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So explain why like sexes practicing this behavior are not deviants. Reasoning? LOL

Um, because sex is fun? It feels great? It's good exercise? It's an emotional and physical link with your partner? Stress reliever? I can think of a lot of reasons why people have sex other than for procreation. Doesn't matter if you're gay or not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Do you think a same-sex couple can raise an adopted child as well as an opposite-sex couple could raise the same child?

What does "well" mean?

Do I think that they have the ability to love a child the same as an opposite sex couple? Sure. Do I think that they are capable of reasonably guiding a child safely through life? Most likely.

All things being equal though, homosexuals can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Men and women are different. How they deal with things are different. We live in a world where it's important for children to grow up in an environment where they have in-home positive male and female roll models who will teach children the proper way to interact in regards to natural gender rolls. I can't show my son the proper way to express himself and comport himself with a female life partner if I don't have one.

Now, that's not to say it's not possible for children to grow up healthy and happy without such advantages, but the entire reason for affirmative actions like the ones we give those who are married are to encourage things society finds preferential, where there is logical reason to do so. We don't reduce our standards to include EVERY type of relationship because then those "special" affirmative actions are no longer special.

People overcome all kinds of handicaps in life. We don't though do anything to encourage people to cut off an arm or a leg without reason, even though we know that they'll probably get along fine and live full and happy lives without all their limbs. Giving people special benefits and affirmative actions when they choose to deny a child some of the things which would provide it a fuller and healthier life isn't any smarter than telling people that you'll buy them a new car if they cut off their arm. It is illogical to reward people who choose to inflict others with the results of their handicaps.

In other words, do you think opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equally capable of raising a child?

Do you think that blind people and people with sight are just as capable of walking from point A to point B, a straight line? If so, would you suggest we do anything to encourage blind people to walk across busy intersections when not necessary, or should we acknowledge their handicap and work toward making so they don't have to walk across the intersection in question? Do you think it's possible for a black man to be as successful as a white man? If so, how can you rationalize racial affirmative since we are giving some people more benefits even though both people in question can succeed?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Except heterosexual couples who do not or can not have children are not a small minority of the class. I will have to search for the statistics but I think it is about 60% - 65% of the opposite-sex couples that produce %100 of the children born to opposite-sex couples. So, that would make a good one-third of the class an "exception to the rule".

I question the numbers. I think that the last time I saw a cite, it was something like 15% don't produce offspring if their union lasts more than X number of years, but I could be wrong. If you include quicky Vegas weddings/Mexican divorces and people who don't have children who have been married 10 times, I think that unfairly dilutes the sample. Regardless, we are talking about an "exception to the rule" which isn't easily filtered. I can tell you today that I have no plans to have children, or are incapable of having children and tomorrow find myself in a situation where I'm going to have a child. This isn't the case 100% of the time with homosexual couples and makes their exclusion an unintrusive (no tests or crystal ball gazing required), easy task.

Why is opposite-sex couples the "sought standard" for raising children? Why is opposite-sex couples the "desired standard" for raising children? (You used this phrase elsewhere in your reply.)

I mentioned previously ebuddy's apparent shared standard that same-sex couples can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Both are elements which naturally occur with the majority of heterosexual long-term unions and the second is something that said unions can provide even if they can not naturally produce offspring.

You can poo-poo those two elements of traditional parenting if you'd like, but I think that most Americans see the value in both and as such they are important qualifiers in regards to what we hold as preferred in regards to who we give marital "affirmative action" to.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can appreciate that you're personally invested in the discussion Atheist, but you don't have to suspend logic in an emotional tirade. Ask anyone most favorable to gay rights and I assure you they are of the opinion that homosexuality is genetic. It simply logically follows. You can say it doesn't matter or that it's reprehensible or that people are bigots, but none of this makes you more correct than they. People disagree on how to accommodate a situation based on the nature of that situation. It's really just this simple. We do not generally regard disabilities, disorders, race, and creeds in a similar fashion.

Most who disagree on this issue disagree on the nature of homosexuality. They simply feel there is no sufficient reason to accommodate behaviors related to mental illness and that the long-term implications of suspending this "unwritten" rule are destructive. This is approximately half the country. They may indeed laugh, but I assure you it will be some time.

Emotional tirade? The only emotion I'm feeling right now is exasperation.

I just don't feel the issue of homosexuality requires all of this analysis. And I strongly believe that time will prove me out. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will come to pass that homosexuality will be deemed perfectly natural and normal and that the currently held negative beliefs will be regarded no differently than bloodletting or thinking the earth is flat.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're indicting others of bigotry. Doesn't it kind of behoove you to have some basis for this other than that they disagree with you? I mean, if we're all potentially bigots based on our perception of "victims", then..

I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation of what constitutes bigotry, but you've ignored it in favor of a Clintonesque obsession over the meaning of the word "victim," none of which matters unless you are prepared to argue that homosexual marriage partners are thought of as "victims" of each other. And you've already stated that you're not.

... and "closeted gays?" Crazy I know.

Are you arguing that closeted gays are the only gays that are mentally ill? Those ones won't be getting gay married either way, so that would be irrelevant to a discussion of gay marriage.

omg. I didn't say a "mother" OR a "father", I said a "mother" AND a "father". A situation in which two healthy (meaning non-abusive, skilled at parenting...), committed people can provide the best of each perspective.

omg, just give an example. I simply can't make heads nor tails of your statement, it's not clear. I thought I got your point the first time around, but from your reaction I can see that I hadn't. If anyone else can understand it, please PM me with an explanation or example.

I lean towards the notion (and will clarify for dc later) that homosexuality stems from mental illness. That piece of the argument is certainly my own and much to the shagrin of those who oppose gay marriage, I do not personally feel there is enough compelling reason to deny them the right to have a "marriage". However, I do not regard those who are otherwise non-bigoted as bigots because they happen to believe there's no compelling reason to grant them the right or because they do not acknowledge homosexuality as a class worthy of Federal privilege.

So you're not telling gays to straight-marry, you're just saying it's ok for others to tell them to. That's your argument, on behalf of those others. I'm not arguing against the part of you that doesn't feel justified in denying gay marriage, I'm only arguing against the part of you that thinks it's ok for others to deny gay marriage. Are we caught up yet?

As far as my argument; I've never made arguments comparing gays and straights or arguing for them not to be different or to be like me or to have a hetero-marriage and "don't divorce".

Ok, you argued on behalf of others that it's ok for them to encourage straight marriage by making it the only legal option. They want to encourage gays to act straight, and they want to tailor the laws to further this goal. You're speaking in support of them. I'm arguing against your support of this view, as well as this view itself. Is that nuanced enough for you?

I guess I'm left wondering then why your reasoning requires so much incivility?

I don't think I've been uncivil. But if I have, I certainly haven't tried to say that human nature makes it acceptable, which is what you seem to be saying.

You can legislate spousal arrangements perhaps in some states, but in the example I gave of California it doesn't matter. I'd argue that you could do away with "marriage" entirely, call them all civil unions affording any two people who wish to enter into a commitment the exact same "spousal" rights and that will still not suffice.

I agree with that, but if you're they're not going to remove "marriage" from the state, "separate but equal" is not an acceptable substitute.

Given that the whole question is a red herring, you're really too conflicted for this "curiosity" already Uncle. I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer.

You're mixed up. It's "genetics" that I said was a red herring, not "cure" per se. If there was a convincing "cure," I think that would have a great deal of importance to the issue, and I've never said otherwise.

The Michael Jackson pic had me on the floor though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I mentioned previously ebuddy's apparent shared standard that same-sex couples can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Both are elements which naturally occur with the majority of heterosexual long-term unions and the second is something that said unions can provide even if they can not naturally produce offspring.

That argument applies absolutely equally for outlawing divorce. Do you support outlawing divorce?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I mentioned previously ebuddy's apparent shared standard that same-sex couples can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Both are elements which naturally occur with the majority of heterosexual long-term unions and the second is something that said unions can provide even if they can not naturally produce offspring.

So single parents should be illegal. Gotcha.

(Uncle Skeleton got there before me.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What does "well" mean?

For dcmacdaddy, raising a child well = raising a child to be honest, considerate, intelligent, thoughtful, proud, and polite. Do you think that a reasonable definition of "raising a child well"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do I think that they have the ability to love a child the same as an opposite sex couple? Sure. Do I think that they are capable of reasonably guiding a child safely through life? Most likely.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All things being equal though, homosexuals can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties . . .

but frequently they can provide at least one biological tie

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

. . . or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Men and women are different. How they deal with things are different.

And, how does this effect all those children in single-parent families? If ensuring that children are raised by both a man and a woman is such an important parent of the legal affirmation of marriage you really should be advocating for making divorce illegal.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We live in a world where it's important for children to grow up in an environment where they have in-home positive male and female roll models who will teach children the proper way to interact in regards to natural gender rolls.

You gave yourself away with this paragraph. There is no such thing as a "natural gender role". Gender roles, like the whole concept of gender, are social constructs. There is nothing "natural" about them. Gender roles are simply what society makes of them. In other words, they are flexible concepts not tied into anything inherently natural, thus inherently fix'ed.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can't show my son the proper way to express himself and comport himself with a female life partner if I don't have one.

How old is your son and are you 100% assured he is going to have a female life partner instead of a male life partner? Or does it really matter if you show him how to comport himself with a female life partner or just show him how to comport with a life partner? Aren't the fundamentals of respect, consideration, love, and support the same whether you would be showing him how to be a good partner to a man or a woman?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Now, that's not to say it's not possible for children to grow up healthy and happy without such advantages, but the entire reason for affirmative actions like the ones we give those who are married are to encourage things society finds preferential, where there is logical reason to do so. We don't reduce our standards to include EVERY type of relationship because then those "special" affirmative actions are no longer special.

How do you address the issue of divorce then? If society wants to encourage certain actions wouldn't it make sense to spend as much effort on discouraging divorce as is spent on encouraging marriage? Shouldn't a society interested in making sure their "children to grow up in an environment where they have in-home positive male and female roll models" do everything possible to ensure those "male and female role models" stay together? I find it hard to believe the argument that a culture places so much emphasis on marriage but does nothing to discourage divorce. It seems to me either the justifications for the affirmative action of marriage are disingenuous or that the supposed values you claim society holds in regards to marriage aren't all that strong.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Giving people special benefits and affirmative actions when they choose to deny a child some of the things which would provide it a fuller and healthier life . . .

Are you saying that children raised in a same-sex household is denying those children a fuller and healthier life? If so, in what ways would raising children in a same-sex household deny them a fuller and healthier life as compared to if they were raised in an opposite-sex household?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is illogical to reward people who choose to inflict others with the results of their handicaps.

That's right. I forgot that you were the one in this thread arguing homosexuality is a handicap to be overcome. I thought it was someone else.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you think that blind people and people with sight are just as capable of walking from point A to point B, a straight line? If so, would you suggest we do anything to encourage blind people to walk across busy intersections when not necessary, or should we acknowledge their handicap and work toward making so they don't have to walk across the intersection in question?

A strawman argument and not an answer to my question. So, I will ask my question again: "Do you think opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equally capable of raising a child?"

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you think it's possible for a black man to be as successful as a white man? If so, how can you rationalize racial affirmative since we are giving some people more benefits even though both people in question can succeed?

A strawman argument and not an answer to my question. So, I will ask my question again: "Do you think opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equally capable of raising a child?"

It's a question with a simple Yes/No answer. (granted, the explanation for why you chose Yes or No might be lengthy but the answer to the question itself is either Yes or No.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I question the numbers. I think that the last time I saw a cite, it was something like 15% don't produce offspring if their union lasts more than X number of years, but I could be wrong. If you include quicky Vegas weddings/Mexican divorces and people who don't have children who have been married 10 times, I think that unfairly dilutes the sample.

Why is the inclusion of couples who have quickie marriages/divorces or multiple marriages without offspring "diluting the sample"? What is being measured is a percentage of married couples who produce offspring. If the existence of significant numbers of couples who a) don't stay married or b) marry repeatedly without producing offspring are in the results that would seem to indicate the level of seriousness some people bring, or don't bring, to the practice of marriage.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I mentioned previously ebuddy's apparent shared standard that same-sex couples can not provide either 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives. Both are elements which naturally occur with the majority of heterosexual long-term unions and the second is something that said unions can provide even if they can not naturally produce offspring.

You can poo-poo those two elements of traditional parenting if you'd like, but I think that most Americans see the value in both and as such they are important qualifiers in regards to what we hold as preferred in regards to who we give marital "affirmative action" to.

No poo-pooing necessary. I just wish to point out that your own arguments regarding marriage statistics (cited above) contradicts your argument here that "most Americans see the value in . . . 2 parents with invested biological ties or an in-home environment which provides two committed people that can provide the best of differing gender perspectives". If most Americans see these values as you say they do, I don't think we would have the number of quickie marriages/divorces or multiple marriages without offspring that we do have in this country.

And if most Americans see these values as you say they do, why don't we have more restrictive laws on the books regarding divorce?
Why don't the American people make known that divorce is not acceptable and work to minimise it as much as possible?
This seems to be a B-I-G disconnect between the two parts of your argument. You argue how much society values marriage yet the evidence would show otherwise and society does not seem interested in taking steps to minimise the occurrence of divorce.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Um, because sex is fun? It feels great? It's good exercise? It's an emotional and physical link with your partner? Stress reliever? I can think of a lot of reasons why people have sex other than for procreation. Doesn't matter if you're gay or not.

And THIS requires Marriage? NO.

The Marriage aspect is just a smoke screen. Anything to convince themselves they are 'normal' and not deviant. If it was just about that 'feel good' stuff, why would marriage be desired?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Marriage isn't required for procreating either

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And THIS requires Marriage? NO.

The Marriage aspect is just a smoke screen. Anything to convince themselves they are 'normal' and not deviant. If it was just about that 'feel good' stuff, why would marriage be desired?

What about equitable treatment under the law? Marriage confers a ton of legal protections and benefits, protections and benefits that are denied members of society because they legally aren't allowed to marry. That's a double portion of inequity.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, if it is proven to be genetic, would it screened for like Down Syndrome?

Would abortion suddenly become a bad thing because parents would choose to abort those found to be carrying the "gay" gene?

Yes. It will begin with IVF but as the technology become cheaper and less invasive it would be just as easy to screen for it as for anything else will be down the road.
Does anyone doubt that it will one day be commonplace for doctors to know things like gender, hair/eye color, or other genetic variance with just a couple of simple tests? Sexual preference will be in line right behind that.

And I am sure science will give us the option to change it and it would be no more objectionable than people choosing not to have a deaf child.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And THIS requires Marriage? NO.

Marriage is not "necessary" for ANY relationship.

The Marriage aspect is just a smoke screen. Anything to convince themselves they are 'normal' and not deviant. If it was just about that 'feel good' stuff, why would marriage be desired?

Look, I don't understand people's fascination with marriage at all, but if it is going to a part of our society there is NO good reason to not let a gay couple get married.

None of your ignorant comments about being "deviant" mean anything at all. You are not the judge of what is deviant, the supposed opinion of your god is useless, and even if they are "deviant" they are consenting adults and their status as "deviants" in no way precludes getting married.

Opposition to gay marriage always boils down to the same two things, personal bigotry or religious bigotry.

[stupendousman]

Most of these debate points have been gone over before, with some of the same participants. I almost feel as though I'm on a merry-go-round!

[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;3836429]That argument applies absolutely equally for outlawing divorce. Do you support outlawing divorce?[/QU

AND

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So single parents should be illegal. Gotcha.

(Uncle Skeleton got there before me.)

No, not "illegal". Affirmative actions are seldom used to punish people. There will be "single parents" and divorce no matter what you do. I'd agree though that neither are preferred by society, all things being equal, for what is best for "the child".

Creating an environment where men and women who come together in a way that normally results in offspring stay together long term, is an affirmative action by getting special status and benefits for staying together in a manner that provides the optimum environment for the raising of said offspring. Providing incentive to do something does not require punishment or denial of something else if people choose not to participate.

Gay people have no choice as to whether or not their long-term unions end up (intentionally or not) with the production of biological offspring - they never will. So there's really no reason to give them the same affirmative action benefits to those who will never be able to provide the thing that the majority of society believes will be in the best interest of humanity.

Again, I think that the argument you guys are forwarding is based on a basic misunderstanding on how affirmative actions work.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

See how easy it is when you use declarative statements in the active voice. With this sentence I have no doubt what was your answer to the question. Third times the charm, eh?

I don't enjoy giving up information it is apparent others will not. You mentioned that you didn't think homosexuality is a sign of or in and of itself a mental illness so... what do you think it is? It represents a relatively small portion of society, certainly something differs here. What do you suppose that is? Is it genetic?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation of what constitutes bigotry, but you've ignored it in favor of a Clintonesque obsession over the meaning of the word "victim," none of which matters unless you are prepared to argue that homosexual marriage partners are thought of as "victims" of each other. And you've already stated that you're not.

No... what I've stated is that "victimization" does not matter in so far as it is simply another societal construct, not unlike the existent construct against gay marriage.

Are you arguing that closeted gays are the only gays that are mentally ill? Those ones won't be getting gay married either way, so that would be irrelevant to a discussion of gay marriage.

You're funny Uncle. You are the devil's, devil's advocate, but I'm not sure you can keep up with yourself. You said gays are proud, ever heard of "gay pride"? I said no they're not, ever heard of "closeted gay"? See what I did there? I used your logic on you and all of sudden it didn't make any sense. Now you know what I'm dealing with.

So you're not telling gays to straight-marry, you're just saying it's ok for others to tell them to. That's your argument, on behalf of those others. I'm not arguing against the part of you that doesn't feel justified in denying gay marriage, I'm only arguing against the part of you that thinks it's ok for others to deny gay marriage. Are we caught up yet?

I've been here a long time waiting for you. There's a big leap from "I support the right of gays to be married" to "anyone who opposes their right to be married is unfair and bigoted". If it is bigoted and unfair to oppose homosexuality, it is likewise bigoted and unfair to oppose pedophilia. You argued that it is not bigoted if someone opposed the act of pedophilia, but not the pedophile himself. Interesting. So... it is not bigoted to oppose the act of homosexuality (allowing them to marry) as long as you don't oppose homosexuals themselves. Well, this is pretty much where society is with homosexuality. This is what I've been saying all along and once again you try so hard to stay on the offensive with more questions that we come all the way back around to your points affirming mine. Of course, it's possible we throw around the word "bigot" too loosely; a bully's method of lacking another outlet.

Ok, you argued on behalf of others that it's ok for them to encourage straight marriage by making it the only legal option. They want to encourage gays to act straight, and they want to tailor the laws to further this goal. You're speaking in support of them. I'm arguing against your support of this view, as well as this view itself. Is that nuanced enough for you?

It's perfectly clear actually. You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you. You attempt to silence them with bully tactics and "rules" that are vague as can be and standards you can't apply consistently. I'm speaking in support of their right to disagree with you without being subject to your ad hom. I disagree with people on the death penalty too, this doesn't make people who disagree with me "blood thirsty".

I don't think I've been uncivil. But if I have, I certainly haven't tried to say that human nature makes it acceptable, which is what you seem to be saying.

Your entire premise began with incivility calling people who disagree with you bigots and unfair. This is the premise I've been arguing against you. This tactic will be used to justify anything you deem fit.

I agree with that, but if you're they're not going to remove "marriage" from the state, "separate but equal" is not an acceptable substitute.

Right now simply "unequal" is an acceptable state throughout the majority of the country. Who defines what is and is not acceptable?

You're mixed up. It's "genetics" that I said was a red herring, not "cure" per se. If there was a convincing "cure," I think that would have a great deal of importance to the issue, and I've never said otherwise.

No, you said "the whole question" is a red herring. If there was a cure, but it (just as almost any "cure") does not address 100% of gays (assuming 100% would even seek one), you're still going to have gays and they're still going to want to marry and/or seek acceptance and validation in society. This doesn't make the whole question a red herring, it makes the issue the source of the disagreement and I maintain that it is at the core of the disagreement regardless of its relevance to "gay marriage".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mentioned that you didn't think homosexuality is a sign of or in and of itself a mental illness so... what do you think it is? It represents a relatively small portion of society, certainly something differs here. What do you suppose that is? Is it genetic?

As I said in earlier in the thread , I think it is a fundamental state of being that exists at birth. I think people are born homosexual. Kind of like how people with red hair "represent a relatively small portion of society" and are born that way. I think that IF scientists do discover some post-birth factors that influence a person's sexuality, I think the post-birth factors that influence/select for homosexuality will be due to hormonal signals from the parents. I can envision an explanation for such a process that says removing some children from the pool of possible "breeders" by making/turning them gay will have a long-term benefit for the survival of a family's genes even if the individual genes of the homosexual children do not get passed on.

In terms of what "causes" homosexuality I certainly think it is genetic. After all, everything about us as humans is due in some fundamental way to our genes. I think the question you were probably trying to ask is do I think homosexuality is a genetic flaw*, as in did something go awry in a person's genetic makeup during gestation that caused them to be born gay instead of straight.
(*If that is not what you were asking when you asked "Is it genetic?" then tell me what were you trying to ask.)

As for me, I reject the fundamental philosophical premise underlying such a question. I reject the underlying premise that homosexuals are somehow flawed because of a genetic defect. This conception of humanity presupposes some absolute, definitive list of criteria that are normal for humanity and another absolute, definitive list of criteria that are abnormal for humanity. This conception of humanity presupposes that every little biological feature of humans could be quantified in some simple either/or matrix whereby if you had a given genetic trait it was a benefit and if you didn't it was a detriment. That conception smacks of discarded notions of eugenics and racial superiority via genetic superiority.

But, to give you a more practical less philosophical answer, I will say this. If, as Captain Obvious says, someday we will have pre-birth genetic testing for a whole range of personal/personality features--and I have no doubt we will--I would not choose to abort a child that tested positive for the "gay gene". I don't see it as aberrant and therefore something that would make my potential offspring un-fit for living.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most of these debate points have been gone over before, with some of the same participants. I almost feel as though I'm on a merry-go-round!

No Kidding! It's like you totally "forgot" how I destroyed your objection to "equal rights for unequal people."

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That argument applies absolutely equally for outlawing divorce. Do you support outlawing divorce?

No, not "illegal". Affirmative actions are seldom used to punish people.

Then why do you support the affirmative action of divorce being used to punish the children? Won't someone think of the children!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't enjoy giving up information it is apparent others will not.

This is a debate. Information is not something to be "given up". The free exchange of information is fundamental to the process of debate. Without it, you're (collectively) just engaging in poop-flinging and that's just a waste of time.

Finally, if someone doesn't answer a question you pose, keep asking it until they do. It works for me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No... what I've stated is that "victimization" does not matter in so far as it is simply another societal construct, not unlike the existent construct against gay marriage.

I've already told you that something being a "societal construct" gives us zero information about whether that thing "matters." I defy you to explain how victimization "does not matter" to the societal construct that is America.

You're funny Uncle. You are the devil's, devil's advocate, but I'm not sure you can keep up with yourself. You said gays are proud, ever heard of "gay pride"? I said no they're not, ever heard of "closeted gay"? See what I did there? I used your logic on you and all of sudden it didn't make any sense. Now you know what I'm dealing with.

All gay's don't agree on everything, more at 11...
So what? Some have pride, some have shame, some have other emotions, the same is true of every group of humans everywhere. But the fact that a large segment of them have pride tells you it's different from a mental illness. Can you name a single (recognized) mental illness about which there is a "pride" group? Is there "Alzheimer's Pride?" How about "Dementia Pride?"

I've been here a long time waiting for you. There's a big leap from "I support the right of gays to be married" to "anyone who opposes their right to be married is unfair and bigoted". If it is bigoted and unfair to oppose homosexuality, it is likewise bigoted and unfair to oppose pedophilia. You argued that it is not bigoted if someone opposed the act of pedophilia, but not the pedophile himself. Interesting. So...

And there, you lost it already. It's not bigoted to oppose victimization, and pedophilia undeniably has victims. If pedophilia didn't have victims, it would be just as bigoted to oppose the act as to oppose the person.

You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you. You attempt to silence them with bully tactics and "rules" that are vague as can be and standards you can't apply consistently. I'm speaking in support of their right to disagree with you without being subject to your ad hom.

You're using a bully tactic of taking much of what I say and undeservingly generalizing it to "anyone who disagrees with me." It's patently childish. What you call the "right to disagree" doesn't give them the right for no one to tell them when they're wrong. For all your bully tactic knows, I could be arguing that two plus two equals four, you could be saying "I'm not saying that two plus two equals five, but people who do so aren't wrong" and you would accuse me of being "bigoted" against them for telling them that yes they were actually wrong about that. Let's do another example:

I disagree with people on the death penalty too, this doesn't make people who disagree with me "blood thirsty".

But it also doesn't mean they're not. If you can show that they actually are "blood thirsty," then regardless of what they disagree with you about, saying so doesn't mean you're a "bigot" against them, it's just calling a spade a spade.

Right now simply "unequal" is an acceptable state throughout the majority of the country. Who defines what is and is not acceptable?

Consensus. In this debate, as in debate in general, we are trying to discover where two sides can find common ground (among other things). I expected that we could all agree that "separate but equal" has been tried and failed in this country. Do you disagree about that?

No, you said "the whole question" is a red herring. If there was a cure, but it (just as almost any "cure") does not address 100% of gays (assuming 100% would even seek one), you're still going to have gays and they're still going to want to marry and/or seek acceptance and validation in society. This doesn't make the whole question a red herring, it makes the issue the source of the disagreement and I maintain that it is at the core of the disagreement regardless of its relevance to "gay marriage".

No, "cures" rarely work on 100% of patients to start with, and that has nothing to do with whether the affliction is genetic or not. Secondly, if the question of genetics is the "core of the disagreement" for you, then some particular answer to this question must be capable of changing your mind on the issue. What answer would that be?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But, to give you a more practical less philosophical answer, I will say this. If, as Captain Obvious says, someday we will have pre-birth genetic testing for a whole range of personal/personality features--and I have no doubt we will--I would not choose to abort a child that tested positive for the "gay gene". I don't see it as aberrant and therefore something that would make my potential offspring un-fit for living.

We do have prenatal testing now. Captain Obvious mentioned testing after In Vitro. It could be done as part of the amniocentesis test down now for Down and Tay-Sachs.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We do have prenatal testing now.

Yes, and your point is?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Captain Obvious mentioned testing after In Vitro.

Sorry, my bad.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It could be done as part of the amniocentesis test down now for Down and Tay-Sachs.

If the "It" you are referring to is testing for gayness or a gay gene, don't you think scientists should positively identify what the gay gene is before trying to test for it?


I am all for letting people test for the criteria they want their children to have. So yeah, let parents test for hair color, eye color, sexual orientation, handedness, propensity for alcoholism or drug abuse, etc.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I am all for letting people test for the criteria they want their children to have. So yeah, let parents test for hair color, eye color, sexual orientation, handedness, propensity for alcoholism or drug abuse, etc.

...And Grandpa Jones' funny looking nose. And how Aunt Gladys had that odd mole. And so on... Ethically, there must be some real benefit to knowing about a genetic program before you test for it. Blue eyes do not confer any benefit or cause any disability, so why bother testing for it? If someone can show REAL data that (absent psychotic social idiocy) certain sexual orientations confer a health benefit or cause a REAL disability, I'd sure like to see it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

...And Grandpa Jones' funny looking nose. And how Aunt Gladys had that odd mole. And so on... Ethically, there must be some real benefit to knowing about a genetic program before you test for it. Blue eyes do not confer any benefit or cause any disability, so why bother testing for it? If someone can show REAL data that (absent psychotic social idiocy) certain sexual orientations confer a health benefit or cause a REAL disability, I'd sure like to see it.

You are confusing consent with approval on my part.

Just because I would consent to allowing parents to test their children for a variety of features or traits does not mean I approve of such behavior. If you read my posts you will realise I am of the opinion that homosexuality is a state of being that does not "confer any benefit [nor] cause any disability" to an individual born homosexual. As such, I find highly offensive the notion of pre-natal testing for homosexuality with the intent to modify/remove such a trait from a person's offspring.

But that does not mean I would want to prevent other parents from having the choice to do so. In fact, I think in a perverse way it would be good to have those parents opposed to having homosexual children given the choice to remove themselves, via genetic testing of their offspring, from the pool of potential parents of homosexual children. This way, the majority of those children born gay would be born to parents who wouldn't mind having a "gay" child and who would willingly welcome such a child into their lives without prejudice.

[Kerrigan]

I don't understand why someone who is fine with aborting their child, would abort the child on the basis of its sexual orientation.

I really doubt that the future will be populated by homophobic pro-choicers, so I doubt that a mass "extinguishing" of homosexuality via abortion will ever take place. But if it does, it will be a step back for humanity.