Celivia and Cornflower. Yes, I probably agree with Cornflower's response to me too. As a parent (and yes I really am) I was concerned about a.) the presence of my child entering into risky behaviour, b.) peer pressure to make this kind of choice, c.) not being aware of the emotional consequences of moving into adult behaviours. In my post I didn't go into the detail of the conversation I had with my daughter at that time because it wasn't the point I was attempting to make. But I can understand that the snippet I gave which was quite a bit out of full context did make it all sound like irresponsible parenting. I was disappointed about my own reaction to my fear that my child may have some kind of sexual encounter with a person of the same sex. I was disappointed with my immediate homophobic reaction to this. I was enlightened by how openly she expressed to me that none of the kids in her group seemed to think that there was necessarily anything unnatural about it. Yes, this episode was somewhat out of control and yes, parents did step in, as did the staff of the school because I spoke with them about it. But I was disappointed about my homophobic reaction to it which was based upon fear. And that really was my point. And my daughter ... she made the choice not to participate in an activity that was causing a good deal of anxiety amongst the kids and which she could see for herself that this was the case, and which she and I talked about. I am very fortunate that she feels comfortable enough to talk with me about issues like this. She's wonderful.

Riz I loved your top ten and I laughed as Dan fell for the bait.
Johnny Rotten, thank you - you're the best!

Dan,

*"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell

Let me guess, Dan - your favourite animals are pigs?

By what metric are we to determine which people are more equal than others?

* When you're quite done mixing metaphors and torturing defenceless analogies who have done you no harm, do you think you could try your hand at crafting an argument in the Queen's English which is understandable to the non-clinically insane? Ta. Waffling on about Humpty Dumpty is an excellent way to distract some folk's attention from the fact that your argumentative skills are shite, but it can't hold a candle to employing a decent argument in the first place.

* "Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?" - C.S.Lewis
Gay marriage may be unconventional, but that doesn't make it a question of logic. Logic is a philosophical tool which can be used to assess the various arguments for/against homosexual knowledge. It is not a system of knowledge which can establish the validity of homosexuality; it can only comment on the validity of arguments about homosexuality.

* I never implied that you argued against the existence of homosexuality. I was demonstrating that any argument against homosexuality which employs 'homosexuality is unnatural' as either premise or conclusion is necessarily unsound, because the statement 'homosexuality is unnatural' is demonstrably false. Homosexuality does occur in nature and is thus, by definition, not unnatural.

* Go back and read my post properly... my point about the Greeks was not that we should accept homosexuality because the Greeks did. I was making precisely the opposite point: that doing anything on a historical or traditional basis, as opposed to a rational and empirical basis, is sheer folly. I brought up the point as a rebuttal to your ludicrous suggestion that simply because homophobia had some historical support, it logically follows that homophobia is a good thing. So what's it to be, Dan? Reject historical/traditional arguments 'coz the Greeks accepted homosexuality, or accept them 'coz the British Empire didn't? You can't have it both ways.

>""The act of homosexuality is abhorrent to the normal heterosexual majority in society.

"Homosexuality represents un-natural, debased and deviant behaviour, thus should be discouraged by laws against the act, not promoted by laws for the act.""<
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 8:50:38 PM

Most people realise homosexuality is inherent in those that feel and express it. The physical acts of expression homosexuality are common in heterosexual relationships.
..........................................................
>>""Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for the heritability of homosexuality. But I'm sure peer-reviewed journal articles won't shift you from your entrenched position of bigotry.""<<
Posted by Riz, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:41:08 AM

This is a lie - there are No peer-reviewed journal articles to support it.

There are likely to be events in priming for and acquisition of characteristics of sexual behaviour that contribute, but these may be varied, and have not been shown anywhere to be inherited.

Dotto,
I see the point you were trying to make, thanks. I'm not going to go on more about it because it would distract from the original topic too much, but I accept that there is much more to the story and that your daughter is wonderful.

Dan,
Riz is correct- that something is unconventional doesn't mean that it is by definition, wrong. In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it is not unconventional anymore.
If you give it some thought you may realise that, with the moving zeitgeist, many things that were once unconventional are now completely accepted and common practice.

McReal,
There are good reasons to believe that homosexuality has biological roots. And, although there is no convincing evidence, there is enough evidence to say that it can be partly inherited.
Biological causes of homosexuality may have had evolutionary benefits.

Did you read a previous article I linked to? Here it is again:

http://tinyurl.com/2vggfyy

"Having Older Brothers Increases a Man's Odds of Being Gay.
The idea that prenatal mechanisms may influence sexual orientation has been around for a couple of decades. In 1996, Bogaert along with colleague Ray Blanchard correlated sexual orientation in men with the number of older brothers, but it wasn't clear if that influence was occurring because the boys shared the same household or because they had shared the same womb...

"The fact that the common denominator between the older and younger biological brothers is the mother hints at a prenatal influence on sexual orientation."

The debate over the causes of homosexuality is still divided, and more research needs to be done.

It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.

There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something happens to still be unconventional.

@ Celivia (Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:42:03 AM)

I agree that homosexuality is likely to have biological roots, as I indicated - "There are likely to be events in priming for and acquisition of characteristics of sexual behaviour that contribute"

and by "priming for and acquisition of", I meant the same as stated in that Scientific American article (although I had not seen it) -

"The idea that prenatal mechanisms may influence sexual orientation has been around for a couple of decades."

One theory has been about testosterone receptors in the brain. These are primed as are other secondary sex characteristics by a surge in testosterone produced by the foetus's testicles at 5 months gestation
.

I agree - ""It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.""

There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something ... is a human biological variation