Kipp

"...are you saying the medical professional organisations I quoted are wrong!"

Yes, of course. This is a political issue for them and they betray science for politics. Healed former homosexuals sometimes demonstrate in front of APA center showing that they do exist, despite APA's official claim that they do not.

What Dale O'Leary did was that she collected some critical facts and studies about this issue.

I haven't written you are a bigot. Only in my eyes (perhaps I am not right) and ONLY IF you do not read scientific literature and the facts and conclusions in them, only political declarations from APA.

But anyway, I do not want to hurt you even conditionally. But what if you really read those articles I quoted? Then we could discuss them.

Otherways I am not Mary Ward, she is just a notable historical person I like. My real name is different. And I am researcher and deal with family sociology and have a PhD in it.

voxUnius,

The list of 'Communist Goals' which Formersnag linked to was not created or compiled by Communists. It was created by one Cleon Skousen, a noted anti-Communist, Mormon & supporter of the John Birch Society in his 1958 book 'The Naked Communist'. I therefore consider this list of communist goals to have about as much credibility as 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (google it if you're not familiar). They are both documents written by folk radically opposed to a given ideology attempting to demonise said ideology by 'revealing' its evil plots for world domination, when in fact said plots are the inventions of the authors. Thus they're both bollocks, and could only be regarded as credible sources by some of the more paranoid & delusional members of the tin-foil beanie brigade.

It’s strange that so many people are equating an infertile married couple with a same sex couple, as if the existence of both proves the same point. They are different issues on different levels of different systems with different causality. Neither has any application for the other, and this attempt at an argument simply equates the fullness of a same sex couple with a medical problem experienced by some people, and thus admits that a same sex couple cannot occupy the place of a married couple.
The medical infertility of a married person (which is not even connected to their sexuality) still stands in contrast to the inability of a same sex couple to utilise their medical fertility. One is a problem within the reproductive system, and the other is not a reproductive system.
Marriage and parenting go together so closely that it’s difficult to talk about one without referring to the other. But since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, infertile couples still fit perfectly well under the definition. The parenting issue is more a case of reverse engineering: in that it is important for a child to be raised by their parents- it’s not important that every marriage produce children.
In any case, an infertile married couple still have advantages over a same sex couple. They have complementary bodies which are designed to be joined sexually in a one-flesh union. And should they wish to acquire children they have the natural relationship which creates children and models adult masculinity and femininity to them, along with gender complementarity.

StatusQuo,
Well said, and perfectly logical!

Be honest Philo, forma snag, Status quo and others against same sex marriage, and say what you feel, that not only do you not understand homosexulity, you also do not accept homosexual people.
A study showed that some people with strong antigay feelings and attitudes, also had latent subconcious homosexual tendencies.

Kipp,
How wrong can you be! I have several friends former gay; and never had any desire for anul sex.