As I have said previously, a girl I know left her Lesbian mother and friend to live with a group of promiscuious teenagers 15 - 18 year olds next door to me when she was only 15. She had no loving father during her essential development years of pubity to model true masculinity. This freedom led her into promiscuious and wreckless living and trouble with the police. Girls need a loving, wise and guiding father in their life.

Mary,

If children and young people copy social examples when forming their sexual identity, where do gay people come from? It's only very recently in terms of human history that homosexuality has come out of the closet and been socially visible. Prior to that, there wouldn't have been any social examples to copy - and yet we have well documented examples of homosexuality in eras when there were social examples to copy. Where did these homosexuals come from? And if we assume that parents are the most important influence on their offspring's sexual orientation, how is it that heterosexual parents are responsible for raising far more homosexual children than homosexuals are? If straight parents can produce gay kids, is it not plausible that gay parents can produce straight kids?

TBC

Continued

The world's population is predicted to grow to as much 10.5 billion within the next 40 years. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about the many negative impacts of over-population than I am about low fertility rates. But I wanted to verify your argument about gay marriage causing demographic collapse. Unfortunately, my crystal ball was on the blink, my Tarot deck is missing 3 of its major arcana, and I didn't have any handy chickens to disembowel. So I was just about to give it all up as a lost cause, when I remembered something: you can't actually tell the future. Nobody can. The future is unwritten and unknowable, and ever since Hume demonstrated the problem with induction it has been accepted in philosophical circles that even seemingly reasonable claims about the future cannot be logically justified. And you didn't even make use of inductive reasoning in your claims about the future. At best, your argument would be described as wild speculation. Speculation in place of argument earns you no points, I'm afraid. And I'm sorely tempted to award you negative points for attempting to use the slippery slope fallacy, but I'm feeling charitable so I'll let you off with a warning this time.

All those things in your last paragraph which 'might' be the case might also not be the case. If they aren't, then the conclusion "homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly and so marriage is not for them" is false. I should also point out that the first part of that statement, "homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly" can be applied to some other people, e.g. "alcoholic (drug addicted, gambling addicted, psychopathic, schizophrenic etc.) persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly", but that your conclusion "and so marriage is not for them" is never applied to alcoholics etc., as long as they are heterosexual alcoholics etc. Does this seem entirely reasonable to you?

Acolyte Rizla

"If straight parents can produce gay kids, is it not plausible that gay parents can produce straight kids?"

Yes, of course. Say 1% of heterosexual parents raise homosexual chldren and 1% of homosexual parents raise heterosexual children. This is - or would be - logical.

We only know that only a tiny percentage of persons raised by heterosexual parents end up as homosexual. So then the opposite is quite logical that a large part (or most) of persons raised up by homosexuals would have homosexual (or other disturbed, not heterosexual) gender identity. The Biblarz - Stacey article showed some research results about that.

Any culture, any typical behavior has exceptions, deviance, why should the norm of heterosexual relationship be different. I don't wonder there are and always were deviations from this norm. The question only is if they are justifiable in the long run and if they are justifiable as a possible, alternative model of society. I don't think so, I explained why.

Yuo are right that I have "might"-s in my last paragraph. I think that there is scientific evidence supporting them in the articles I have quoted. I suggest you to read them and then we can discuss, whether these "mights" mean "very likely" or "very unlikely"

Acolyte Rizla

You wrote about the 10 billion people of the Earth in the newest UN projection. I just suggest links of 3 ineresting articles in connection with this:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473125a.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations

http://www.prestonwillis.com/trends/the-last-woman-on-earth/

So this projection seems not to be creditable and really scientific, but a tool of political manipulation.

A great French demographer, Bourgeois-Pichat made a fairly different projection about the long-time population of the world in the 1980s. See it in French in the 1988/1 issue of the French demographic review Population (you can find it in any bigger library). You can read its English summary on p43 and see its most important Graph 6 on p27. He estimates that humankind will disappear by 2400 AC with reaching a fertility level which is around the current European average. And worldwide developments of fertility levels of countries go that direction. That is the realistic projection. I say so - and I have been a researcher in the fields of demography, population policy and family sociology in the last 1.5 decades.

The Acolyte Rizla,
Homosexuality is an act not a person, as many men considered heterosexual engage in homosexual acts. It is men engaging in anal sex with other men that is socially abhorrent. The pracise is part of a society that is obsessed with abnormal sex, adultery, promiscurity etc. This has never been any different.