Alleged higher psychiatric conditions and abnormally high suicide rates, may have more to do with a higher incidence of forced repression and societal intolerance?

Perhaps some folk are deliberately misrepresenting cause and effect? Or getting it arse about?

Even so, any reasonable person, not blinded by fanatical religious intolerance, who merely witnesses what the gay community have to tolerate, including downright hostility, punishment, positive discrimination, family non acceptance and entirely unjustifiable estrangement!

And last but not least, an assorted assembly of God botherers, who will never ever accept them as part of the normal kaleidoscope that's the family of man!

Would be unable to reach any other conclusion? Than that no one without a built in death wish would chose to be gay, bullied, denied a normal family life, love, or the marriage and family that the rest of us take as our God given right!

I don't believe anyone has ever made a case for a genetically caused aberration? That doesn't mean we've conclusively proved that it is not a completely normal aberration that may have another natural cause from nature?

Nobody argues that any hetrosexual wakes up one day and conciously decides to be hetrosexual! Nor can any normal hetrosexual be conditioned to be gay! Or a left handed person be made right handed via cruelty or brainwashed conditioning! Or a traumatised bed wetter cured via the application of escalating cruelty!

Yet some will argue others choose their sexual bias! Even though they know they never ever could!

Even so, the aforementioned cruel remedies are still accepted in some cultures, where cruelty is practised as all manner of, including genital mutilation, routine brutality and argued for by sub human knuckle dragging neterendels, who take comfort in the fact, they're never wrong?
Alan B.

A J Philips:

"What is the evidence for any of your claims? "

I don't have any. It does not mean that I am wrong though.

"Or are you simply engaging in more of your amateur psychology again?"

What does it matter what I am doing? The only thing that matters on this forum are my opinions.

"This gave me a chuckle. ... time."

I am not interested in what makes you chuckle. The only thing I am interested in is your opinion. Likewise I am not interested in what you think of my record over time. I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality. Everything else is boring.

"What's pleasurable for one isn't pleasurable for all. I, for example, don't understand how some derive sexual pleasure from the pain involved in bondage."

They don't - they are trying to meet some emotional need and this is one of the areas where people try and meet that need. You can seek out pain and bondage in other areas of life.

"Did it ever occur to you that being with the opposite sex is also less satisfying to gay people on an emotional level? "

Why should that be so? Being with people on an emotional level does not have to include sexual behaviour. It can be emotionally satisfying to be with a child.

"Or do you have some made-up psychological explanation for this too?"

Why do you need to ask me that? If you are going to answer all the questions you put to me what is the point of asking me?

"What is unreasonable about homosexual behaviour?"

It is behaviour which aims to meet emotional needs by methods which can never achieve that aim. Emotional needs should be met by interaction at the emotional level.

"Is it that you think they too must necessarily enjoy it as little as you?"

Why do you want to know what I enjoy or do not enjoy? You will have to go elsewhere to satisfy your voyeurism - which is another neurotic sexual practice.

Here's the crux of the matter, and it's not given nearly enough attention in the debates. The author says:

"The consequences of the doctrine of the same-sex marriage movement, ...impacts profoundly on family and children. The traditional nucleus of heterosexually complementary partners – husband and wife – is more stable as the statistics – of greater breakup of homosexual marriages (where these have been legalized) – indicate.
But its most serious familial impact is upon children: in the nexus of generations. The human being is distinct from all other species in that lineage – the knowledge of one's parentage – has deep personal significance. Children commissioned through artificial reproductive technologies for homosexual unions are denied that conscious continuity of identity with both one's mother and father. Apart from this basic deprivation of personal identity, children raised in a homosexual households miss out on the complementary unique contributions of the distinct role-modelling of a father and the nurturing of a mother."

Children who aren't raised by their natural parents often desperately seek to find out who they are. To legalise s-s marriage and therefore the right for those couples to "have" children,denies a fundamental right to those children

//Or does the human being possess a soul – or conscience with its own objective moral compass – which is the essential human being, and which arbitrates, whether and which impulses should be given expression?//

I dunno. What reasonable metric does one use to determine the existence of the soul? What units do you measure souls in? Do sociopaths have souls? Do our fellow great apes? Is the soul an emergent function of consciousness? Could a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence ever possess a soul?

Simply put, exactly what do you mean when you say 'soul'?

//The use of so much plastic material in the home and at work should be decreased to reduce the chances of homosexuality spreading within society.//

Good grief. Vaccines that cause autism, communists poisoning us with fluoride... now we have polymers that make you gay!

//In fact, more research should be carried out to reduce the rate of homosexuality in society to as low a level as possible.//

How is research supposed to reduce the rate of homosexuality? You seem to be confusing research with policy.

//It is known what homosexuals do//

Aye. It's being sexually attracted to males.

//and very little of it can be recommended to children, or anyone else.//

Well, definitely not to women. Otherwise they might not become lesbians, and then what would I watch whilst conducting myself in the solo symphony? Giggity.

//This is what people are always doing when they indulge in simulated sex//

I'm heterosexual and I do that all the time. It's healthy and normal. it won't make you blind, and it might help to reduce your risk of prostate cancer.

//Why else would you prefer a simulation to the real thing? Why would you deliberately choose a lesser pleasure when you have the option of a better one?//

Because hookers are expensive, phanto, and we're not all wealthy.

The 'option of a better one' is not always available. When it isn't - as is all too frequently the case - there is no shame in simulated stimulation.

Plantagenet,

There's no contradiction between exhibitionist behaviour and an expressed wish to not be oppressed. Both are understandable responses to oppression.

All your post tells us is that you're not comfortable with gay people. If that's the case, then ignore them. And if the fact that you have to ignore them in the first place upsets you, then that is a problem with you.

phanto,

I didn’t think you had any evidence.

<<It does not mean that I am wrong though.>>

No, but the fact that you made it all up means that you very likely are.

<<What does it matter what I am doing?>>

Why do you think my asking means that it must matter?

<<I am not interested in what makes you chuckle.>>

I never for a moment implied that you should be. Why should my mentioning of that necessarily be indicative of a belief that you would be interested? Perhaps it was meant to convey something else?

<<…I am not interested in what you think of my record over time.>>

Again, I never for a moment implied that you should be.

<<I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality.>>

My opinion is that it is a natural part of the spectrum of sexuality, but that it wouldn’t say anything about its rightness or goodness even if it weren’t, for suggesting otherwise would be the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

<<…they are trying to meet some emotional need and this is one of the areas where people try and meet that need.>>

What is the evidence for this?

<<Why should [being/partnering with the opposite sex be less satisfying for gay people on an emotional level]?>>

Because that's not what they're romantically attracted to.

<<Being with people on an emotional level does not have to include sexual behaviour.>>

At no point did I suggest otherwise.

<<It is behaviour which aims to meet emotional needs...>>

What is the evidence for this?

<<Why do you want to know what I enjoy or do not enjoy?>>

I didn’t ask you what you enjoy. I assumed for the sake of an argument.

Organised and disorganised religion should get out of the habit of judging people on the basis of their sexuality.

One need only point to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse

to conclude that Men Of Churches (including notorious Cardinals) and many others have a very poor record on morality and moral responsibility.