David,
"Forcing my views on people? Deary me. I appear to have forced people to read my article... argue with me."
I don't believe you are really that stupid. When you make comments telling other people what they 'should' be doing, you are trying to get them to follow YOUR point of view. When you follow up with
"And as for "forcing values" on non-gay people well, believe me I'm not particularly interested in that. I only wish Sheikh Yasin, Brian Houston and other religious extremists would return the favour."
You are essentially trying to force your view on not forcing your view. I know that sounds complicated and all, but it is your view that people shouldn't force their views. Yet in wanting others to do the same and complaining in moral terms when they don't, you are trying to force your views on them. You are doing the very thing you complain about.

"This debate proves time and again morality IS a matter of opinion. I regard fundamentalist Islam as morally wrong. Fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as morally wrong. Two irreconcilable views. There is no arbitrator. Morality is not like the laws of physics."
Why is morality not like the laws of physics? It certainly can't be just because people have different opinions or opinions change over time. That some time in the past some people thought the world was flat and some thought it was round did not make the world shapeless.

If morality is not objective, then it doesn't really exist, and so your complaints in moral terms is useless verbiage. You can't say 'muslims are wrong for killing gays' or 'people should condemn muslims for it' you can only say that you don't like it. The rest is just a pitiful attempt to coerce others into supporting your cause with loaded words. So how about next time, to be honest, why don't you just say that "You don't like it that muslim's kill homosexuals" instead of trying to tell other people what they 'should' do. Or is intellectual honesty not something you consider important?

Bosk,
I can tell you that infants at birth have no predesposed genetic preference about their future sexuality. Their sexual identity happens in bonding post birth during their development. Quote, "That from the time their born it's already decided which sex they'll find attractive." It is more likely today that a dominant parent, society and teasing may push young sensitive males into accepting they are really homosexual.

You are defending homosexuality as a predetermined genetic lifestyle, I have never seen any male animal developing an exclusive lifelong sexual bond with the same sex, as you are defending. Young males may desire at a moment of an erect penis to push into any warm accepting hole of the same species. Your argument is inconsistent as these animals are by natural desire hererosexual. So the behaviour is bisesual not homosexual. You do you explain beastiality? - I assume by the same argument, "They are genetically predetermined".

Quote, "Several zoologists have noted that homosexuality is found in other species. ... Did the lizard wake up one morning & think "I feel like being a homosexual today?" Doesn't seem likely does it? No. their acting instinctively. & if their desires are instinctive then so are ours. ...It's far more likely that homosexuality like heterosexuality is genetically based."

CONCLUSION:
Your observation and conclusion about being genetically based is inconsistent. They are more likely to be bisexual. I do not imagine any self respecting woman accepting any man that engages casually in anal sex with another man then with her.

DavidJS, still trying to work out how to forward that gay agenda and I presume looking for the "top 10 gay things to do today" - maybe there is a self help book for gay activists which will help ;).

Grey, "You are essentially trying to force your view on not forcing your view." - there is a difference between sticking your head through some one elses bedroom window and telling them how they can act vs calling out from your bedroom "get lost you pervert" to the person with their head through your window.

Those who want to tell David how to behave in his own home pretty much have their heads through his bedroom window and deserve to be told to get lost. If David gets really bored looking for gay things to do and starts sticking his head in your window you can give him some travel directions.

It's about boundaries.

R0bert

Here's my take on the gene argument.

Sexuality is most definately linked to gender. I conclude that because the great majority of people tend to be hetrosexual i.e. attracted to the opposite gender. Obviously there must be something instinctive at work here, you can't argue 95 % of people are attracted to the opposite sex because of environmental factors, it wasn't because of the role models they were subjected to, the bias is just too great for that to be true. And you certainly couldn't argue that sexuality is not instinctive in the animal kingdom, dogs do not go to school and watch TV, they do not see daddy fix the car and mummy cook the dinner (for sure there are environmental influences but not so great as in human society, consider that a dog could mature within a family home and never see another dog, and most will still be hetrosexual).

Now if we accept sexuality is tied to gender, and that gender itself is genetic (?), then surely sexuality is linked to your genes.

Then we can go further and consider that gender is not always certain, there are hemaphrodites and the like. If their gender is not certain and their sexuality is meant to, for the most part at least, be determined by their gender, then who are they supposed to be attracted to? Sexuality now starts to look a bit grey.

So I think sexuality is largely linked to genes and as we all know sometimes genes mutate or develop in a way for an individual that is against the norm. It could well be that those genes linked to sexuality and/or gender sometimes appear in individuals in a way that causes them to have an attraction to the same sex, you may get males with female sexuality genes and vice versa.

DavidJS, so we went from muslin hate, then through the religious spectrum. Homosexuality as a genetic thing, inherited, cultural, sociological misfits, evil doers, you name it and they put it up

Mostly it has been the religious that have tried to fit gays into a convenient category. But they forget one thing, the actions and approaches that the religious use, can easily be displayed as symptoms of mental illness. But then again, maybe the religious are genetically faulty as they don't seem to be able to say anything that is constructive and non repetitive.

Yes we should condemn islam for its attitudes towards Australian gays, but then again as I said before, we are all in the same boat cobber and thats our first priority. Making sure our boat doesn't sink from the overloading of religious cranks.

The problem is: Do we suppose that genetic mutations should be eradicated from the human gene pool, by death and that they not be allowed to reproduce offspring? According to the larest research in human genetics there is a weakening in the human genome.

The very fact that past societies have attempted to eradicate homosexuality would indicate it is not resultant from genetic breeding. It is rather a sign of social overcrowding and neglect of infants and emotional insecurity in normal human bonding.

If it is a genetic mutation then it ought to be corrected by the introduction of gene technology. If it is a moral attitude developed from social disfunction then that disfunction needs identifying and corrected. As I have stated elsewhere; I have a close friend that had no childhood bonding with the opposite sex [now 58 years old] who naturally bonds to males and was a practising homosexual before becoming a Christian, who now constantly expresses he would have loved to have had a wife and children as his brother.