On purely a numbers basis the majority of paedophiles should be hetro-deviates since hetrosexuals make up 95% of the population.There are too many homosexuals who have an unfetted,ill disciplined attitude attitude towards sex and hence suffer most from aids and other STDs.Sodomisings little boys I thought was a homosexual activity no matter what your marital status and it is this ill disciplined attitude in the gay community that is perpetuating it.Too many gays wear their sexuality like some badge of honour and use it as a source of power to push their influence on the rest of society.Just tone it down and be like the rest of humanity instead of continually seeking victum status.

Not all gays are paedophiles but we all have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.Wanting to have sex with anything that moves,how and when you feel like it,is not a sign of a civilised society.All individuals not matter what their sexual preferences must have the discipline to respect others beliefs,and show at least some parameters of restraint when engaging socially with others.

Bosk,
"By the way. Since homosexuality is a part of nature then homosexuals CANNOT influence their children’s sexuality one way or the other"

Forgive if I'm missed something as I haven’t read all the posts.

I've been told that men who are normally hetro., if confined to prison or the like (where women are not accessible), will often engage in homo acts.

Would not that indicate that there is an element of conditioning/environment,and that children can be influenced.

Good point Horus. Your faultless argument explains why heterosexual couples never produce homosexual offspring.

Hang on...

Horus

You ask does the fact that men engage in homosexual acts in prison [when women aren't around] indicate that environment can shape sexuality? My answer is no! Why? Because when those men get out of prison, what happens? They immediately go back to having sex with women. It was the lack of women that had them performing homosexual acts. NOT because prison changed their sexuality.

Which raises the last topic.

Myth #4 Sexuality in children is easily altered from heterosexuality to homosexuality.

Reality: Children's sexuality is formed either before birth or shortly after. Once formed it is virtually unchangable. Want evidence? A few years ago a baby boy, was changed into a girl through an operation by doctors. The kid was brainwashed by a psychiatrist. Nagged at by parents. And had their views supported by his changed body. Did they make the kid desire boys? Nope. he still prefered girls. (as shown on the documentary "As nature Made HIm"). That would seem to support the FACT that sexuality is pretty unchangeable.

Now a question for you. Have you noticed that Leigh, Neckie & Arjay have merely made the same wild asserttions over & over again with NO evidence to back it up? Do you think that might be because their views have NOTHING to do with the evidence?

Approaching this from yet another angle.

Marriages in the West are breaking up at greater than significant rate, to the extent that divorce demonstrates the futility of heterosexuals getting married and trying to stay married.

Men still want at least a shadow of traditional marriage, where the traditionally masculine traits are valued and they don't have to act against the brain hard wiring that took place before birth.

Men's and women's brains are different, and they have different expectations and what they consider to be 'needs'. Women are usually responsible for taking the first steps to separate and divorce. This is usually because they feel that their needs are not being met. Women feel that their 'needs' include 'communication' in a way that men are simply not able to meet, for reason of brain wiring. Men cannot become imitation women.

So, what women actually need as partners are other women. That august organisation, ‘Relations Australia' has even come out and said in a press release that if a woman cannot find the man that they want then they should look for another woman. This implies a certain flexibility of sexual preference.

When men cannot need the ‘needs’ of a women, with the possible exception of being sperm donors and providing financial support for children, and possibly spousal support, why shouldn’t women repartner with another woman; and why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?

At least in a percentage of ex-marriages this would relieve the ex-husband of the responsibilities of spousal maintenance.

Perhaps, additionally, it could be considered as the demands of modern heterosexual relationships are a minefield for men, those men who are inclined to play for either team may decide that marrying another man may be a better option than trying to meet the unsatisfiable demands of the 'modern woman'.

In short, heterosexual marriage and divorce is not meeting the requirements for stability that can be considered to be necessary for a prosperous society. Maybe, as men cannot meet women’s ‘needs’, and women don’t want to accept that men cannot become surrogate females, homosexual marriage should be encouraged.

To Mr Bosk.

Your first premise is incorrect. Just because something “occurs in nature” does not mean that it is “natural.”

Serial killer Garry Ridgeway (the Green River Killer) admitted to murdering 58 young women. While inter species killing does occur in some species, it is not natural for any species to kill breeding females. Such behaviour in humans is definitely not considered “natural” just because serial killers exist.

The human rectum is a one way valve. Forcefully inserting objects into it from the outside in causes serious damage which proctologists are delegated to repair. Homosexuality is therefore demonstrably unnatural. It is a genetic disease which we all hope may be cured, one day.

Your second premise is also wrong. Homosexual behaviour is not necessarily an and/or situation, it is a continuum. Some people may be mildly homosexual, others a degree or two more, while others are dangerously close to full blown homosexuality, and others are very homosexual. By not making homosexuality respectable, normal people hope to influence those who have some control over their peculiar sexuality.