Why are proponents of “diverse sexuality” not supporting the poor, ostracised Deaves family?
This father and daughter just want to love each other and be happy and have kids just like anybody else.
At least they have the reproductive capacity to do this, so they won’t be a burden on the state for IVF treatment.
What loving, committed couples do in their own bedrooms is nobody else’s business is it?
Who can demonstrate that they’re engaging in unsafe sex? Even if they were, this is not illegal. Surely their HIV risk is insignificant compared to some practitioners of other diverse sexualities.
Can it be proven that incestuous couples make worse parents than other rainbow families?
We cannot use incest laws as the basis of our objections because we’ve just thrown out all those “unjust” laws which discriminated against people of other diverse sexualities.
We cannot use natural law as the basis of our objections because who are we to say what feels natural to the Deaves?
What other group of people is discriminated against because they are potentially genetically incompatible? If ante-natal scanning reveals abnormalities then safe abortion is their right just like it is for anybody else.
Why are they being persecuted when they are just practising diverse sexuality?
By any form of logic, supporters of “diverse sexuality” and Australia as a body politic can no longer object to the Deaves behaviour on any rational or consistent basis.
Where are the progressives when you need them?

What a convoluted logic you have KMB... On genetic medical grounds alone a father marrying his daughter is unfathomable. The fact that a fetus from this union may be terminated is irrelevant.

You mention logic in your statement but don't seem to have any.

>>What loving, committed couples do in their own bedrooms is nobody else’s business is it?<<

You are right (funny word right...lol) here, but, your linking it to this family is wrong. You know this of course - Are you worried about homosexuality? KMB.

Don't worry homosexuals don't require terminations usually KMB and you can't catch homosexuality.... lol

But if you are worried about AIDS, then, you should be aware that more heterosexuals around the world have AIDS - so you'd better keep your pants up...lol

If you are anti-abortion KMB ... what would you do here?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25122051-2,00.html?from=public_rss

This 9 year old child may be rendered sterile if she were to be made to have the twins.

Maybe you believe this KMB

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If this is the case are you asking a 9 year old girl to marry the step father who raped her... Good luck with that argument!

Oh and to argue your last point... "the progressives" are around... they just probably won't think your comments are worthy of reply. I was bored so I replied! I am impressed that you know what progressive means though...lol

If you are a religious person I would love to hear your comments in this thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

Cheers!

This is a troll: see http://kb.iu.edu/data/afhc.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I recommend ignoring it.

jpw2040
I thought trolls were people who advocated shutting down discussions because they couldn't come up with a reasoned argument.

what's the deal here - is bloke step father or real father

sounds a bit Woddy Allen?

The reason why not is simple.

Children that are inbred to this extent are likely to have such
significant genetic defects that they become a charge on the community as a whole.

A continuation through generations just makes it worse.
Why do you think it is universal throughout humanity ?

Ask anyone who has a retarded child what they think of the suggestion.

Dear KMB,

According to sociologist Ian Robertson, and I quote:

"Every society that we know of, past and present,
have an incest taboo, a powerful moral prohibition against
sexual contact between certain categories of relatives.
The taboo almost always applies to relations between
parent and child and between brother and sister.
Additionally, all societies apply an incest taboo to sex
between certain other categories of relatives - but each
society has its own rules in this regard, so sexual
relationships that are quite acceptable to one people may
be utterly outrageous to another..."

Robertson writes that, "Brother and sister were expected
to marry in the royal families of ancient Egypt, Hawaii,
and Peru, probably to prevent the royal lineage from being
tainted by commoners...and perhaps as a means of keeping
property within the family..."

Robertson questions the existence of the taboo being due
to the prevention of physical and mental degeneration that
comes from inbreeding.

Robertson tell us that, "...inbreeding does not necessarily
produce degeneration: it merely intensifies certain traits,
good or bad, that are already present in the related
partners. Brother-sister marriages in Egypt and among the
Inca resulted in no degeneration over as many as fourteen
generations ... the beautiful and intelligent Cleopatra
was the product of such a union..."

"Agricultural scientists use selective inbreeding, in fact,
to produce healthier stock... any ill effects of
inbreeding usually take place too slowly and too haphazardly
to be noticeable over a few generations..."

So why the taboo? As Robertson explains ,"its vital to
the survival of the family and thus of society itself."
Thus the reasons are social, not biological.

We simply accept the taboo as natural and moral.

The same applies to
"diverse sexuality." Judging others( or not)
comes from our religious
beliefs, cultural upbringing, education, etc.
We're 'selective' in most things we do in life -
including conforming to what we consider as "normal,"
behaviour.

Anais Nin puts it rather well:

"We don't see things as they are,
We see them as we are."

A nine year old girl carrying a baby is a tragedy. A nine year old carrying her father's baby is deeply sad. For anyone to use the situation as a byword in an argument about something totally different (ie homosexuality) in what is meant to be an intelligent forum lacks any credibility or integrity. Surely there are other arguments one could use for or against without resorting to use the obvious pain of this nine year old girl for your own ends. Surely we should show compassion and respect...selective or otherwise in this circumstance. Come on people. Lift your game!

In Britain a few years back there was a study of cousin marriage.
The levels of genetic deformation was found to be 13 times the rate
in the rest of the population.
The study was prompted by the large number of affected children in
the Midlands, ie where South Asian families lived.

There was also a parliamentary committee that recommended that the law
ban cousin marriage. It can be found with Google.

At the Auburn District Hospital in Sydney it was noticed by the NSW
Health Dept that there was a higher than normal number of genetic
defects in new born.
A geneticist was sent to the hospital to find the reason.
She visited the mothers and she found that the majority were married
to their cousins. I saw the report in the SMH but I think it also
got a mention in Hansard, but it must have been 20 years ago now.

Sofisu,

?The stories I read had her at 31 when the incestous relationship commenced.

Bazz,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. As Foxy argued it is a social taboo. If risk of genetic issues precluded partnerships many disabled couples would be discriminated against.

Foxy,

Firstly I'll say up front I am not going to buy and read the book.

Does Robertson contradict himself? It sounds like it but I'm just going on brief exerpts.

He says that ALL societies that we know of past and present have a powerful prohibition on sexual contact between relatives. He then says that it was expected that royal families in 3 different societies would do it. Being expected to is obviously not the same as prohibited from. Does he mean most societies had the prohibition or that all societies prohibit it for at least some people?

Dear mjpb,

Bless your heart. You made me laugh...
And why should you buy the book?
It's actually a sociology text...

Robertson actually goes into some detail and gives
examples of various societies and their sexual
practices not only in Egypt, Hawaii and Peru. He
talks about the Thonga of West Africa, the Azande
of central Africa, the mothers of Burundi, and so
on. He tells us that, "In fact, incest - father
and daughter or step-father and step-daughter is
a fairly common crime, although it is rarely
reported. The American Psychological Association estimates
that 12 to 15 million American women have been involved
in incest, usually through sexual abuse in childhood
or adolescence..."

Robertson does make it quite clear that, and I quote,
"The incest taboo has developed over time...we accept
it as natural and moral."

Hi Foxy,

I should have included a smiley with the original comment. Good! As you know (but others reading this don't) last time I commented on excerpts from a book you got me to buy the darn thing, read it, and critique it.

I'm open to the taboo myself. But I notice that incest couples are increasingly going public and challenging the norm. That must be unprecedented and the outcome uncertain.

Sofisu,

As disgustingly, ugly as the tragedy of this girl is, the fact remains that too many people express "Pro Life" propoganda and never face the tough questions on how they arrive at that stance, and, when and where it should apply.

Also they never address the consequences of that stance.

To pretend that KMB was actually arguing what he/she is naive.

KMB was playing a line that needed correction. You will note he/she hasn't said much since. Silence is golden!

I apologise if it offended you!

Then on such an ugly topic Foxy puts forward some evidence that was quite illuminating... TY Foxy.

I hope Foxy isn't a man... that would scare a whole heap of people here. A name like that owned by a male. lol

So many intelligent people on this site debating, sometimes ugly and intense topics, is a wonderful example of free speech in action.

I enjoy everybody's posts... even the nutty ones...lol

Opinionated2,

You conflated statutory rape with consensual incest either through ignorance or as an obscurantist strategy.
The Deaves are a consensual couple.
Who can justify the taboo on their relationship in light of the breaking of the taboos on other “diverse” relationships?
On what basis can any objections be sustained?
The spectre of congenital abnormality has been raised but this can only be applicable to fertile couples (and is rendered irrelevant by easy access to abortion).
What about father and son, mother and daughter, brother and brother, sister and sister?
I assert that only the yuk factor stands in the way of the acceptance of incestuous relationships.
Any opposition is hypocrisy in light of the acceptance of other “diverse sexualities”

Mjpb
You just cannot pass it off like that.
Both the NSW Health Dept and the UK National Heath in the Midlands came
to the same conclusion.

Go Google it up, it is easy to find, I think I just used Cousin Marriage.
There is a medical term but I don't remember what it is.
There should be legislation against cousin marriage and those that
are already married should have their marriages annulled.

It is terribly cruel to the children and places a significant burden
on the rest of society.

Don't argue about it go and read the reports.

Bazz,

What is the basis of your argument?
When a deaf lesbian couple can choose to have a deaf child by design (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916462.stm), which is also “terribly cruel to the children and places a significant burden on the rest of society”,
how can we deny the right of an incestuous couple to reproduce and maybe/maybe not have congenitally deformed offspring?

KMB,

And you assert wrongly! It isn't the infantile Yuck factor as you try to propose. You know it, I know it! Read Foxy's post. In fact read all the posts.

Come on KMB you are a Christian and you are trying to stir the pot on a whole range of issues aren't you?

If Christians are meant to be honest, (your God is watching you), tell me all the agendas that I referenced in my first answer that you weren't pushing or intending to push? Come on be honest!

You don't believe for 1 second that this family should be allowed to be married and have kids do you? I don't, and everyone else here doesn't!

Laws rightly exist in this area to stop parents taking advantage of their children.

You were alluding to homosexuality in your obscure "Diverse Sexuality" words, weren't you?

Are you a "Pro-Lifer"? So why don't you be a good little Christian and tell me how you would deal with such a complex issue that I mentioned?

You see I can read you like a book... You are trying to be tricky,
but I can see through you.

So please tell me exactly what you think about these matters and whilst you are at it please reference where from within your belief system you make your moral stand?

Christians walk a very fine line when delving into these areas. Most of the churches have fallen well short of community standards in their dealings with the victims of sex crimes by criminal clergy within their organisations.

Please define "Diverse Sexuality" for us so we can assess the bredth of what you are really getting at.

So let's not play games KMB ... tell the truth! Your God is watching you!

Dear mjpb,

Your comments are always worth reading.

Dear Opinionated2,

I am a female.

One who's also learning so much from
the posters and challenges of OLO.

By the way, welcome aboard.

I think you're going to be quite a gift to
the discussions on this Forum.

Yeah, it's definitely a troll. I won't speculate about the motivation - whether it's religious or just good old sexual repression - but the disingenuous concern for the rights of incestuous couples is a straw man.

Next KMB will be asserting the rights of those sad souls who are into bestiality, no doubt.

My advice is not to feed it.

Why are proponents of “diverse sexuality” not supporting the poor, ostracised Deaves family?

We cannot use incest laws as the basis of our objections because we’ve just thrown out all those “unjust” laws which discriminated against people of other diverse sexualities.

-

I could not agree more, but my friend you are [no pun intended, and explained later] pushing poo uphill to raise "equality issues" in a Forum such as this which is 100% Politically Correct.

Let me rephrase your complaint as I see it

You are basically comparing treatment of this family to treatment of homosexuals [herein "homos", as all other descriptions {and even homos?} are banned in PC Australia]. As you all know I REFUSE to use the word "gays" to describe these "people"

You have a most valid complaint IMHO, BUT I would suggest that your benchmark of "diverse sexualities" IS PC but [as I understand it] your COMPLAINT seeks to be Politically INcorrect [herein PI].

The truth is that the entity we know as homos has very LITTLE to do with "sexuality" [which is an invented word] but ALL to do with Power Control by a Power Hungry Group [Lawyers], and the whole thing WORKS purely because of YOU, the PC little toad that lost his balls, and ALLOWED this to happen.

"We will talk further on this
you are free to move around
don't try to escape or you will be shot"

Opinionated2

You asked me to please define ‘(my) obscure “Diverse Sexuality” words’.
Google has about 4660 references to this phrase and even AHRC uses it because, I suppose, the ever-growing term LGBTIQQ… is becoming too cumbersome.
You say that “Laws rightly exist in this area to stop parents taking advantage of their children” but how does this relate to the Deaves’ situation where the daughter is 39 years old?
Is that the sum total of your justification for retaining the incest taboo in a society where taboos on nearly all other “diverse sexualities” have been removed?
I am not a Christian as you suppose/accuse but I can see that this has become a standard form of ad hominem attack used by those who can’t support their arguments using reason.
Is a person’s viewpoint automatically invalidated if it is informed by their religious belief?
Is this also true for Jews and Muslims, or only Christians?
My status as an infidel renders most of what you said meaningless but I’ll take the opportunity to refer you to “A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice” into "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States", seeing as you linked your contempt for Christians to this particular issue:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
The report reveals that offenders represented 4% of the priest and deacon population and that 81% of the victims were boys.
That sounds like diverse sexuality to me.

I, for one, will say that I find incestuous relationships disturbing, to say the least. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that I find them disgusting. This is a moral judgment based largely (I think) on my social conditioning. They are, after all, socially taboo. Although the evidence seems to contradict itself, there is some evidence to support the idea that incestuous relationships are more likely to result in defects. If this evidence exists and highlights an unnecessary risk, then there are grounds beyond moral and social expectations for the continued prohibition of incestuous relationships.

I do, however, see where KMB was coming from. My first arguments against incest were along these easily rebutted lines:

* People engaged in incest are often socially maladjusted and of unsound mind. They cannot make informed and intelligent decisions. REBUTTAL: We used to say the same for gay people. Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness.

* Children born of these unions, regardless of health, would be socially ostracised. REBUTTAL: We say the same for gay people.

* Children have a higher chance of defects. REBUTTAL: We do not prohibit relationships between people who are likely to pass on defects or disabilities to offspring.

At the end of the day, I have no solid argument for the continued prohibition of incest other than the fact that I don't like it. I'm hoping someone else can help me to explain what I find so wrong about it.

KMB,

I could have Googled, but I wanted your definition. Your interpretation and use of words helps me understand you.

OK you are not a Christian. Is there a religious background though?

Nothing debated on these pages is irrelevant to any of us - especially not the questions I asked after you created this article.

But seeing you are being coy let me answer your questions.

The fact that she is 39 has nothing to do with it. At what age did the relationship truly begin? What else don't we know?

That is why the laws rightly exist. The fact that he appears to have only gotten a slap on the wrist is troubling.

No persons point of view is invalidated whatsoever until they are proven wrong. Knowing someone's belief system gives one insight to where this person is coming from.

Your use of the word infidel to describe yourself is strange to say the least... but hey you appear strange for many more reasons than just that.

Now on the study that you presented I haven't got the time to read the whole thing. Whilst the study was done as well as possible with the time constraints, I wouldn't use the statistics gained as a very good yard stick.

All through the study the churches legal team and hierarchy had large inputs and the survey never actually had access to the Catholic files.

Of course the survey is better than nothing but it is hardly representative of the depth of the problem. For instance how many of the clergy told the truth? How many of the victims felt secure enough to tell all? Why would the clergy tell the truth when they know that criminal charges might follow and that the church would be open to further litigation.

Why don't churches & organisations hand all files over to the Police if they are truly serious about these matters? What would Jesus expect?

Your turn for answers!

Foxy - I realised you were a woman... TY for the welcome. I am not new here - just returning!

Otokonoko;
If you had ever been burdened with raising an
intellectually handicapped child I can assure you that you would see
why incest is taboo.

Everyone has some genetic defects, its just that they do not handicap
to the same extent.
I am not an expert but I think a couple with different
genetic defects have the same chance of their child having a defect
as any other couple.
There are exceptions to that, such as Huntington's.

There are very good reasons for the taboo not the least is the cruelty
to the children. The cruelty to the parents is also a factor.
Have you never noticed an aging mother taking around the shops her
40 or 50 year old handicapped child ?

You are not even allowed to stop worrying about the child when you
are dead. You do that worrying while still alive.

Otokonoko,

We can add another rebuttal to your point
* Children have a higher chance of defects. REBUTTAL: We do not prohibit relationships between people who are likely to pass on defects or disabilities to offspring.

REBUTTAL: We provide Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) to people of other diverse sexualities and these ART's (including IVF) have more than double the risk of producing children with major birth defects.
http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/ivf-babies-at-more-risk-of-birth-defects

Foxy,

Thanks.

Bazz,

I am open to being wrong about the risk. I note that Foxy did adduce some anecdotal evidence which suggested otherwise.

The key thing however is that risk of genetic abnormality is the only reason I have seen argued if it is taken out of the realm of social factors / right and wrong. However a taboo based on that risk as a standard isn't applied to others in the community. In the extreme example that KMB subsequently provided the worst that it attracts is criticism not criminal sanction. (Not that I think that the taboo should be removed.)

KMB,

I shared the suspicion of CJ and others and wondered if you were Boazy. But you aren't a Christian. Are you on a genuine intellectual expedition into uncharted territory?

Opinionated2,

The relationship reportedly started when she was 31.

It's good to see that most people see this thread as the disingenuous troll that it is. Personally, I have little time for those unfortunates like KMB who wish to stick their noses into the sexual preferences of others. My guess is that it's some kind of compensatory obsession that substitutes for actually having sex.

I'd rather go fishing than to bother with some loser's obsession with other people's sex lives - which is what I'm going to do, first thing in the morning.

Do have a nice week everybody, including KMB. Try and focus on something other than other people's sex lives.

CJMorgan,
It's bizarre that you talk about "unfortunates (who) stick their noses into the sexual preferences of others".
The reality is that those suffering from diverse sexuality are rubbing it in the face of the public wherever you look, from primary schools to magazine covers to soap operas.
I'm just pointing out the contradiction in ostracising a particular brand of diverse sexuality, incest, when we're supposed to be celebrating all the others.
The fact that nobody has managed to come up with a single argument supporting the continued isolation of incestuous couples indicates that some contributors are long on insults but short on intelligence.
Or maybe it's just because their hypocritical, insupportable position cannot be justified so they just shout down what they don't want to hear.

As far as I can see, there are two ways at looking at this thread.

The first is to assume that KMB is not being disingenuous but is genuinely wondering “ Why are proponents of “diverse sexuality” not supporting the poor, ostracised Deaves family?”


Given his/her assertion that the thread was initiated as a genuine conundrum the answer is simple and could have been provided with the very first post:

Sexuality and sexual practices are two separate things.

Sexuality refers to “the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive role”
- the example given for understanding this concept for those who might still remain in the dark is the sentence “she didn’t want to know the sex of her foetus” based on Princeton University’s Word net definition. “The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex” the American Heritage Dictionary explains.

Thus it becomes clear that the phrase “ diverse sexuality” refers to gender. “Proponents” of diverse sexuality, i.e. those who understand the meaning of the phrase, acknowledge that gender cannot be reserved only for male and female categorization. Objectively, sexuality exists in more than these two delineations and extends to hermaphrodite and cross gendered organisms. Sexuality is therefore, diverse.

Thus incest, bestiality, oral sex, anal sex or any other sexual practices indulged in by any organisms belonging to the diverse categories of gender, are a completely separate subject. Objection to, or support for any or all sexual practices is subjective and depends on an individual’s personal preference, religious background, moral framework, politics and other.

Comprehension of these concepts therefore shows that there is no connection, or indeed any earthly reason why those who understand the meaning of “diverse sexuality” should logically be assumed to support any particular sexual practices nor to condemn any others.

The other way of looking at this thread of course is, as has already been suggested, that KMB is indeed a troll seeking to mask personal homophobia in a disingenuous manner.

In this case the answer is also very simple. Discontinue feeding

Romany,
You conflate diverse sexuality with gender diversity.
If sexuality is as intrinsic as gender then why do some heterosexuals become homosexuals?
You might argue that they were always homosexual and were living a lie because of societal homophobia.
But what of the homosexuals who revert to heterosexuality?
Ex-gays face a very difficult time from the homosexual community because they expose the myth that underlies your argument.
Not surprisingly, proponents of “Genetic Sexual Attraction” http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/ follow a similar pattern of reasoning whereby they associate their incestuous feelings/behaviour with “who they are”.

Foxy.
Earlier you said Cleopatra was attractive regardless of the inbreeding.
This is contested. The prevailing view in scientific circles is that she was unattractive.
She was said to be beautiful because that's what the palace scribes were told to write.
It' only with recent scientific advances that people have an accurate idea of what she looked like and apparently it's rather ugly.

Divorce Doctor - you say that politically correct orthodoxy reigns supreme on OLO.

Bulldust.

PC's what people in a minority say when others disagree with them. Everyone here is free to say what they wish within reason, and there's plenty of people with opinions way outside the box, be they the anti-feminist brigade, anti-muslims, anti-christian, anti-left or anti-right.

So, allow me to express myself in all my politically incorrect glory: your commentary here is pissweak whingeing. Of course people disagree.

Maybe you feel 'oppressed'. Well, you're doing the same 'oppression' to supposedly PC people, which translates to just being mad that more people disagree with you than agree.

PC enough for you?

Great. Go nuts in your reply, say whatever you wish, but don't pretend to be some kind of martyr.

KMB - as far as the 'in your face' argument goes in relation to homosexuality... it doesn't hold water. It's logically unsound. Firstly, unless you hold fears you may be converted, what's the risk that comes from this supposed pro-gay propaganda? I'm not playing the "you think you may be gay?" card, I don't think that, but I'm asking an honest question.
Secondly - unless you have an issue with the core subject, how can the 'in your face' nature of it be an issue? For example, if you have no problem with puppies, would you be bothered by seeing a lot of puppy adverts?
What is the problem with people asking to be treated like everyone else?

If you stop looking for these pro-gay messages, you'll find they leave you alone. I don't seem to notice any and my heterosexuality remains unaffected by this supposed conspiracy.

Live and let live. Quite simple.

KMB -
no, I'm not conflating two concepts - it appears to be you who has either deliberately or genuinely misunderstood the common understanding of the term.

I am at a loss to understand why you seek to establish a link between homosexuality and incest if you really have a clear understanding and knowledge of these subjects.

Directing me to some obscure site which states clearly and unequivably what its aims are - and which nowhere states any reason for the link you infer it will provide between homosexuality and incest did one thing, however. It clearly illuminates your intentions in opening this thread and that you have used it to express some bee you have in your bonnet about homosexuality.

I've asbolutely no interest in discussing this very passe subject. The sex lives of my friends either gay or straight is of no pressing concern to me and those of complete strangers interest me even less.

In fact I find this interest in what other people do in bed - or wherever - by certain OLO posters to be both puzzling and rather distasteful.

Romany
The thrust (if you’ll forgive me for talking about what people do in their bedrooms but you started it with your talk of oral sex and anal sex)) of your argument appears to be that homosexuality is an identity and that incest is a sexual practice.
The comments in the linked site demonstrate that these people see GSA as part of their identity.
If we accept this for other proponents of diverse sexuality why shouldn’t we for the incestuous?
Why should we relegate them into the sexual practices basket as you have arbitrarily done?

TurnRightThenLeft
The “in your face” part of the objection comes from my son and my neighbour’s daughter each coming home from different primary schools on separate occasions worried that they might be homosexual based on ignorant, propagandising teachers telling their respective classes that “10% of you will be gay”.
Why should innocents be exposed to concepts which don’t belong in the classroom?
Why should the >98% be lumbered with the problems of the <2%?

And yet KMB, that still doesn't answer the question. If you didn't have an issue with it, then the alleged 'propaganda' wouldn't be an issue.

Furthermore it's dross because people just ain't swayed that easily. If your son or daughter is heterosexual then they'll be attracted to the opposite sex. If they're not, they won't be. Thus, I really don't see the threat.

Again, your claims seem to be founded on illogical concepts.

TurnRightThenLeft,

When your question is answered I suspect CJ will be vindicated to a degree.

With all due respect I don't believe you should be claiming that all KMB's claims are based on illogical concepts. Possibly they are but you have not established that and his feigned call for incestous rights has not been successfully challenged.

I believe KMB is at fault for giving that impression by not challenging the comment which seems to underly your belief:

"Firstly, unless you hold fears you may be converted, what's the risk that comes from this supposed pro-gay propaganda?"

Surely you must be aware that a sizeable portion of the population fail to embrace the "pro-gay propaganda" and these base their reaction on things other than some type of introspection about their sexual preferences. This could relate to gay identity, homosexual behaviour, or some particular political issue such as gay marriage/adoption. Underlying the objection could be beliefs as diverse as homosexual behaviour is offensive to Allah or children are better raised by a mother and a father whenever possible.

I'm suspecting that when KMB answers your question he will admit to a negativity. He has indicated that his son and neighbour's daughter are getting pro-gay education at primary school. It stands to reason that if he has a problem with "gay propaganda" that he would not warm to that. If your son and neighbour's daughter were taught 6 day creationism in primary school would you logically necessarily believe that your sexual preference or attitude to religion were prone to change to have a problem with it? As an atheist KMB would probably feel the same. This is just another example which relates to his attitudes.