Discrimination of any kind is a bad thing. this is an indisputable fact.

Having said that, it is also true to to say that most discrimination is caused by the perception of one group towards another.
In the ensuing information/propaganda exchange received and supplied by all groups, further mythology is generated.
The gap between the truth and reality increases even more.

In any free society we would not discriminate against people making lifestyle choices,
providing those choices were not anti-social or destructive.
This of course is a basic tenet for any civil libertarian, "but when apportioning rights regarding people making lifestyle choices
it is important that the facts remain relevant".

In the case of the Gay debate we are asked to accept the proposition, that a gay gene exists.
No proof exists of the existence of such a gene. This is the fact.

We are expected to accept that 5/10% of us will possess this gay gene.

The percentage of people making gay lifestyle choices in a normal society have
throughout history been much much lower than that, and today are much lower than that.

Historically (in the absence of science enabling people living gay lifestyles to generate children),
the very absence of available science must have limited the amount/contribution
the gay gene has made to the overall gene pool by using the logic associated with this argument. I think this is unlikely.

I think it a disproportionate view of reality to accept that people are born gay,
without absolute proof of that?. Is it discriminatory of me to even say this?
I hope not, as a committed civil libertarian.

Gay lifestyles should be accepted as part of a normal framework of a normal society.
I don't have a problem with this. But then I ask myself the question,
"At any time in history pre science has the gay contribution/expertise to mankind been
well represented in the area or child rearing and descendancy".

I'm not sure that's correct?. Are their any figures on this ?.

What gives people an individual soul?

"I think it a disproportionate view of reality to accept that people are born gay,
without absolute proof of that?. Is it discriminatory of me to even say this?
I hope not, as a committed civil libertarian."

It is not discriminatory it is just an opposing view and asking questions is not a constraint of liberty. For many parents of a gay child there are often signs from a very young age even if those signs are not fully articulated or understood or even set in concrete. This suggests a biological mechanism rather than a social one but either might be possible without more extensive study/research. Maybe some people are gay or bisexual for other reasons but even if that were the case, as a civil libertarian you would bestow that right for one to live as they choose using the no-harm principle. Regardless, the fact is gay people exist and that is a form of evidence - it is what it is.

"At any time in history pre science has the gay contribution/expertise to mankind been
well represented in the area or child rearing and descendancy".

We wouldn't know as there would be no data. Given the historical attitudes to homosexuality many gays would be married but living a lie, many went into the Church. Gay people are present in many different occupations and have contributed just as any heterosexual has contributed. Sexuality does not influence the ability to 'contribute'.

"In the ensuing information/propaganda exchange received and supplied by all groups, further mythology is generated.
The gap between the truth and reality increases even more."

That is certainly possible in any debate but the fact is homosexuality has been around for centuries. It is not a peculiarly modern phenomenon which suggests something more at work than purely social/nuture factors. Moreso when you consider the dangers inherent in being openly homosexual even risk of death in medieval times.

"In the case of the Gay debate we are asked to accept the proposition, that a gay gene exists."

Not at all. You are asked to accept the proposition that sexual orientation is likely to have a biological basis and is not just a 'lifestyle choice'.

Not all phenotypic characteristics have a heritable genetic basis, eg. a 'gay gene'. There are plenty of phenotypic characters that are developmentally controlled or at least developmentally influenced. For example, nutrition is one factor that can have a great effect on brain development. Physiological stress in the mothers womb can also exert effects on development. Epigenetic mechanisms can also create phenotypic variability independently of genetic 'hardwiring'.

Please stop thinking that just because something may have a biological basis it must be genetic, or that if it's not genetic it must be a conscious 'choice'. This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy.

Thinker 2 are you saying that gay people "choose" to be sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm glad Pelican that it is OK to pose the question. And their is no doubt that homosexuality has been part of human relationships historically. However I think the importance of this is overstated, the proportions exaggerated and the real truth about this disappearing into the distance.

What are childhood gay tendencies?, do they even exist?. Gay Myth 2.

In my own case at 11 yrs old, I found myself in professional theatre. Would my soprano voice and acting ability be considered evidence of gay childhood tendencies. Not by me or my society at that time.

In todays media some advocates of the gay cause would have us think that gay children are naturally more artistic or sensitive than non-gay children and should be encouraged.

Going back to being 11 again, the last thing on my mind at the time would have been contemplating my sexual orientation, even though cast into a situation that was among some really talented inspirational and wonderful people (who were really nice to me inc the gay ones) at the time.

Do todays 11 yr olds get to think about the things 11 yr olds normally think about?.
I'm concerned that childhood is being sacrificed for advocates and interest groups.

I challenge the notion that sexual orientation has anything at all to do with artistic ability
or sensitivity in the human organism. Any more than it would in the community at large.

The percentage of gay people with artistic ability is probably about the same
as the rest of us.

And Bugsy in recent news there have been reports of substances now banned in
Australia that are pesticides known to affect the birth cycle and mimic the female
hormone oestrogen. This has been in the food chain for a long time.
Equally there is a chemical used to harden plastics of equal gravitas, toxicity, nature etc yet to banned in this country.
It is used in the manufacture of babies bottles.

I will look for links on these subjects.

Rudy and Stg can I post again re your very curly questions ?.