At what point is a debate about homosexuality not a debate about homosexuality, but homosexuality is still at the debates core?

As example I give you two old homosexual men who through surrogacy now are a family of three. Elton John and his missus got so bored with life that they now have brought a life into this world to amuse and fulfill their pampered and exaltedly hedonistic old bags of skin. The journo,s words describing the child laying on the old men’s chests immediately after the birth made me puke.

This debate on the rights of two old faggots to legally and morally "own" a child, and congruently should all the rights of heterosexual couples be accorded to homosexual couples , could easily transition to the moral aspects of homosexuality which engenders input from the pros the cons and the homophobic.

How much of a protected species can a subject be, especially if the ongoing acts of that subject go directly against historical cultural acceptance?

sonofgloin,

It's not a debate about homosexuality - it's a debate about freedom of speech.

Poirot:>> It's not a debate about homosexuality - it's a debate about freedom of speech.<<

Thanks Poirot I understand that, hence the last bit about a protected species, possibly intimating to the intuitive that a protected species cannot be libeled verbally or in print.

The post was not a slagging off of homosexuals, or about homosexuals, it was about two old men playing mummy and daddy with a real child. As I said in the post on this subject, even though homosexuality is not the core issue it would come into the debate as a major factor, once again alluding to subjects that are off limits, or the freedom of speech you believe I did not address.

Am I writing in Chinese here Poirot, you seem to understand very little? No offense.

I find it interesting - why certain people and acts - rather than other people and different acts - are considered deviant. Many types of behaviour become "deviant" it seems because they offend "some" people's moral codes. Certain "moral enterpreneurs" such as religious groups or citizens committees, try to arouse public opinion against behaviours they disapprove of, such as homosexuality, abortion, vagrancy, pornography, and so one. The ensuing argument becomes a clash of competing moralities in which the winners declare themselves to be normal and the losers to be deviant and immoral. In general, the decision to stigmatize or even criminalize particular acts will depend on which of the contending groups has the most wealth, power, prestige, and other resources. For example, begging in the street is considered deviant, but living in idleness of inherited wealth is not.

I’ll ignore the “hollow ring” of antipathy and declination of “off” topic remarks by the homosexual lobby in these pages, and soldier on for the cause of the “moral majority” of which I am a proud member!

Without appearing as a conspiracy theorist, I feel the homosexual lobby have much to gain in using whatever means they feel necessary to close balanced web-sites such as OLO.

It is simply not balance but domination they call for!

Diver Dan:

The "Moral Majority" is Neither!