.

Dear Foxy,

.

In my view, the State is already too intrusive in the private lives of individuals.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates :

« 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. »

Private life includes an individual’s physical and psychological integrity, personal or private space, the collection and publication of personal information, personal identity, personal autonomy and sexuality, self-development, relation with others and reputation.

Family includes engaged couples, cohabiting couples and same-sex couples, relationships with siblings, foster parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates :

« Article 2 : The Convention applies to all children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they come from. It doesn’t matter where children live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they are boys or girls, what their culture is, whether they have a disability or whether they are rich or poor. No child should be treated unfairly on any basis.

Article 3 : The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children. »

.

ttbn,

Still misrepresenting what I say, I see.

<<AJ Philips comes up with: I am man; I find nothing about me uninteresting.>>

Where did I say or imply anything of the sort?

<<Most posters here don't feel the need to announce what what they "know a bit about"...>>

Actually, they do when it's relevant. And so they should too. Off the top of my head, we have two retired police, a nurse, a few scientists, several small business owners and a lawyer, and all mention their credentials to explain to armchair experts like yourself that they do actually have some idea of what it is that they're talking about when it adds necessary weight to what they say.

It can be a real time-saver.

<<I'm obviously stupid because you say so...>>

Whether or not you are is independent of what I think. There’s also acting stupid and being a stupid person.

<<...but you do not have a weakness because I say so.>>

I have already confessed to a low tolerance for stupidity, if it makes you any happier.

<<...save to say that you ate straight out of a textbook.>>

Nope, I've seen and analysed a lot of data; I've read others' interpretations of what various datasets are saying; and I've conducted my own secondary research in meta-analyses. A damn sight more than sitting in an armchair.

There's nothing wrong with textbooks either.

Jay of Melbourne,

I don't know of any studies that show figures as stark as this...

<<…it was only when the study was extended to include 16 year olds that the figure jumped up to over 20%.>>

The ones I saw on the Wiki link you provided didn't seem to suggest any such trend. Even if that is the case, though, it's really not an argument for or against anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that most might grow out of (a form of (probably just curiosity and experimentation and not actual homosexuality)) same-sex attraction, adds nothing to the debate and nor does it say anything about the rightness or goodness of homosexuality.

AJ Philips,

I meant that YOU/YOUR PERSONALITY came out of a text book. As in you as a case. You are pretty slow on the uptake for someone who calls other people stupid.

ttbn, I don't think anyone's personality has any bearing on the subject of this thread, There is no way you can know anyone's personality by merely reading their posts to this forum.
I have no doubt that many people misrepresent themselves and their lives anyway, under the cover of anonymity.

What is a textbook personality anyway?
Do you think all personalities are strange except people like you?
You must feel humble in your own presence.....

I don’t see how this renders me slow, ttbn.

<<I meant that YOU/YOUR PERSONALITY came out of a text book. As in you as a case.>>

I think you are just making it up as you go now to save face.

Here’s the full quote: “I'm not going to BS about my credentials, save to say that you ate straight out of a textbook.”

I don’t think there are any idioms or metaphors involving eating out of anything, let alone eating straight out of a textbook, that are meant to imply that someone has a particular kind of personality. Being a textbook case of something? Yes, and even then, you'd need to specify what they were a textbook case of. But eating out of a textbook? No.

To “eat out of something” could, however, be loosely be interpreted as gullibly “swallowing” something, so my slightly more literal interpretation appears to have been the more reasonable one.

[How that follows from not BS-ing about one's credentials, though, I don’t know.]

<<You are pretty slow on the uptake for someone who calls other people stupid.>>

I didn’t actually call anyone stupid, but I'm tempted to now after that last effort. I did refer to what you did/said as stupidity though. In retrospect, perhaps I should have just referred to what you did as clumsiness or foolishness? Does that sit better with you?

Either way, this is just one big attempt to distract from the fact that your armchair-expert opinion had already been discredited before you even said it.

Would someone tell A.J. Philips, the scientific facts of the reproductive organs, and why there are two genders. As all alternatives are a perversion of the physical reality. He does not want to face the scientific facts as it weakens his emotive argument, as long as there is an orifice a penis can penetrate it is OK by him. That might be his choice but it is not based in the reality of biological or medical fact.

I wouldn't allow A.J Philips to teach my children, yes I am discriminating because I believe in biological reality.

Are most effeminate homosexuals developed from how they were toilet trained? Do Bike gangs that practise homosexual acts do it for brotherly bonding not from being born homosexual?