Thread: Qualifications for parents

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

It happens in the animal kingdom. Humans are just another example of it happening in the animal kingdom.

I know what is trying to be said but it doesn't prove it is natural in the human race. The logic is erroneous. That is not to say it is not natural in the human race, it just can not be proven with this line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by frank47

I know what is trying to be said but it doesn't prove it is natural in the human race. The logic is erroneous. That is not to say it is not natural in the human race, it just can not be proven with this line of reasoning.

Well what do you define as unnatural? We aren't giving someone a chemical to make them become homosexual. We aren't performing some operation on them to make them homosexual.

If it's natural when other animals do it in the animal kingdom why wouldn't it be natural if humans do it?

Originally Posted by Bruno

There is NOTHING that humans can do that a significant percentage of the animal kingdom isn't doing also.

I've never seen a chimpanzee write an essay.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

I've never seen a chimpanzee write an essay.

Fair enough. But I was talking about sexual activity.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

We aren't giving someone a chemical to make them become homosexual. We aren't performing some operation on them to make them homosexual.

No, but maybe just to help them along the road a bit.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Well what do you define as unnatural? We aren't giving someone a chemical to make them become homosexual. We aren't performing some operation on them to make them homosexual.

If it's natural when other animals do it in the animal kingdom why wouldn't it be natural if humans do it?

NYCshaver, I'm not saying it wouldn't be natural. All I was saying is that you have not PROVED and cannot PROVE that homosexuality in the human race is natural from your line of reasoning. The following is not meant to upset anyone - boy I hate to have to preamble comments but I quess we need to today. What if I posit (and again I don't necessarily agree) that homosexuality in the human race is the result of

1) a genetic disorder

and/or

2) juvenile peer group pressure

What you demonstrated would still hold true but neither 1) or 2) is natural. The first is a defect (not normal) and the second is nothing more than group influence.

Does a person have to have had an operation or some chemical to become a murderer? See what I mean?

Does that help. If not let me know and I will try again.

BTW, I shaved today with a DE razor (usually I go str8, no pun intended) and it was still fun and nostalgic. Got a BBS out of it also. I will not though use one of those plastic face rakes.

Originally Posted by mhailey

While this may be true in Oz (I make no comment on their laws), in the US this is far from true.

On the other hand the case under discussion is in UK and has nothing to do with US laws, so your comments on US laws are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mhailey

This is my problem with the issue presented in this thread. The unpopular minority (or shall I say unpopular silent majority) is being denied the ability to foster a child because of their unpopular speech.

And then you have to also consider the same argument for the other side. Potentially homosexual child (minority) is being placed under the authority of people who believe that child is constantly acting out of his/her free choice against their beliefs.
Now to my knowledge the current laws in UK and US do not consider homosexuality to be a crime or aberrant behavior, anymore and that is fairly important.

My question is why you, being a lawyer, appear so concerned with the protection of a religious minority i.e. the parents but don't even consider the possibility of the rights of a homosexual minority. Seems like a personal bias trumping professional integrity. But setting that apart which minority rights are more worthy of protection in this case?

Originally Posted by frank47

What if I posit (and again I don't necessarily agree) that homosexuality in the human race is the result of

1) a genetic disorder

and/or

2) juvenile peer group pressure

Both seem unlikely to me.
Number one because the same supposed genetic deviation would have to be present in the 1500+ species in which it exists as well.
Number 2 is unlikely for the same reason. Peer pressure doesn't work the same way in the animal kingdom yet the trait emerges there as well.

I also don't think that there are more today than 50 years ago.
I only think that those people stayed in the closet because they knew they would be ostracized. And I perfectly get why Iran claims that they don't have homosexuals. If I had the certainty that I would be stoned to death for being who I was, I'd probably also choose to be miserable and alive.

However, there is a second argument against peer pressure.
Some of the gay people I know are really effeminate. More so than most women even. And they have been like that practically their entire life. So it is not like peer pressure made them like this. Especially since a) at the time this emerges, they still don't have a clue about sexuality and b) peer pressure is usually against them.

Ultimately, I think (duh) that sexual preference is wired in the brain, and probably genetic, but not through a specific 'yes or no' gay gen. I think it is more something along the lines of percentage of probability, hence the existence of people that are really effeminate, people that are gay but you'd never guess, people that are bi-sexual, people that are straight, ...

I could be wrong of course.

Originally Posted by frank47

1) a genetic disorder

and/or

2) juvenile peer group pressure

What you demonstrated would still hold true but neither 1) or 2) is natural. The first is a defect (not normal) and the second is nothing more than group influence.

1) The genetic composition of humans still occurs naturally, mostly because of unresolved technological and ethic issues, so even if you call something a 'disorder' it's still natural. Of course, if you start defining 'disorders' based on genetics only you're getting into a territory of unjustified arbitrariness, since most of us are genetically unique.

2) The bias is against homosexuality and that's what the statistics support. I.e. most homosexuals grow up in heterosexual environment and most children of homosexual couples are heterosexual.
Furthermore in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered a virtue - that's an actual example of peer pressure. Pretty important civilization with great accomplishments and influence to our current society.

It's actually fairly complicated and quite an interesting issue. If you have a taste for analytical thinking there's a lot of scientific articles on it.

Originally Posted by frank47

Does a person have to have had an operation or some chemical to become a murderer? See what I mean?

Even though with chemicals people's behavior can be altered dramatically, its not necessary. Placed in certain conditions almost everybody can become unrecognizable. You've probably heard of the stanford prison experiment in 1971 but there are many others that demonstrate these things.
So, for example, when you see a former prison guard act as the biggest jerk on a shaving forum you can sort of give him the benefit of doubt that his mental issues are environmentally caused.

Good points Bruno and Gugi. I really hated to posit my ideas since now I feel I have to defend a position I don't necessarily agree with. Having said that, Bruno, it still doesn't work equating humans to the 1500+ homosexual animals since the rest of the kingdom is immune to such behavior. So... at least 1) cannot be defended from that position.

Number 2) is far more problematic as gugi points out that maybe all these young kids were in hiding until it became "cool" to be gay. He may be right but I still claim the numbers support what I posited (again I'm just arguing from the other side being the devil's advocate) since anecdotally I don't ever remember seeing so many "gender challenged" kids in my younger (50+ years) days. All the guys in my neighborhood wanted to and did chase girls with a passion. It's hard to believe these guys, some of which I still know today and show no hint of being gender challenged, were and still are in hiding.

Which leaves me to the real point that I don't think anyone really knows what is going on with this subject, shrinks included. From a lay man's point of view I think that the real issue with homosexuality is brought on by the militant subset that displays and pushes their behavior down everyone's throat. This causes a lot of people to dislike these people more for their outward behavior than what they do behind closed doors.

Again like Gugi said, I can be wrong.