Justin, Khethil and Zetherin,
Thank you for your kind remarks, though Khethil it saddens me that you had to use to such deplorable atrocities that would elevate any behavior, regardless of what it is. Gee!

You all know me pretty well and my outburst was very uncharacteristic and I apologize. I have already apologized to Zetherin, though since he bore the brunt of my "hostility", he is due another one.

Anyone who questions homosexuality is immediately deemed un-credible as to anything they have to say, regardless of temperament, accuracy, common sense, logic or normalcy in which they are exhibiting. I am of the opinion, me and those like me are not homophobes in that it is not so much that they are afraid, they cannot understand the lifestyle. I understand it and I even get into trouble.

But in today's world the child virtually has no voice.

Unfortunately, me and what make's me, me, I don't conform to the axiom, out of sight, out of mind, meaning if events like the folsum street fair don't enter my personal domain, I am don't care what they do. If that were the case, of course we would not be discussing this now. Personally, I don't care what "anyone" does in their private domain, that's okay with me. But when I saw an innocent child in the crowd at that disgusting event, I flipped. Now those who, for reasons of your own don't feel a child in that crowd at that event is disgusting, then we are in a whole lot of trouble and our children in so much more. Here is the link I left with Zetherin from the pages of NARTH. A group dedicated to help those homosexuals who wish to escape that life style. If you wish to peruse that sight, please be my guest and read what ex-gays have to say about that life style and the affect of a gay home has on a child. At the time of my anger, I had no such sight, but since have found it and it wasn't easy.

It does strike me that, to people of William's opinion - the distinction between being pro-gay and pro-equality is impossible to comprehend.

To me there are some examples of deleterious factors involved in the circumstances of families with "eccentric" make ups, however what I beleive accounts for these factors is not so much the eccentricity (to degrees, I'm sure we can all think of circumstances we all think are harmful to expose kids to) but the social ostracism that those in harmlessly eccentric units face from bigots.

It does strike me that, to people of William's opinion - the distinction between being pro-gay and pro-equality is impossible to comprehend.

They have more of a voice today then they have ever had. Take a look at youtube or some of these forums, all of us have a voice that cannot compare with being raised and trapped within a small community for our entire lives and being spoon fed traditions of the past. The reach of a voice is so much further today than ever before.

If you would would you please define for me what your definition of equality is?

......(is there an "ideal" family composition, what is that composition?)

Thanks

If the suits spit in your face but the freaks are friendly you're going to fraternise with the freaks.

The negative upshot of this is that the suits get to go "look, they hang around with freaks - we knew their was something up with them."

An historical trend, it seems to me, is that people who are observably "other" have tended to be denied the rights of the majority.

Now it used to be that people with darker tones of skin were denied the rights availble to those of lighter tones, and similar arguements as those you have given for judging homosexuals to be less worthy of parenthood were posited for them to be socially restricted. Savage, less moral, more given to criminal activity, etc.

The same happened to Jewish people and to women, in their own way. Perportedly scientific studies showed it to be "true". However, posterity has thusfar favoured sociological studies which tended to point out that social factors, such as being denied rights, being the subject of institutional abuse, being economically deprived, and being denied a political voice were much more to blame for the (real or perceived) poor behaviour of minorities than intrinsic characteristics of the minorities themselves.

In this regard it has become more fashionable, within the 'western' world to treat these particular minorities as equals to the majority. Equal as in regards to the degree to which individuals are considered worthy of rights. Parity of esteem.

I'm sure you know all this already.

Now my hunch is that people such as yourself who seem to me to suggest that there is something intrinsically and deleteriously aberrant about homosexuals are in relation to those who opposed the suffragette movement or sneered at civil rights.

I think Khethil was constructing a straw man argument when he pointed out that a child abused to death and being fed to a woodchipper would undoubtably be better off with a homosexual couple. I think the argument is a lot simpler to make than that - a child would be better off being looked after by a pair of reasonable, loving adults than languishing in a care home, yet children do languish in care homes.

However, you have been making straw men arguments yourself - such as repeatedly claiming that homosexuals are representative of attendants to a fetish street party. Not all homosexuals are interested in the fetish scene, not all those interested in the fetish scene are homosexual (I suspect a minority are myself). The fetish scene is one of the few that tends to offer homosexuals parity of esteem though - hence why some homosexuals may want to loudly support it and attend in numbers which may be disproportionate.

If the suits spit in your face but the freaks are friendly you're going to fraternise with the freaks.

The negative upshot of this is that the suits get to go "look, they hang around with freaks - we knew their was something up with them."

To me it's quite clear that a large minority of very diverse people are being denied equality and (by extension) liberty by those who seek to characterise them through negative stereotypes, something we have seen before for blacks, women and jews. Under such conditions it is hardly surprising that some of them act up, or that households including people who are overtly homosexual are subject to stresses that do not affect 'normal' people.

So I personally plant my flag firmly in the camp that wants to offer such people parity of esteem - because my hunch tells me that once parity of esteem is established a lot of the basis for these negative stereotypes will prove to be either falacious, or a symptom of oppression.

Thanks Khethil,
When it comes to ideals life is about developing those ideals. They just don't exist in a "natural" state with the exceptions of the pure elements that make up the periodic chart. Those are ideals, unless they can be broken down farther.

The ideal family is the Mother, Father, and Child biologically connected. That's were the ideal ends. If you replace any one of those with a facsimile, you contaminate that ideal universal paradigm. It doesn't matter what the "element" that constitutes the Father, or the "element" that constitutes the Mother, they will make the ideal child that will be a "mixture" of both. That child needs has to adapt to those elements the make up his "being". There are no substitutes that will offer what that child needs. There will be missing links to all those communications he receives from those sources he/she is composed of. This is what I referred to in an earlier post as to a "psychic" link. I can't define it, it's just common sense. Well, it is to me any way.

Now here is where I need help. But first we must agree on what I have espoused so far. If you do not, we must solve that problem before we go on. Okay.

William