Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_asbestosman]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

[_Droopy]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

I guess this went right over your head?

[_Droopy]

Notwithstanding the certainty with which you assert the above 'facts,' it appears that several important people and institutions, including the California Supreme Court, disagree with you.

Which, as I have made clear to Moniker, is exactly the point at issue. This court, following several decades of judicial usurpation of that which the constitution reserves to legislatures or the people (through referendums), is legislating its own ideological predilections, and should simply return to its legitimate constitutional functions and otherwise mind its own business.

You take an interesting position for someone living in a free socieety: shut up and obey the elites.

I wonder how same sex marriage is forcing someone else's values on you. How, precisely, are you affected if two gay men marry? What's the exact source and type of imposition you suffer?

Are you really so naïve? Attaching the concept of marriage to the concept of homosexuality alters and reframes the concept of marriage for everyone, throughout the entire culture. It deprivileges heterosexual marriage while creating conceptual and moral equivalence between normative marriage and homosexual cohabitation (and, by extension, heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage).

It seems to me that denying gays the right (or privilege, whatever you want to call it) to marry (due I suspect to religious beliefs), are you not in a much more tangible way imposing YOUR values on them?

Yes I am, which is something majorities in a free society have the right to do when the minority in question's demands are not part of the basic rights found in the constitution (and homosexual marriage, let along the heterosexual variety, is nowhere to be found in that document) and which threaten the moral and social fabric of that society in a very significant manner.

So, in other words, the California Supreme Court has denied you, and those like you, the right to impose your religious values on others, and it really irks the hell out of you.

The California Supreme Court has legislated their own ideology, overturning the will of the people as clearly expressed in state referenda, and cast the 10th Amendment out of the constitution. The decision, whether it involves results you happen to like ideologically, is essentially, extra legal, the court having no jurisdiction over the issue.

[_Trevor]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

Exactly. As with certain views of Mormonism, one has to wonder whether the vision presented here is something desirable even if it is arguable.

[_Droopy]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

Exactly. As with certain views of Mormonism, one has to wonder whether the vision presented here is something desirable even if it is arguable.

Hmmm. Went right over Trevor's head as well. But no shocker that.

[_Trevor]

Hmmm. Went right over Trevor's head as well. But no shocker that.

Quit wasting bandwidth Coggins. You are a blight on the internet.

[_Moniker]

Did the Constitution outline many things legislatively that were later decided constitutional according to the justices, Coggins? I bet you love the Interstate Commerce Clause, eh?

I'm not a big fan of the Commerce Clause as its been used for much of the last century the justify ever more expansive congressional control over said commerce. I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

I figured the Commerce Clause would be a buggeroo for you. The "right to privacy" is not in the United States Constitution nor is the right to a public education --yet, these (and others "rights") are found within our society and whether we disagree with them or not based on our ideologies is beside the point. They're constitutional in the sense that they are upheld by the Justices as being constitutional. That was the point I was trying to get at.

That there are families that currently raise children that get tax breaks, and other benefits from the federal and state governments because they are a family unit and that other families that only differ 'cause two of the parents are the same sex is clearly discrimination.

It may be, but all discrimination is not bad discrimination. People who have a good driving record or do not smoke receive cuts in their insurance premiums. Are you against this? The nuclear family is the basis of a free, civil society. Homosexual cohabitations are not. The government has a compelling interest in encouraging the success of those families that does not exist with either heterosexual or homosexual cohabitation.

I agree with you that behaviors can be the basis for what options (or breaks) are afforded to certain people in our society. I think the government should either get out of encouraging success of certain families or encourage it for all. I hate to do stories... yet, I have one. There's a lesbian couple I know (they're not lipstick lesbians, sorry) that are raising 2 children from one of the woman's previous marriage. The children are now in their early teens and the only parents they've ever known are Mommy biological and Mommy raised them since they were toddlers. This is a family, they actually do go to Church at a progressive Christian denomination, go to parent teacher conferences together, take the kids to outings, have birthday parties, make sacrifices for those children and are fantastic care givers -- why should the woman that has raised these children be given less rights than a man that is essentially a sperm donor and then deserts his family. He can go and see his kids when they're in the hospital (this dad that doesn't show up), he can demand visitation, he can demand to make decisions on care for his kids, etc... etc... I just see many different types of "families" and understand that when there are two adults that care for kids then it is in the children's best interest if they are supported by the community in their endeavor to raise them.

That people who form stable, nuclear families in which children are present are given an extra economic incentive to do so, while easing the cost of raising those children once they appear on the scene, is a credible government policy (personally, I believe there should be one, low, fair tax rate upon all, and that all vestiges of tax progressivity be eliminated from the American tax system). Homosexuals can do what they please in this country, with the constitution's blessing, but reframing and altering the concept of family and its fundamental socio-cultural meaning to suit there own cultural predilections is not one of them

What about the couple above, Coggins? Why does the dad still get to claim them as deductions every other year and get the EIC every other year if he so chooses and yet, the woman that actually raises his children can not legally marry these children's mother and be given parental rights that the father would gladly relinquish. He wants to relinquish it so that he won't pay child support, yet, the local courts will not allow for that until another MAN adopts these children. I'm not pretending there are easy answers to these questions and there won't be messes created in our judiciary because of changing the scope of what we consider families -- yet, to pretend that children are always being protected by this notion that only families that exist in someone elses home is the "right" way does not deal with reality for these kids.

Families already are different than the nuclear family in many instances. Kids have step-parents, are being raised by grandparents, foster parents, etc... and if we actually cared about the kids we would recognize these families and try to support them.

Your notion that families are only 2 parents of opposite sex and that they raise children and get all the benefits from the local and federal government where as others do not is not very well thought out. If the government wants to get rid of giving perks to all families I'm cool with that -- just be across the board with it.

See above, but I have no problem with the government giving traditional families in which children are present economic help in the form of lower taxes. Homosexuality involves no child bearing or rearing function, and is hence meaningless in a overall societal context relative to that society's commitment to future generations. Further, the homosexual sub-culture and its general sexual practices are wholly inimical to the moral, psychological, and, as the AIDS epidemic in the eighties showed, physical health and security its people. Homosexuality, especially as expressed as the "Gay" sub-culture and identity, is incompatible with a morally coherent society.

Homosexuals do have children, Coggins. They already have families in many instances! What do you do with these families? Why should the kids be punished 'cause others deem that their families are not what our society considers acceptable in terms of tax breaks, and economic help. Who does that help? Who does that hurt?

Obviously the California Supreme Court feels differently than you do -- go to law school, work your ass off and get appointed to a Supreme Court and then deal with it.

Which really has nothing to do with anything, because, in a very significant way, this entire issue really isn't about homosexual marriage at all, but about the usurpation of deliberative democracy by judicial oligarchy that is little different than living under the dictates of a monarch or a totalitarian politburo. As I said before, this issue had no business going before the court at all, any more than Roe had any business being decided by the judiciary. These are matters for the states and for the people within the framework of legislative democracy whose decisions are subject to the consent of the governed.

The courts have the ability under our constitution and state constitutions to declare certain legislation unconstitutional. Do you recall amendments, Coggins? Can the citizens of any state or our republic actually be denied their ability to shape their state or nation? No. They can ratify those constitutions. Do you forget that every check has a balance?

Or vote for representatives that will appoint judges that will rule according to your social conscience --

I do, but I'd much rather return to the constitution more fully and simply put this kind of divisive cultural warfare out of the reach of the judiciary and back to the legislatures where they belong.

You again forget that the Judiciary is again checked by the popular vote in the way of amendments.

yet, the idea that those things you disagree with are somehow unconstitutional just because you deem them so is not reality.

I'm making rational arguments about them based upon an educated knowlege of the issues. If you cannot do that, then exit the thread or rebut my points logically and evidentially.

I understand the issues, too, Coggins. Yet, I understand that only what the Justices rule creates what is deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. That earlier decisions are overturned shows how this process is not stagnant.

I'm not exiting the thread.

Every time the court sneezes SOMEONE says it's unconstitutional -- nope! That the courts overturn earlier decisions shows how with the time and social conscience things change anyway.

Is this what you think passes for constitutional critique? I could care less about the judges "social conscience", as that has no relevance to the decisions they're supposed to be making. Social conscience is as social conscience does, and there different forms of it. I'm interested in the constitution as a legal document and the original intent of those who wrote it, not judge's ideological sentiments.

The original intent of those who wrote it would be interesting to see hashed out. Can you do a Hamilton vs. Jefferson ideological debate for me right now Coggins and see what they disagreed on with our nation? That good people can disagree on the scope of the Constitution and the way our country should head means that our Republic is healthy!

If you want to be a strict interpretor of the constitution then you need to stop receiving any federal aid from the college you attend. Send back all federal money that helped pay your children's way through school. The special education kids used to be kicked out of schools or those with disabilities. Oops, those darn justices somehow or another found a way to say that was unconstitutional even though it's not in the damn constitution.

In other words, either we dismantle the entire New Deal and Great Society today, or opposition to homosexual marriage and the homosexual rights agenda is, in some manner, hypocritical. I would, to be much more realistic, focus on one issue and one attack upon the constitution at a time, and not worry too much about perfect logical consistency, as such is impossible. Your prescription here is simple to let the political class and the courts take the country in whatever direction they desire without restraint, as any opposition on one issue or another while still benefiting from some government program (and I cannot for the life of me see the analogy between the compete redefinition of marriage and family and government subsidies to Beet farmers) can be labeled as hypocrisy. All of us are on welfare, of one form or another, including Social Security, from which one cannot opt out, so this leaves us a choice, according to you, of accepting everything the government or courts do a face value, or attack the most pressing issues first as they arise.

I just want you to recognize that we enjoy many luxuries today that you take for granted (and eagerly accept!) that were not within the framers original intent. You are a hypocrite if you don't recognize that you want the framers original intent to only apply to those that you deem it should apply to and greedily accept any perks you receive that were not originally intended.

Stop pretending you live up to your conservative principles when you received a public education, attend a state college where you receive part of your tuition paid for by the state, and that you don't get tax breaks 'cause you're married. You just don't like it when other folks get the same breaks you already enjoy!

First of all, I pay for my education out of pocket. Any subsidies only kick in as classes are added beyond a normal full load. Secondly, my public education, after about 6th grade, was abysmal, and the American public education system is at the bottom of the industrialized world in all major subjects. I had to go to public school, there was no choice in the matter unless my parents wanted to put me in private school, which they chose not to do.

If you go to a state run college you accept some funding from the state. Sorry to burst your bubble.

<snipped some 'cause I'm getting tired>

Now, perhaps you could try a serious, philosophically critical rebuttal to some of my positions.

If you put forth some philosophical critical arguments I could try. Why don't you start off with how the framers were all in lock step with how they viewed the Constitution and the future of our nation. I suggest you start with Hamilton and Jefferson.

by the way, Coggins were you cool with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down interracial marriage laws and deeming them unconstitutional in the late 60's??? The will of the people was overturned. Gasp! Horror!

I don't believe in interracial marriage laws. Whether the Supreme Court should have been the venue in which they were eliminated is entirely another question. The culture, at least outside the South, was already coming around to this in any case (the Boomer generation), and this is a quandary we see again and agian in the judicial wars: a tiny cadre of self anointed enlightened ones forcing change through fiat with the assumption that the benighted masses must be forced to conform to the enlightened one's "social conscience". The very idea that a tiny group of judges educated at Ivy League law schools are someone morally superior to the typical American citizen is an indication of raw hubris, not proper judicial temperament. As Robert Bork has long pointed out, we like many of the results of such decisions, but later we may be snared in the precedents their legal reasoning created.

The culture in the South in the late 60's was not coming about. Swimming pools were still filled in during the late 60's Coggins. There were still race riots going on. Why should one portion of our populace be discriminated against because of their color of their skin?

by the way, the majority of our founding fathers loved the privileged elite and this is why they feared the masses. Ivy League law school educations and riches outside the reach of most of our early citizens of our Republic is precisely why our founders set up our constitution as it is -- they liked elite and wealth. Shucks. So if we want to return to original intent then we need to embrace the elite. Figure out which aspects of the original intent you actually like and try to land on it, won't ya?

[_asbestosman]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

Exactly. As with certain views of Mormonism, one has to wonder whether the vision presented here is something desirable even if it is arguable.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you implying that it is arguable that the government should strip away the right to privacy (perhaps in the name of protecting us from crime, abuse, etc.)? If that's what you mean, I suppose I get the point and the parallel point that perhaps some views of Mormonism aren't so wonderful either (nothing intherently wrong with child marriages / lying to your spouse about polygamy if god commands it, etc.).

[_asbestosman]

I'm also not a big fan of the "right to privacy".

*shudder*

Just what I want--the government having the right to watch me do anything I do.

I guess this went right over your head?

Let's see if it did.

Do I think people should be able to do anything in the privacy of their homes? No. Child molesters, drug dealers, murderers, etc. should be justly punished even if they were doing it privately in their homes.

What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be able to put spy cameras in my home and everyone else's home just to make sure we aren't molesting children, murdering, etc. -- at least not without probable cause. And by the way (not that you'd disagreee) me being male does not count as "probable cause".

[Tator]

Beastie said:

First, you accused me of misrepresenting your thoughts. For example, according to you, you never said anal sex was disgusting. Forgive me for assuming that your frequent mention of excrement probably indicated you found it disgusting.

Kevin replied:

You misrepresented what I said. Yes, you did. Now you refer to my thoughts? You're admittedly engaging in psychanalysis then? One has to appreciate the context of my remarks in order to understand them. I was trying to explain how this would be a natural question from any child who understands exactly what the anus is for. Girl or boy, he or she has one, and uses it on a regular basis. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out what kind of questions will ensue from an inquiring infant.

The problem is that you resist reasonable responses to this “dilemma”. You’ve been given several good answers to why this isn’t going to be the huge issue you’re making it out to be. One is that even heterosexual sex sounds gross to children, who often interpret the event as “the man pees inside where the woman pees”. You dismiss this with a shrug, but “that’s different”, all because of procreation. Boy or girl, they know where pee comes from, Kevin. Trying to clarify how procreation takes place it doesn’t change that children often interpret the sex act in a gross sort of way, and that the anal sex issue isn’t going to be THAT different. Pee and poo. Yeah, all coming from the same general areas. So the fact that you insist that the anal sex would be fundamentally different to kids is a signal that it’s fundamentally different to YOU, and YOU’RE imaging what kids would obsess over: excrement. That came from somewhere, and that somewhere is your own mind. You didn’t just pull it out of thin air, and you’re not repeating it over and over because it means nothing to you. If it doesn’t fundamentally traumatize children to learn that something comes out of the penis in the exact same place that pee comes out of the penis, and that goes into the woman very near (or, in their minds, in the same place) where pee comes from, then it’s not going to fundamentally traumatize them to hear about anal sex, in the unlikely event that they would need to be told details about anal sex.

Moreover, you’ve been told, by people who have experienced this first-hand with their own kids, that kids really aren’t going to be asking these probing questions you imagine. Kids really do not want to hear or know details about their parents’ sex lives. If an adopted child asks about their own conception, any adoptive parent, whether gay or straight, could answer in the same manner. If a child asks about how a gay parent has sex, all that has to be said is the same thing that heterosexuals say if questions about other sex practices come up (or simply if adults have sex more than just the number of times it takes to procreate) – that sex is also about adults showing love to one another, and there are different ways that adults touch each other to show that love. That is going to appease a child who is young enough to not understand, already, about other forms of sexual expression.

One of the biggest problems parents commit in teaching kids about sex is that they give too much information. Just answer the question simply without details. They usually do not want details.

These seem like very reasonable answers to me, and your response is just “it’s different. Excrement”. So forgive me for assuming that you associate excrement with anal sex and would most likely find it repulsive. I think it’s a very reasonable assumption.

I said:

But some people do like excrement, so I should not have jumped to conclusions.

Kevin replied:

Don't be a smart ass. Yes, anal sex can be disgusting if messy. But it isn't always messy, apparently. That's what the enema kit is for. But unless a child is explained the function of the enema kit and sanitary procedures of the participants, a mess is what would be naturally understood.

Oh, please. Quit insulting our intelligence. It is obvious you think anal sex is gross. You can dance around and pretend all you want.

I don’t really care if you think anal sex is gross – lots of people do. I’m just trying to get to the core of your objections.

Beastie:

Second, it is clear, by now, that my earlier hunch was correct. You're worried about children being "converted" to homosexuality, and the percentage of homosexuals increasing. Don't try to pretend otherwise, your own words betray you.

Kevin:

Ok, now you're flat out lying. You heard me. You are trying so desperately to twist this in a manner that suits your purpose. So much so that actually you're willing to sit there and accept the fact that I never said what you attribute to me, but insist now that you're misrepresentation is justified because you now believe those were my "thoughts." And now being intellectually dishonesty by insisting my "words betray" me.

What a joke beastie. Provide the citation where I stated this was my concern or fear. Show where my "words betray" me. I explained my position to you twice now. A third time won't do any good because at this point you're beyond reasoning with. I never said I was "afraid" or "concerned" or "worried" about an increase in homosexuals. I already know an increase will occur, and this is because I know homosexuality is spreading due to modern culture. If I do not think homosexuality is "bad" then how can you maintain this nonsense about me being "worried" about it increasing?

Here are your words. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not I was “flat out lying”.

Kevin’s statements on this thread, regarding the increase of homosexuality:

Hey Dude, I can no longer fall into category #1, but I agree with this too. And I know others who aren't particularly religious, yet feel the same way. I always thought evolutionists would have issues with this as well. After all, it isn't "natural" is it? Having to clean out your rectum with a water hose before you have sex. How does adaptation expect to address that one? If homosexuals were really "born that way," then what is evolution telling us? Maybe homosexual men will eventually evolve with two assholes? One for excretion and the other for pleasure.

Something that struck me as "different" after being out of the country for four years, is that it seems the number of homosexuals in the Atlanta area has increased a lot. They aren't transplants from San Francisco either. They are people who grew up here and were exposed to modern culture that encourages experimentation in all forms. It seems like every other woman I work with is a Lesbian or bisexual. And the only reason I know this is because they can't shut the hell up about it. They flaunt and celebrate their sexuality to the world, as if I really want to hear about it. This strikes me as dysfunctional on a psychological or sexual level. Also, not a single one of them has a steady boyfriend/girlfriend. Every damn day they are talking about who they hooked up with the night before.

Should they get married? I don't care. I think it is ironic that they would want to get married since marriage is historically a religious concept, but so be it. Most want to get married formally because they can save money tax-wise. If they truly love one another, who cares if they are recognized by the government as a married couple? I know I wouldn't.

The only beef I have is when they want to start adopting children. I mean that is taking it beyond the privacy arena. In private quarters I don't care if you want to screw doughnuts and sheep. Two people can do whatever they want with each other sexually, as long as they both consent to it. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?

……………………………………


Actually no. But that wasn't my point. I am sure religious gays exist.

But generally speaking it seems the "gay community" is anti-religion. Just listen to GoodK. It seems the religious attitude towards gays gives other anti-religious people another reason to side with gays. The enemy or your enemy is your friend.

Last year in San Francisco a bunch of transvestites invaded a Catholic church and caught the priest by surprise during services. The priest treated them as if they were fellow Catholics, and placed the bread in their mouths without a second thought. They were all dressed up with bright feathers and transvestite regalia. Their intention was to mock only.

…………………………


Oh, I don't know that this is the case either. I was just referring to the psychological trauma that could fall upon an adopted kid when the time came for him/her to learn about the birds and the bees and develop as a mature, sexually driven teenager. Why would two gay men want to adopt a child anyway? Aside from the Mythbusters, I cannot think of two gay men who have stayed together long enough to raise a child anyway.

…………………………………..

I am surprised how many people here are reacting thsi way to my comments.

I guess there are more gay people on this forum than I realized.

…………………………

In another 10 or 20 years when the percentage of homosexuals in America has tripled, people will start to realize that culture obviously has an effect on this and that homosexuality is a learned condition and above all, a choice. But that isn't to say some are truly homosexual because they are born that way. I believe many are. But they do a good job of converting liberal minded people who are willing to experiment with anything.

You even hear about some gays competing with one another in their attempts to convert straight people. When living in Orlando, it didn't seem to matter how many times I told the gay people I knew I wasn't gay. They kept trying to convince me to give it a shot, and they promised I would never go back, etc. And with today's society celebrating homosexuality, this only makes it more attractive for those with existing gender identity issues.


………………………………………



I know for a fact that it can be a learned behavior, the same as enjoying shoving gerbils up one's butt is also a learned behavior. I knew a guy who was gay as a teen but then went on a mission later. He attributed his homosexual experimentation with psychological issues he had to overcome as a kid. He never insisted he was "born that way." Ten years later he has four children and a beautiful wife, and he often gives talks on overcoming homosexuality. Of course you can insist he is living in the closet as religion has brainwashed him, or whatever. But the fact is people who are not born homosexual, but are practicing homosexuals, can in fact learn to change their sexual preferences.

This reminds me of when our old friend wade used to link homosexuality to bestiality (he didn’t mention gerbils by name, however), necrophilia and pedophilia, and then acted all doe-eyed and innocent about why people would take offense to that.

There are some, sure. And that is essentially what I said. I believe sexual preference is passed down through the genes, but most humans are heterosexual. Some are homosexual and others are a mixture of something inbetween, who eventually have to choose to go one way or the other. This proves that in many cases homosexuality is a choice. And you cannot really say they were "born gay" either since you have now wedded yourself to Kinsey as an authority.

And just because Kinsey created 7 different categories for his own survey purposes, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority fall into category 0. (Incidentally, Kinsey's report is a little unrealistic anyway since 25% of his male test group was comprised of convicted criminals. As we all know, the higher the percentage of prison inmates, the higher the percentage of homosexual activity one might expect. I suspect the true homosexual population in America is around 1-3%. But that is neither here nor there.)

Please be clear. Only the people who rate in-between 1 and 5 can “choose”, and they can choose because they are, technically, bisexual. And, yes, I believe they most likely were born bisexual.

So what are you saying here, that since some of the children might qualify as a 1-6, then my argument isn't valid? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. So what about the rest of the majority of orphaned children who do falling into the 0 category? If my concerns are valid for even one instance among hundreds of adoptions, then I think that is reason enough to have and consider them.

You’re acting as if having homosexual parents would make heterosexuals turn gay. But reality is that the openness to homosexuality may allow some naturally bisexual children to feel more free to experiment between sexes.

Look, you can’t force sexual attraction. Someone who is a “straight” 0 on the Kinsey scale is not going to be able to experience arousal with a person of the same sex. It just ain’t there.

So if you’re not worried about the homosexual population increasing, why is this even a concern for you, that some naturally bisexuals may end up choosing homosexuality?

"Young" male? Is this your way of trying to squirm around the fact that Kinsey isn't talking about children? We are talking about children beastie. Kinsey did not test or interview small children and you know this. Kinsey was not a child psychologist but rather a zoologist who took a hobby interest in sexual behavior of all creatures, and he ended up spending the rest of his life taking polls and doing interviews.

Unlike you, I do not believe people’s basic sexual natures change as they develop. If someone as an adult is able to feel sexual attraction and desire for the opposite sex, then that inclination also was there as a child, dormant or acted upon.

I said:

Kevin, I'm sorry, but there is no way someone who is a 0 on the Kinsey scale is going to have a "memorable orgasm" within a same sex experience.

Kevin’s odd reply:

Do you actually read what you type before posting? Think about what you just said. You're telling me humans could their forget orgasm, in any circumstance? A person's first orgasm is always going to be memorable. Does anyone here not remember his or her first orgasm? Nothing you have presented suggests the opposite. You just keep making wild assertions as though they are fact, and now you're decorating them with irrelevant data from Kinsey to make it sound scientific. Nothing from Kinsey's figures/categories, even addresses this issue.

What the heck???? I want to be clear about what you are asserting here, because it’s pretty strange.

Are you asserting that it is possible for a “0” on the Kinsey scale to experience a memorable orgasm with someone of the same sex???

The sexual attraction is not present sufficiently to create a memorable orgasm? Was that supposed to be a coherent statement? Who ever said memory is "created" by sexual attraction? Anyone's first orgasm is going to be memorable no matter who it is with. If it is inside a woman or a man or in the bathroom shower, it will be remembered and the immediate context will be remembered as well. But if a child engages in homosexual activity at an early age and manages to orgasm during homosexual activity, he will naturally be inclined to continue whether he is "born that way" or not. All humans are orgasm junkies. When I had my first orgasm, it was the greatest feeling I had ever felt. It happened through masturbation and it caught me by surprise. I didn't know there was a final finale to be had (grin). I think I was 14 at the time.

Kevin, for heaven’s sake. If you are going to have a “memorable orgasm” with another person, it will be someone you are sexually attracted to. Are you actually arguing against this?????

I said:

Given how human societies have always had a homosexual element, no matter how hard they try to purge society of it, no matter how persecuted and hated homosexuals may have been in that particular society, I think it's a given that a certain percentage of the human population is born a 6 on the Kinsey scale.

Kevin

What percentage is that?

I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not sure anyone does.

You speak as though children fall into Kinsey's scale in the first place. They don't. Kinsey didn't include children. And he had no way of knowing how or why some people lingered between 0 and 6. All he did was take interviews and report a census. He reported what was, while doing no science to explain how or why. And I never said gay parents would "push" their kids to do anything. Here you are again with another misrepresentation.

Kids naturally want to look to their parents as role models. They will mimick what they see whether the parent likes it or not. It is a matter of circumstance, and putting newborns into those circumstances is avoidable by allowing them to be adopted by heterosexual couples instead. It shoudl be taken for granted that any newborn orphan will be a 0 on the Kinsey scale. Why? Because that is about 95% of the population. We as humans take all sorts of precautions based on non-scientific speculation. That's why we sent a monkey into space before man. We assumed that there might be something about space that would prove harmful to man. This was based on zero evidence. So what is so outrageous about taking precautions when the subject at hand is America's orphaned newborns? Because we can't make a homosexual feel excluded in any way? Maybe we're just homophobic and filled with "hatred." I mean it can't possibly have anything to do with a genuine concern for children, right?

Well, here we get to the crux of it. You seem to think children are sexual blank slates, written upon by their parents. I do not. If it were as you imagine, we would not have so many people struggling with, as the church calls it, “same sex attraction”, despite it going against their most fervent beliefs.

You said yourself, earlier in this thread:

I guess in time we will know for sure. Gays adopting babies is a relatively recent phenomenon. Right now there isn't much to study, but there will be eventually.

So please clarify why, in the Kinsey report done in the 1940s, there were so many 1-5s in the study.