dk

dk: I’ve specifically targeted the Gay Rights Movement, not entire segments of the population. I have connected anal sex as an incidence of MSM with gay men. but then so does the CDC in HASR Surveillance Reports.
dk: Exactly, the sexual orientation myth conjoined with radical feminism, child rights and in loco parentis Government rights converge to make “sexual segregation” appear progressive even liberal minded. You have caught my drift, and of course the notion is absurd as I’m sure you agree. This demonstrates that “gay orthodoxy” fundamentally deconstructs the nuclear family for the x-family, and brings this thread back on topic to oppose SSM. The agenda of the Gay Rights Movement is pro SSM, and fundamentally anti nuclear family.
dk: I agree Pedophilia is a particularly heinous crime. I’m simply pointing out that the APA defines “a sexual attraction to prepubescent children” as a mental disorder. This presents a moral and scientific dilemma for the APA, and subsequently poses a threat to the Gay Rights Movement. If sexual orientation serves as a basis of Gay Rights, then pedophiles are just like gays have a right to privacy.
dk: Really that surprises me, perhaps you haven’t heard latest GLAAD Alert Round-Up, “The Media Respond to Regional Politicking: In recent weeks, local anti-gay legislative measures across the nation have been the focus of supportive coverage in many media outlets. Here are some highlights: ... Forrest Rose's July 6 column in the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune reflected on the local Board of Education's decision to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation in the schools - a new policy that has not come without controversy. Rose cites board members' linking of homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, and quotes one as saying: "If we pass this, Christian teachers can't talk about their life with Christ ... but gay teachers can talk about the joys of anal sex!" Rose's response? "Those statements presume that straight teachers currently enjoy the right to lecture their classes on the most titillating of topics ... They don't talk about such things in class because they know they would be fired. What evidence do we have that gay teachers are stupider than straight ones?" And while Rose points out that antagonizing remarks have been made from both sides, his overall message is exemplified in the column's title: "School policy toward gays simplified: Do unto others." (www.youth.org… YOUTH.ORG was formed to provide for the needs of GLBT youth; the need for a rare opportunity to express themselves, to know they are not alone, and to interact with others who have already accepted their sexuality. )

dk: Sure, but you’re asking the WRONG question. Harry Hay a founder of American Gay Rights Movement, died 2002… “He also marched in the 1986 Los Angeles gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."
RevDahlia: Bad move, Harry Hay. Icky, icky, no me gusta. But may one really assume that the entire movement concurs?
dk: You asked for evidence, and there’s overwhelming evidence that the Gay Rights Movement finds pedophilia quite attractive. Tell you what, find one prominent gay group that advocates chastity or even to raise the “age of consent” laws. The future of the Gay Rights Movement wholly depends upon turning children gay, so intimate access to the Gay Rights movement is their number one priority.
dk: Read all about it.
www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/ articles/14_2Baldwin.doc
http://www.ucmpage.org/sword/m_sword08232000.html
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20000829e.htm

dk: I said a proponent, not a compulsive. I have no idea what’s become popular, and really don’t care. I don’t want proponents of anal sex to have access to children. Do you teach your children the joys of anal sex?
RevDahlia: I don't have kids, but when I do, I plan to tell them that their sex lives are their business provided they are old enough to cope and prepared to act responsibly.
dk: Sounds like you’re a proponent of “plausible deniability”, not anal sex.

dk: Lambda Legal honey, get it!!!
RevDahlia: I read over your post several times and didn't draw the connection. has this to do with the molester Boy Scout leader, or the Hay guy? Please clarify.
dk: Rarely do women molest children sexually, I believe USDOJ says less than 3% (see previous post). Boys are sexually molested about 10% less than girls. From the perspective of a sexually molested boy the assault is homosexual. Pedophilia is the only felony crime I know of where the victims perspective is completely ignored to protect the perpetrator.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk:
"The future of the Gay Rights Movement wholly depends upon turning children gay"

There's the problem right there.

dk,
You cannot influence or change someone's sexual orientation.

If they're going to be gay, they will be.
If they're going to be straight, they will be.
If they're going to be bi, they will be.
And whether a person has a different partner every night or lives celibate & dies virgin, nothing will change their orientation.

TW

dk

oops repost

dk

To my knowledge there's nothing science can present to determine or predict a person's sexual orientation. Therefore, whether people are created gay, or become gay becomes a matter of custom, speculation and attitude i.e. experience. I read an article recently that postulated abnormally high levels of sex hormones in the mother during pregnancy might retard sexual development of the fetus. Suppose, just suppose they found birth control pills (artificial sex hormones) explained the high incidents of homosexuality. What do you think that would mean to the Gay Rights Movement?

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
To my knowledge there's nothing science can present to determine or predict a person's sexual orientation.

I wasn't addressing that; I was saying that whatever causes it you can't change it.

Therefore, whether people are created gay, or become gay becomes a matter of custom, speculation and attitude i.e. experience. I read an article recently that postulated abnormally high levels of sex hormones in the mother during pregnancy might retard sexual development of the fetus.

I believe that is the current favoured theory, yes, altho' I think "influence" is a less pejorative word than "retard".

Suppose, just suppose they found birth control pills (artificial sex hormones) explained the high incidents of homosexuality. What do you think that would mean to the Gay Rights Movement?

Very little. There would still be gay people & they would still want equal rights with straights. Even if there were a higher incidence of homosexuality because of contraceptive pills, there were gays before the pill existed and there will still be gays even if it is outlawed. My own mother has never been on the pill, therefore it cannot be a factor in my homosexuality.
TW

Gurdur

Possibly one could wean them off onto a racoon-drinking diet instead ?
_____

No way, Jóse;
I'm simply not that masochistic.

I don't even bother reading this thread through; the SNR is fairly low, and life is limted.

dk

dk To my knowledge there's nothing science can present to determine or predict a person's sexual orientation.
Treacle Worshipper I wasn't addressing that; I was saying that whatever causes it you can't change it.
dk: I don't know what you were addressing, but I was making a point. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant. I can't respect a person for being a homosexual, or a heterosexual. I am obliged to respect you as a man. Please allow me the unwarranted question... Are you a man?

dk Therefore, whether people are created gay, or become gay becomes a matter of custom, speculation and attitude i.e. experience. I read an article recently that postulated abnormally high levels of sex hormones in the mother during pregnancy might retard sexual development of the fetus.
Treacle Worshipper I believe that is the current favoured theory, yes, altho' I think "influence" is a less pejorative word than "retard".
dk The distinction between retard (impede) and influence(emancipate) is teleological not pejorative.

dk Suppose, just suppose they found birth control pills (artificial sex hormones) explained the high incidents of homosexuality. What do you think that would mean to the Gay Rights Movement?
Treacle Worshipper Very little. There would still be gay people & they would still want equal rights with straights. Even if there were a higher incidence of homosexuality because of contraceptive pills, there were gays before the pill existed and there will still be gays even if it is outlawed. My own mother has never been on the pill, therefore it cannot be a factor in my homosexuality.
dk From the viewpoint of human progeny and the future it would make a big difference. If abnormal hormonal levels emancipated sexual development then homosexuality becomes an environmental not an inherited outcome.

Lets take the hypothetical one step further, lets suppose science can test and treat sexual orientation.

1. If you were going to father and raise a designer child what sexual orientation would you pick?
2. If you were an emancipated member of the Gay Right Movement… What political position on prenatal sexual orientation tests and therapies do you take and promote?

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
dk: To my knowledge there's nothing science can present to determine or predict a person's sexual orientation.
Treacle Worshipper: I wasn't addressing that; I was saying that whatever causes it you can't change it.
dk: I don't know what you were addressing,

Reading my posts might help you with that. Just a suggestion.

but I was making a point. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant. I can't respect a person for being a homosexual, or a heterosexual. I am obliged to respect you as a man. Please allow me the unwarranted question... Are you a man?

No, I am not. Do you therefore not respect me?

Treacle Worshipper: I believe that is the current favoured theory, yes, altho' I think "influence" is a less pejorative word than "retard".
dk: The distinction between retard (impede) and influence(emancipate) is teleological not pejorative.

But if something has been impeded, then it is by definition not fully functional. Which would imply that if homosexuality is due to retardation it is a negative thing, a less-than-functioning form of sexuality.
My dictionary does not define "influence" as "emancipate" but as "action (invisibly) exercised on (a thing or person)", and I was using this definition.

dk: From the viewpoint of human progeny and the future it would make a big difference. If abnormal hormonal levels emancipated sexual development then homosexuality becomes an environmental not an inherited outcome.

This is true, but it is purely hypothetical, unless you assume that hormone levels have been abnormal throughout history. In which case they can hardly be called "abnormal". There seem to be both genetic and environmental factors causing homosexuality.

Lets take the hypothetical one step further, lets suppose science can test and treat sexual orientation.

I have to ask why you consider homosexuality something to be "treated". Perhaps we could "treat" heterosexuality instead. After all, you don't need hets to have babies (I would like to make it absolutely clear that the above is a joke, by the way.)

1. If you were going to father and raise a designer child what sexual orientation would you pick?

1. As you can see above, I would be mothering the child. But anyway.
   If someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to pick an orientation or die, I would pick 50-50 bisexual, because it gives the kid the widest range of options.
   But I would never consider having a designer baby. I have strong objections to designer babies on other grounds. Any future child of mine is just going to have to run with the genes & environment I and any future partner provide.
   
   
2. If you were an emancipated member of the Gay Right Movement… What political position on prenatal sexual orientation tests and therapies do you take and promote?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I'm not actively political. (I mean, I write letters sometimes, but I'm not a member of any "movements".) My personal stance is that gene therapy and such should not be used for "conditions" that will not have a crippling effect on someone's life. For instance, I am long sighted. This doesn't bother me, and I would not select against long sight in a child. I probably would select against something like a congenital heart defect. To me, sexuality is as of much (or little) importance as eye-colour. I would not select for or against any options for either of those categories. So I guess my political position would be that tests & therapies have no place in deciding someone's sexual orientation.

TW

Salmon of Doubt

Why is it so important? Even if it is environmental, there are still going to be gay people around who deserve rights and respect. And even if you manage to eliminate gay people entirely by changing the environment, until us lot die we will still want to be able to marry who we want.

dk

dk: Actually I have read you’re posts and they’ve made some good points. In this instance your response was objectively unsupportable, so I assume it was meant as a political or personal statement of conviction. Straight people become homosexual and visa versa all the time. I still have no idea what that was all about.
dk: Then I’m obliged to respect you as a women … Allow me the unwarranted question... Are you a woman?
dk: If a gay or lesbian wants to become a parent then same sex attraction introduces a number of barriers. The barriers radiate to touch the natural father/co-mom/child||natural mother/co-dad/child… then extended family, courts, legislatures, schools, communities, culture and society.

dk: From the viewpoint of human progeny and the future it would make a big difference. If abnormal hormonal levels emancipated sexual development then homosexuality becomes an environmental not an inherited outcome.
Treacle Worshipper: This is true, but it is purely hypothetical, unless you assume that hormone levels have been abnormal throughout history. In which case they can hardly be called "abnormal". There seem to be both genetic and environmental factors causing homosexuality.
dk: Ok, can we agree that a person’s sexual orientation follows from an entailment of environment, and environment can be changed.

dk: Lets take the hypothetical one step further, lets suppose science can test and treat sexual orientation.
Treacle Worshipper: I have to ask why you consider homosexuality something to be "treated". Perhaps we could "treat" heterosexuality instead. After all, you don't need hets to have babies (I would like to make it absolutely clear that the above is a joke, by the way.)
dk: Isn’t that what all this discussion boils down too, rules that govern the suitable treatment of people. In a rational sense, we can only understand one another by the rules that govern us.

dk: If you were going to father and raise a designer child what sexual orientation would you pick?
Treacle Worshipper: As you can see above, I would be mothering the child. But anyway.
If someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to pick an orientation or die, I would pick 50-50 bisexual, because it gives the kid the widest range of options.
But I would never consider having a designer baby. I have strong objections to designer babies on other grounds. Any future child of mine is just going to have to run with the genes & environment I and any future partner provide.
dk: That’s pretty much how I feel.
dk: It is an imposing question, for me too. It seems quite plausible to me that humanity is better off for its defects, and given human hubris perhaps what appear to be defects may actually be a life saver.