[quote]A British government statistic says it's 6%.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505277/Six-per-cent-of-population-are-gay-or-lesbian-according-to-Whitehall-figures.html[/quote]

My ex-wife is British. If I lived there I have to consider going the other way!

I have a birth defect myself. But it's a normal (common) one. I find myself quite normal when it comes to that.

 

It depends. We have 200 HP servers and 2 Dell servers. The two Dell servers have trouble rebooting remotely because they find themselves stuck at an "press F1" prompt. For Dell servers that appears to be normal, even if it happens to only some of them.

 

Are they or are they not animals?

 

Your point being? Are females cleverer than males and it doesn't surprise you that they would understand it?

Remember, I didn't want to prove that animals become more gay the more closely related to humans they are. I am just showing you that homosexuality is natural and quite normal in some species, even species of apes (and monkies).

 

Without getting personal I'll assume it doesn't interfere with your life too much (and doesn't cause strange urges). But could you image a doctor saying to a couple just having a baby, "Mr. and Mrs. Soandso, your baby boy has a birth defect, but don't worry it's normal". I think the parents would be concerned and if possible have it treated. IMO common and normal are quite different terms. It's normal for volcano's to appear on the earth, but they are not common here in Virginia (or many other places). You are making a good effort though, I'll give you that.

Now imagine if a couple were told by a doctor that their baby was born gay, but he could fix it with a simple injection. Would the parents say, "No thanks Doc, we have two straight ones at home and we were hoping for a gay this time." or would they have the shot administered because they felt it was a "defect" and wanted a "normal" life for the child? My guess is that and overwhelming majority would take the second course of action, even if they supported gay rights 100%.

There are indeed many birth defects that are quite normal (or common) and don't interfere with life much. Most birth defects are of that type. That's what the 1/33 statistics include.

 

That must be one of the more truly horrible scenarios I can imagine.

The only reason the gay child would not have a normal life later is society's intolerance. There are some features we are born with that should be cured (if we can cure it), but for others it is not necessary. Your gedanken experiment is similar to a scenario where a mixed-race couple could make the decision to make their child look white (or black) because society might not accept a mixed-race individual. It's a horrible thought.

My guess is that you might be right and that an overwhelming majority would take the second course of action, even if they supported gay rights. But they would be wrong. Better a gay kid than interfering with nature in such a massive way for no reason than other people's intolerance.

 

...and I appreciate your response.

Somewhere we went from discussing animals mating with their young to gay animals.

Leauki,

back to the numbers game...we discussed yesterday you felt there were more gays than bus drivers and I wrote in that I had one of each in my large extended family (both sides) trying to show you that it can't be as many as 10% homosexuals in the general population just using my family (who are NOT religious) as a model.  Anyhow I got to thinking and I remembered that I do have another bus driver in the family so...it's two bus drivers (both living) and one homosexual (now deceased).

So that makes it twice as many bus drivers as homosexuals in my family and...the bus drivers (both of them) lived longer than the homosexual did.   

Actually, if you think about it, homosexuality isn't good for the lifespan either. 

 

I don't have a family ready but in my congregation I know one gay individual and no bus drivers.

I don't know how many are still in the closet and do not admit to being gay (or bus drivers).

The other group I can talk about is my work colleagues. None of them are bus drivers. But we have a few gay colleagues.

 

I don't know about that. I have read somewhere that married people live longer than singles. It this is true it would certainly influence statistics since, hm, gays are less likely to marry.

 

Getting back to what I originally wrote here about kids missing a parent, usually because of divorce, and observing the common trait of anger in all of them...did you hear the latest news coming from NM? 

Go here: 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572488,00.html?test=latestnews

This is exactly what I've been noticing. Again, another product of divorce.  In this case, the kids are living with Dad and mom's not in the home.  I believe the mom is the heart of the home.  They need their mom.  Had the parents been together doing what they were supposed to do in the raising of their children, this most likely would not have happened.   Such a tragedy. 

In just my local observations over the years I've noticed that the parents are so caught up in the messiness of their own lives that they're not teaching/disciplining their children by giving them the tools they need to curb such behaviors.  In one extreme case, we had a friend of my children kill himself at 15.  His whole personna was anger.   His parents knew in an instant what all their  years of bickering before, during and after their very heated, messy divorce had done to their kids. 

Here in my state last week one 14 year old was killed by his 15 year old brother because he had his music too loud.  The dad called it a terrible accident.  This was NO accident.  The 15 year old went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and stabbed his brother to death...OVER MUSIC! 

This is all showing us that our children need their parents.  They need a mom and a dad that are committed to each other and love each other.  Every time we stray from God's best we take an awful chance. 

 

 

Very true words. But there are sadly enough examples out there to show that a marriage is not automatically a good marriage just because it is a man and woman who married. It questions the validity of your earlier statement somewhere that gave traditional marriage automatic moral value. If there are so many examples of how a marriage can destroy the children or the spouse, one should define the values that make up a good relationship or parenthood individually. And I am sure that a few homosexual couples qualify as persons that fit the bill of what a relationship should be, independant from the gender of the personss in the realtionship. Many "normal" married couples probably do not fit those moral values of what a good and healthy realtionship should be like. The question is on what you do in those cases, because you can't check people out thoroughly before allowing the to have children like it is the norm for people who apply to adopt children.

 

The statement that Chldren need both parents is true, but it is possible for single parents to bring up their children in a decent way (either because they're not married or because they're widdowed) and so the parameters for good parenthood should not be restricted to gender.

I've already gone on record to say that the traditional heterosexual marriages haven't been doing a good job these days but that doesn't mean that homosexual marriages are going to be any better or help anything.  In fact, in the few cases involving children, they fare even worse. So added to the mix, we're going in the wrong direction. That's my point. 

I've seen a few very messy homosexual divorces or breakups involving the kids and I know I wouldn't want to be the judge untangling that mess. 

Imagine the scenerios.   You have two moms both biologically having children.  Maybe they have 3-4.   They are one big happy family and then...divorce/breakup hits.  How do we separate these kids?  What about visitation?  Then, the two moms get re-married or hook up with two other women.  Now these kids have 4 moms and no dads.   Think about the grandparenting?   I've already seen some nightmarish situations regarding grandparenting with his, hers, and ours in traditional heterosexual marriages when grandparents only recognize their own biological grandchild ignoring the others. 

What about the dads who both donate sperm to a doner who hands baby over to the dads nine months later not knowing (by choice) who the real dad is so they can be equal dads?    What about if they get divorced?  Who gets the kid (s)?  What if one is proved to be the biological child and the other dad has none?  What about the other dad's right? 

There's a ton more.  But you get the idea.  We're walking into a nightmare when it comes to child rearing and you think we have angry, frustrated kids now?   

 

I wasn't lobbying for gay couples, married or otherwise, to have children or saying that that was the solution. My post was about naming the essential values that make up a good good, committed and loving relationship and parenthood.

I stand by my statement that if checked against a catalogue of values, most couples probably do not fit the bill for either good relationship/marriage nor good parenthood. Neither is something restricted to opposite sex couples. But if a gay couple has the qualities to make a great realtionship and to be good parents, there is no reason why that can't work out and has to fail. In fact, gay couples were reduced to the sexual aspect of a relaionship in this thread. IMO that is not enough to decide if a relationship is good or not.

The foregone conclusion you seem to have is that if you allow gay couples to have children, it will only make things much much worse because they are not able to be good parents nor have a commited loving relationship. But I think that  those are qualities of individual people. Some have them and some don't, it is not gender related.