Darwin or evolution is not the topic. Toxic waste is not the issue. Are you implying that toxicity is the reason for homosexuality? Sloth’s and cows are not the issue. I have no idea what your comment, “has ignorance all up it that stuff, a nice brew really.” means. Frankly, that whole paragraph left me dumber than before I read it.

Then you proceed on to say


I will now write in common language to me what I think you were trying to communicate and you can let me know if I misunderstood what you were communicating. I understood, “Gay rights has nothing to do with the pecking order or the fact biology allows them to do what gays do, as in different sexual preferences than heterosexual citizens, we should allow them the equal rights of other Americans if it produces fitness in children they may choose to rear.” Well, I approach it from the child citizen’s rights verses the gay citizen’s rights. From what I understood you to communicate you believe in rational results. Rational theory is based on fact of mathematics or science results through redundancy. The human mind may not be rationally measured through science or mathematics. Likewise, such experiments will take decades to make judgments. To introduce a child into a situation of unknowns is conducting a scientific experiment at the “rights” of the gay parent verses the “rights” of the child.

What I’m saying is the child is the ward of the government. The government must respect the rights of gay citizens but the government must place “state wards rights” at a very high standard of liability in choices or relinquishing custody. While wards are in government custody they are in an environment inconsistent with the majority of society. In my mind the priority would be to place the ward into a normal environment of society or retain custody of the ward.

To clarify further had my children through misfortune became wards of the government I would expect the government to find a suitable “normal environment” home or retain them in custody. I would go on to say if the government facility would be fully staffed by gay staff of either gender and I would have no problem with such an environment. I find it an ethical decision to chance the impact on a child citizen of exposing them to an abnormal environment where “parents” are different than the majority of parents.

I conclude my reasoning is based on unknowns not that the children would possibly become gay. Childhood events are reflected on in adulthood with clarity of memories that may take decades to evaluate. A personal example, I can remember only one persons name from my elementary school and it is of an extremely fat girl I and other children harmed verbally. Likewise, in junior high and high school I can only remember one boy’s name that started fights with me unprovoked just because he could. Sometimes I seriously consider searching them out and apologize to the girl and retaliate against the boy and the feelings are strong. The strange thing is they didn’t occur to me until I was fifty years old. If I can retain guilt and HATE for decades then why subject a child ward citizen to an environment where such rage could arise and be acted on two or three decades later?

If your post was directed to answer my post as it appears you personally know I do not address issues based on religion of Jesus and your mention of the Christian faith, another scientifically or mathematically immeasurable existence or lack thereof, is placing me into a group you know I do not adhere to for purpose of debate.

Again, drug wars and prisons have nothing to do with the topic! And please provide fact for placing me in a category of bigotry when I respect gays and children wards of the government alike.

Yes a given individuals mind and or a culture of such can come to be understood. We have emotions in america that are american, such as football or such, do i think we are at the level to undertake such right now, no but its possible, heck we are almost to the point of knowing exactly where they form in the brain to be honest, and i doubt that various things like religions would press so much save they know that can have an impact on how a person comes to be and that persons perception, so yes it can be understood and so on, much like a person feeling pain. What about gays makes them abnormal? that they are not hetero, i dont find much sense in that, its like saying blonde hair is abnormal to brown hair to me. If our nature allows for it, or is just a product of our nurture also, then what is wrong with such, i mean would you decline to allow people that work as clowns to adopt, i mean the kid could have fun made of it in a system, or even as a grown up adult stage person.

You say "abnormal" for your reason, though you dont really go into why its abnormal, what is normal, in viking times a child could be "great" for murdering other children, its not like it has not happened in history, that was "normal" to them and i guess would be "abnormal" to me. THings like having male children get their genitals carved up on birth seems rather "abnormal" to me, and the general term abnormal has a lot of relativity to it to say the least, save you are using it to describe the behavior of someone that has brain damage, or some other kind of sever retardation. same sex couples and or the individuals can lead very normal lifes and be very successful, and i think they bleed when cut also, though i am not sure on that one.

To use biology again on such an issue is false, it does not go against nature, being they are not taking to flight for some unknown reason that does not involve mechanical aid. I do always add in on the ability to take something and warp it to fit a perception and or an agenda. I can say blue eyes are the most fit gene, and or people born with webbed feet should be called heros for some reason, and it can go on and on without anything factual to it. So to sit and say the human mind is something to powerful to ever be understood is silly, you speak english because you grew up in that, its pretty simple right? so yes it can and it will like most things, save we make it illegal, which just means it will be slower. same sex is been in history and in america for a long time now, and its also known that its around by the public at large. General it goes hand in hand with hate and or bigotry, but i dont see people lining up to be gay really, never have witnessed that, none the less people are in this reality, and in america they have to fight for lack of better words for equal rights. Again, all you say is abnormal, then they should not be able to, i dent think people with sever retardation should be allowed to cook much less have kids, do gay people count in that area, are they severely retarded, or incapable of taking care of themselves and or others, or making the balance of the checkbook? it gets rhetorical, and i dont think trying to design answers from biology is a good way to go about such, for its really just going to blow up in your face for the most part, that and the lack of full understanding of such. In america, we have people that want to have normal lives for what they can, we have people that say no, and why? because they are abnormal i guess.

To me, you seem to be saying that the child is better off in an "abnormal environment" where there is no loving parental figures then in an "abnormal environment" where there are two loving parents that happen to be gay.

There has been study after study quoted and referenced though out this topic that show no significant difference between those who were raised in heterosexual homes and those that were raised in homosexual homes. If your position is truly based on the reason of science and mathematics then how can you then ignore all of the evidence and oppose gay adoption?



Where does end? Should only white people be allowed to adopt? Only Christians? Only Brunettes? etc. Being a member of the "majority" in NO way makes the household better for a child to be raised in. The majority is merely those who belong to the largest group. For example, the majority of Americans choose to neither vote nor participate in the governance of the country in anyway. So, if the majority is most important, should we not restrict all activists from adopting?



Were either of these Children you mentioned from gay households? Do you honestly feel that children abandoned to the system to live a life in either a large faceless institutions of an endless series of foster homes would have less rage then those who were snatched out of that horrible system and then loved and cared for by a couple who happened of the same sex?

How normal is adoption is its own, i mean if you are a couple that cannot have kids, would it not be abnormal to break that part of your life in respects to biology, or going about it in a different way. One could sit and take opinion from all over the states on what is normal and abnormal and you can probably fine a nice amount of relativity to it. So as for saying you cant adopt while being same sex couple status because you are abnormal would be on the viewer alone to say such things, being i dont hold such an opinion and that the opinion of such is entirely up to the viewer to decide then makes it no more abnormal then normal, and anyways, we kind of always decide such really, people that is. Then you have to go into does having a sexuality that is same sex should somehow not allow for you to have equal rights in america in terms of couples. We are not getting down to various little laws, i mean you cannot attach abortion laws to same sex couples, but overall the couple status and the act of having a relationship is their as it would be in a same sex couple. Again anything that decides to not like or not want to grant equal rights on such a thing would be up to the viewer, its not like we are trying to debate gravity here, if i dont like it does not mean it occurs and or will go away, but in this issue voters and the the government they want decide rights and ability of people in lawful thus i guess normal lives for the most part. I dont find any reason to take away in the first place or make a law to do such for me in regards to making it so same sex couples cannot have this right that are afforded to other couples looking to make an adoption. People engage in such for i am sure a myriad amount of reasons, and i am glad being it seems no one else was either capable or did care to take care of the child or children that are being adopted, and of course they the kids in the system came from same sex couples. The idea of forcing opinions like such that only some not all hold, and even if all did on a minority or the people at large in respects to civil rights is wrong, it reminds me of segregation in the past, which did not last or even allowing women to vote, i am sure many thought of that wrong or abnormal, and such those terms due chang in time with the culture. Anything negative you can put on a same sex couple can be applied very much so the hetero couples, and so on with the positive, i still cannot find any reason for such. Would you opt that people that are abnormally short should not be able to have kids, i mean sexuality on its own does not define the person does it?

My position has never been that gays are an abnormality in nature. Gays are a normal occurrence in nature as you clearly state. The abnormality as it relates to nature is that the genes in the jeans do not procreate as is nature’s design, an innate incorrect, or abnormal alignment of genes to serve the purpose of procreation.

From my view through a straw gays living in society quietly like other citizens are acknowledged as a normal occurrence in nature, yet assumed abnormal solely for the genes in the jeans. However, when gays attempt to equalize with society norms they are rejected as being abnormal. Government has recognized this in the military and in hate crime legislation and during the last election cycle eleven states overwhelmingly rejected normalization of gay marriage. I do not feel the rejection is based on bigotry or religion as I’m neither and I agree with society norms. Consider if in today’s society technology existed to make choices as a newlywed couple wanting to rear a family and the couple had no religious beliefs: Choices a gay son or daughter with a 30% chance of becoming a famous movie director; a Down’s syndrome son or daughter with a 30% chance of becoming a Nobel Peace Prize winner; a son or daughter albino; or a “normal” son or daughter. What if the doctor said I guarantee I can eliminate any possibility if you desire? Government has acknowledged over and over gays are uniquely different than norms in society and made government judgments for the abnormality. Based on the governments judgments isolating gays, as abnormal, government should not subject wards to the abnormality.


I agree. It is when they leave the normal and attempt to equalize with norms society judges them abnormal to society. Military, with the desire to serve openly and marriage are prime examples of these instances.


As I said earlier I don’t think all objection toward the gay movement is religious in base or based on bigotry. I think it is based on expected normality in society as it strives toward procreation. I have no objection to gay legal unions or service in the military as they do now but, I do object to hate crimes, as crimes are crimes.

What if people wanted to have their kid be born homosexual, or the person later in life made such a choice, would the parents have that choice, or do we mandate to such an extent what can be and not be in such a circumstance. I am not advocating to give enraged axe murdering rapists freedom here am i? so again what is the "thing" that makes so much against the homosexual, i cant find anything really save some really empty position that they are abnormal, and to tell the truth most the debates i get in on this issue, the opposition really does not have much a base, and that is not just how i feel about it actually.

So because the military, which is not ruled democratically, and some religious person in power, or person that wants to use religion to stay in government starts to go against them, i am to use that to back why i can say i dont want them to have kids. I am sure at some point in time the military said this and the government also said that but its not that anymore, and again what is really the issue. So would you then decline to let a lesbian couple do artificial means for birth, i mean it can happen by nature, just as much as we can fly jets in formation over a circus, though i doubt for such activities to be buried directly in genetic code, or so on. I mean murder is possible by our biology, but we make laws around that and why, does the same acts of a homosexual couple go to such levels as needing to be governed with law like an axe murderer, would that not be some form of racism and or bigotry really, in light that the point against really makes no sense when you actually look at reality. Is america to be a place for freedom, or is it a trendy place of fascism free to some. The criteria around whom cannot have children in america usually revolves around some pretty steep criteria, i mean like being an axe murderer or a child rapist or being severely retarded. What about when people become handicapped in terms of sexual reproduction, i think the government should then label them abnormal and take kids away. In light of this abnormal term can then be giving really for much anything, like the jewish community in nazi germany, does it not set something that can be used over and over again, really to strike down people you just dont like really. I mean people are rather different all over the place, not just in america but the world, so what then becomes normal to abnormal, is it just on the base of sexuality then, it has to be in this case, for nothing else exists to make abnormal, and then i guess sexuality in itself for two consenting adults is really the issue, and it in itself is what is being banned, and from what perspective did that really all result from and still continues to. There is no reason really, save ones that dont make much sense when compared to reality, so again i can only feel its bigotry at work. I mean how normal and or abnormal is anything and compared to what... couples can adopt kids, i mean it happens. Its like some hard core buried in the nurture hatred much like the statement "dont jew me dude" its old hate, and nothing more.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, its nothing more then that, as in they come in all walks of life. So we make the case on just sexuality alone, then people should never adopt period, they should just have kids, being adoption is abnormal then, being i am sure they have sexuality at some point in there life as in not just biology. We take the time to say the sexual preference is abnormal, when its not, its a minority really, that is all. being you would have to make the choice to dub it abnormal, and i dont think it is, then you come to the point of is an opinion on something like this good enough to strip liberty and freedom from people, which i dont. I mean do we go onto mandate what you can do with your hair, or how one should walk, or a certain method to speak the english langauge, how about an official skin color while we are at it, i hope my point is being taken. I mean if a couple can adopt, why only some couples, unless wait, that is right, they dont have a sexual preference i like, thats it.

How can you say the military isn’t ruled democratically? All military regulations must conform to the authority of Congress, the folks that make the laws that the people put in office through popular vote. Are you saying President Clinton used his religion against the gay citizens in establishing the policy? I will remind you that any member of congress or the president may send new law directly to the Supreme Court for review if in doubt. Also, please note there are openly gay members serving in congress that could have taken the initiative to challenge the law. Why did not one member write your argument and refer the matter to the US Supreme Court for a constitutionality judgment?

Actually it is the law to this moment and some former gay soldiers are attempting to change that law through litigation. My money is on the military and Federal Government continuing current law. Should the “don’t ask don’t tell” law that “limits” gays be overturned by the Supreme Court the liberal split in the judgment will decide political politics for decades. Because of this government public acknowledgement of “limits” I make my argument that gays are not willed by government to be on the same level as other citizens applying for adoption.

If you open a separate thread on the other ethical subject of artificial insemination of a lesbian I indeed will debate you.

America is a country based on freedom for all men. Adoption is a contract between the government and citizens desiring to adopt children. Should the government not allow adoption by gay persons it would discriminate gays no more than all of the other candidates wishing to adopt children. The government must weigh the rights of all citizens and should give those in a “ward” situation the best solution to resolve the ward situation.

The bar is set very high to remove children from their biological parents, as it should be. Likewise having ward children placed custody of citizens is also a very high bar with the welfare and citizen rights of the minor citizen held by the government.

Adoption of children may not be approached as equal to applying for a driver’s license and passing a few tests.

In approaching bigotry in this manner you are placing President Clinton and every member in congress in the category of bigots plus lacking the integrity and moral courage to stand up for what they know to be correct. I have never seen Barney Frank at an absence of words or opinion on any subject he feels strongly about. Both they are “bigots plus lacking the integrity and moral courage” and wrong or you are, you choose.

Now it's over the hills and through the woods to grandmother's house we go.

I dont follow that the correct "moral" thing in this is to discriminate against gays because people dont like their sexual preference, i dont see how that could even be something moral really, its like saying the moral thing is to only have a flat top hair cut and it scares me actually to think about such. People hated on clinton for the dont ask dont tell policy because it actually allowed gays if you will to serve in the military on a certain level, as long as they kept their discriminated sexual preference to themselves. I am not a clinton fanboy as in i think he is greater then sliced bread, so dont think you will get me on that one, though i think he is far better then the current person if i can actually use that word there. so i guess its better for the ward, not the human and or child, but the thing in the system to remain at the whim of the system and or the bias some may hold against others. i am sure the same opinion and or thought is what allows for genocide and all sorts of other nasty behavior to go on, which i guess in some circles of people is ok, but then again its always like that i would imagine.

Again the abnormality in this would be the inability to bypass hate and bigotry again, and i am sorry then if that makes all the people that discriminate against gays bigots, but it would be true, that in nothing warrants such behavior really, as in you are putting them in a category with like axe murderers and such would you not. I mean can you find anything in terms of a legal standpoint, or does all this bigotry really deal from how some people feel about others, or more to the point, what does a homosexual do that is so wrong, save that other people desire to deem it wrong because they dont like it, it does no harm to anyone as far as i can tell, its not armed robbery, or theft, or murder is it. Like i said this is just another issue america must work past to stay on track with the ideals of the nation. there was no clause in any part of the constitution to back anything people that dont like homosexuals try to do to homosexuals, and actually more exists in the constitution to put those bigots in prison actually, or maybe even have them called traitors if you will.

I am sorry you must use others to decide and or think for you in this situation, i dont though, and i know that a sexual preference on its own does not merit the hatred and or bigotry homosexuals in america of all places face. What kind of test would you describe for taking care of children left to the system, i guess in yours it would simply require being a male and a female, but being they can just reproduce on their own they should not adopt, being it would be abnormal like getting a hair cut, i mean both are not in our genes to do, so it has to be abnormal, unless you just dont like homosexuals really, and want to discriminate against them.

If you think the military is a democracy, i dont know if you have ever been in it or one at that. The military is a authoritarian socialist manifest if i have ever been in one to say the least. It has massive amounts of conservatives and religious types in it doing the lords work, it does not have many of anything else as far as a system goes.

Again i still cannot find anything to go against, save some people just dont like them, that is all still, and so then its bigotry really and hatred, they dont do anything to even warrant being arrested, no crime, no damage, just hate from some moral code, that now is trying to be pressed into american law. Its one thing to be a bigot, no one makes laws saying you cant, its another when you try to use americas government to enforce such ideals on everyone, or the group that is hated, and that is the issue at hand to me. Can you actually point out something that makes sense to support your position? rather then just saying its abnormal, being i dont think that one works to well in light of reality, or some other twist of logic in trying to use biology maybe, or maybe you can use fellow bigots to show why its the truth or correct and factual way to approach this issue. I think i have the courage to stand up for whats right here also.

We are taking the rights of consenting free adults here, not adult in relation to an non human life form, or a child, or even an inanimate object, just two consenting adults. There is no magical barrier that repels children from them, or them provideing a home and a family for children left to the system. To say its abnormal in application to reality would make just about everything abnormal, even how we eat, being i am sure a spoon and or silverware or utensils used to eat are not in our genes either. I cant remember the last time americans got to vote for what is a proper military uniform, or where bases will be, or how much we get paid, or what country we are at war with next, it just does not happen really, or least i cant remember, save when clinton asked the american people in a very general sense their opinion in relation to his want to invade iraq. The person going against the homosexual has nothing to back his or her position save simply not liking what two consenting free adults are doing in terms of sexuality, for i am sure two male friends or female friends that become close in life dont get the label homosexual.
In that instance is their anything to support the hatred and or even laws in the land of the free in accordance with the constitution for the descrimination homosexuals face in america? i cant find anything anywhere to back it save nothing more then descrimination and or hatred, bigotry, and for all the debates i have been on in this website that is all i have ever found in terms of them being abel to attain legal rights in regards to having the sexual preference. Mandating something like that as either illegal and or baring such from having equality is like saying you may only where certain clothes, in that its freedom in america that is being taken away, the actions they do do not cause any damage and or loss of liberty to others, no crime save the hate.

As for moral codes, i am sure we can find relativity in those also, being if memory serves the bible of all things states where slaves may be taken, jewish texts say some pretty nasty things also, and as for muslim texts, they are also not free of such nasty stuff, i am not knowing enough of other various other moral codes to speak on them. At some point in the history of america it was moral to have slaves and treat women also second class and restrict freedom overall of people in general, and of course america overcame all of this. Again on the issue, i cannot find anything to make into american federal law, reason to actually discriminate against homosexuals again, save just the opinion some people may hold, and i am sure it would be a good thing to make law that way constantly, and just turn a blind eye to the constitution and america in general to escape with such behavior. I can find nothing in terms of fact to support why we should do such to homosexuals, and i know social science are not at a level of hard science either, but is slowly getting there, so we are left once again at a point of relativity in perception and ignorance spawing again hatred and bigotry against other people, much like a terrorist that puts planes of people into buildings of people, i am sure in some possible form, it was the moral thing to them or him most likly being women are for the most part second rate in that moral culture.

My basis for saying gays are abnormal has been explained several times but allow me to repeat myself one more time. In my opinion, and apparently the US federal government is that gays living in a state of anonymity are only different or abnormal in the sense that the genes in the jeans do not allow normal procreation. In this state they are deserving of every constitutional right. However, the US federal government and I are in agreement that once gays attempt to elevate themselves to a standard of “normality” equal to the majority of society with genes in the jeans aligned for procreation they become abnormal.

You claim, with excellent argument that to discriminate gays in any manner is bigotry. I disagree with you not because the basis for your position has no merit but the government has ruled them abnormal in the above “open” state. I feel this is based on “expected norms” in society and you may be correct it is based totally on bigotry but, the government has chosen to take a position on the matter placing them normal in the closet and abnormal out of the closet.

When I say “expected norm” I speak of normality as normally experienced in day-to-day society. I will offer a crude analogy, in America the normal expectation is a male needs to urinate on a highway trip they will seek cover and if there is none they face their back to a highway. In Korea the men always face the highway as the need strikes and will often wave with the free hand creating an unexpected norm to Americans. I think gays desiring to openly share normality are considered as Korean males are viewed by visiting Americans to their normality. In this analogy there is no bigotry, only modesty, tradition or privacy as a basis. The majority consider sexuality a very private matter regardless what you may see on TV and find deviation from normality alarming to them and explaining it to their children even more so.

Regardless the government has ruled gays out of the closet are abnormal and exceeding their constitutional limitations. Because of that FACT I say with government’s decision of being openly gay to be abnormal, wards of the state should not be placed with parents outside of society normality.

I think I stated clearly the military rules or regulations were established under the authority of elected officials under basis of law. The military is actually outside of the constitution for the reasons you mentioned. Not only the gay issue is in violation of other federal laws there is work safety issues along with continuous hours worked and tens of thousands of other infractions differing from civilian law and constitutional rights.

Consider the double-edged sword in this matter of debate. During the decades leading up to “don’t ask don’t tell” gay soldiers had to sign a false statement in order to serve in the armed forces denouncing being gay. They were at their will to avoid draft to defend the nation during all wars without challenge. You say about today’s army,


Guess what so did the army George Washington used in the to create our nation allowing for the freedoms all of our citizens enjoy. Whether you believe the government to be based on secular or Judeo-Christian values the folks you mention did the work then and now.

By law now a gay citizen married in MA may not join the military service for he or she would not be able to list dependants on required forms without violating law. Also if same gay person had an adopted child the same problem arises.

On the other edge of the sword do you think the army you described will work subordinate to openly gay officers and noncommissioned officers? Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the former gay soldiers America will see the Great Religious Exodus from the military creating such a hole in the US security a draft will be implemented immediately. The remaining career soldier framework will give little cover to gays serving openly and even worse the reprisal for conscription on the street will put gays in a closet in a secure undisclosed location along with the party that placed the ruling judges for decades to come.