Replies

You responded to my post but you didn't answer my question. My question was: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying?

Here's what you said in response:

There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society.

I'm merely asking what you asked us. Same-sex-blood-brother marriage - a threat to whom?

As for the younger generation being more tolerating of the homosexual lifestyle, of course they are. With GLSEN in the schools, MTVs pro-homosexual bias, TV programs with a very lopsided number of homosexuals compared to the actual homosexual populace, etc. None of which show the real facts of the homosexual lifestyle, which carries with it severe, contagious and deadly health hazards.

As for children, adoption and homosexual parents, here's something I recently wrote:

We adopted two boys of mixed race - they are half brothers with the same biological mom. One was 5-years old when he came to live with us and his brother was 6-months old, and both had issues - emotional and physical.
If you want adopted children to grow up emotionally secure and well adjusted, it is important, more important then can be expressed with words that children are placed in very stable heterosexual families.
There are stable and unstable foster homes and there's no guarantee children in heterosexual foster care will be well adjusted when they turn 18.
I'm not saying this is true of all homosexuals... But with all the stats we have on homosexual violence, emotional, mental, and child abuse issues. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, we have to realize that putting any child in that environment is definitely not worth the risks.
It's not a perfect world, but when the politically correct garbage is realized for what it is, there's absolutely no reason to recognize homosexual adoption as a healthy alternative for children.

There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals who agree.

You responded to my post but you didn't answer my question. My question was: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at with this question.

I don't have an absolute, fixed position on this question nor does it occupy my thoughts as something important that I should think about and resolve.

If this developed into a major controversy which needed to be addressed in order to achieve agreement on the larger issue---then, I suppose I would listen to whatever arguments were presented and I then would make up my mind. Perhaps I would eventually agree with a proposal to permit same-sex marriage between blood relatives. Or, perhaps, I would encounter adverse information that seemed reasonable to me, and, consequently, I would decide against it.

Sorry--but I just don't have a definitive answer at this time. And, frankly, I don't understand what you are attempting to convey by linking this question to "threat to whom?" In general, ANY proposed change to our laws is a "threat" to whomever doesn't want to see ANY changes to the status quo, OR, at a minimum, in this specific context, a threat to anyone who prefers no changes that would give serious consideration to same-sex couples.

I doubt that any of the factors you list above have much impact on how judgments are arrived at about gays.

Maybe you could make a case that 2 or 3% of the age group 15-30 form their judgments based, to some degree, upon the factors you cite---but I doubt it. And what about all the countervailing factors that neutralize whatever outside influence you might perceive? Such as family teachings, church teachings, anti-gay peer pressure, hostility toward any pro-gay presentations?

Infinitely more important is first-hand experience with friends, relatives, co-workers, and any persons known to be gay whom they respect and/or admire ---not abstract ideas or MTV programs or perceived disproportionate number of gay characters on TV. Do you honestly think anyone says to themself: "Wow, gays and bisexuals are maybe 2% of our population but I have counted 5% gay characters on TV this past week, so that must mean homosexuality is a wonderful and even a desirable alternative lifestyle"?

Might I ask you how you came up with the numerical statistic you frequently use? i.e. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle

(1) How did your sources arrive at that cumulative number of "former homosexuals"? Is there a journal article you can refer me to, or, perhaps a website with specific details?

(2) Was there some sort of survey sent to psychiatrists, psychologists, religious counsellors, etc. asking them to specify the number of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who sought counselling during some specific period of time? If so, (a) what period of time does the statistic cover?and (b) how many people were surveyed?

(3) Was there any follow-up research done after the initial survey was completed? For example, suppose the statistical information was based upon data pertaining to 15,000 "former homosexuals" who, from 1995 to 1997, reported that they no longer engaged in homosexual activity after counselling. AFTER 1997, was there any follow-up study to determine what percentage of that 15,000 still reported no homosexual activity?

(4) How did the survey determine whether or not the respondents (i.e. the counsellors who provided the raw data about their success rate) were accurately reporting results? For example: how did the survey filter out possible exaggeration or even outright deception?

(5) What criteria were used to establish at what point the subjects were considered to be "former homosexuals"? For example: was it based upon 3-months or 6-months or 1-year of no homosexual activity? Or what?

(6)Was the survey result based exclusively on questions about homosexual ACTIVITY as opposed to homoerotic thoughts?