|
>> >> "The possibility that homosexuals will attempt to enforce damaging
>> >> ideologies onto children." >> Come on..any ideology can be argued to be "damaging". Homophobia for example. >> For myself, I consider religious indoctrination harmful except where it
>> cultivates compassion and positive beliefs. 'Positive beliefs'? Let me suggest that one person's 'positive beliefs' is
another's debauchery. Islamicists regard hatred of infidels as a 'positive
belief'. >> Most children have trouble distinguishing fiction from non-fiction. Which is why the normal rules for society don't work for children. >> >> "try to make them homosexual because they think it's best for them." >> But is there any evidence that suggests you can actually make someone gay? The danger is not that they will be made gay. The danger is the damage that
will be done in a 'parent' trying to make them gay. Many gays suffer dreadfully
from parents who try to 'heal' them as they grow up - and it works both ways. I have to admit that if one of my sons seemed to be turning 'that way', I would
subtly try to steer him on the 'normal' course. Why? Mainly because I think
that heterosexuals (even the 'wavering' ones) have a better life than lonely
old poofs. But also because I would rather sit around having a beer with my
grown son discussing the young woman's titties at the bar rather than some
guy's bum. The reality is though, that at some point you do more damage by trying to push the
issue, and a responsible parent lets nature take its (occasionally unusual)
course. >> >> "The possibility that homosexual men may be more inclined to pedophilia
>> >> than heterosexual men" >> Is that a hunch? I think you'll find more evidence of pedophiles in the
>> catholic church system than anywhere else. This is funny 'counterexample', since most child-molestation in the Catholic
church seems to be male/male. But regardless, you won't find me suggesting that celibate Catholic priests
should adopt children. I have written before on child molestation in the Catholic church - something
along the lines of
If you take a young, confused and influential man, tell him that he will suffer eternal
damnation if has sex with a woman, and then put him in charge of children
.. what the hell do you expect?
>> Until there is evidence of anything erronious there is no reason to believe
>> otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty. And you can bet there will be many
>> religious groups/ religious scientists(is that an oxymoron?) scrutinising the
>> performance of gay parents under a microscope. This is not a question of guilt or innocence, but on choosing the best outcome
based on risk and benefit. Would you employ a babysitter who was
suspected but not proven to be a child molester? Would you
apply 'innocent until proven guilty' here? I wouldn't. Significant
suspicion would be more than enough to make me go elsewhere. We don't have to prove that homosexuals are more likely to mistreat
adopted children than the rest of the population - just to conclude that
expected costs outweigh the expected benefits.
| 
