Homosexuality In Western Society
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Why does it matter?</div> Theres already a topic about homosexual marriage, but this is intended to be more broad. Specifically, why does everyone get so worked up about homosexuality?
When you get right down to it, if everyone minded their own business, it doesn't hurt anyone...
When you get right down to it, if everyone minded their own business, it doesn't hurt anyone...
Comments
Some people do that already... why does it matter if homosexuals do it?
I've got bad news for you. I got married purely to get myself health insurance: AND NOT BECAUSE OF TEH GEY!
While being denied tax benefits and rights is certianly wrong and an unjust burden, reducing it to just that is wrong. *** don't want to marry simple because they want to pay less (actually, in some cases, MORE) taxes: they want to marry because they want to be able to operate as families in our legal society.
Striaght Man Becomes Representative for **** community:
<a href='http://www.seanbaby.com/news/fagsean.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.seanbaby.com/news/fagsean.htm</a>
Finally, We Get to Vote on Whether or Not Kids Are ****.
<a href='http://www.seanbaby.com/news/measure9.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.seanbaby.com/news/measure9.htm</a>
And one of the funniest parsings of nonsensical anti-homosexual videos ever:
<a href='http://www.seanbaby.com/stupid/original.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.seanbaby.com/stupid/original.htm</a>
(Scroll down to almost the very bottom where the table with the pink lettering on one side is: read that)
Wheeee: I'd like to send you to a **** pride march and see what happens.. just because.
There's no problem when an individual decides to act in any sort of deviant behavior, such as long as it's consentual. However, when large numbers of individuals act in such a manner, it becomes a social trend, and when a social trend is formed on what is found to be <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63359&view=findpost&p=954902' target='_blank'> a relationship of limited stability, where kids are involved,</a> then you accept something that is statistically harmful.
The acceptance of homosexuality as a whole is a doorway into the acceptance of homosexual marriage, which is a short leap from adoption.
And yes, I know there are children in foster homes all through the country, but there's also hundreds of thousands of married couples who want to adopt, but are tied up in the red tape and or unable to pay the legal fees of an adoption attorney.
My thoughts exactly. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wouldn't say that...I'm sure that for many peope, religion is something to hide their prejudice behind, but I don't think it's the cause.
As evidence, you cite your own post, which itself doesn't even contain the relevant evidence?
What?
Even if it did present the relevant evidence, and even if **** marriages were more unstable than straight ones (which itself is highly dubious, seeing as *** that want to marry would tend, on average, to be MORE committed to their partnerships than either straight people who treat marriage as a matter of course, and **** lotharios who don't want to marry anyway), that STILL doesn't establish that a PARTICULAR **** couple is incapable of providing a stable home. Homes are always evaluated on a case-by-case basis anyway.
If African American homes were found to be less stable than white homes, should we then stop all adoption proceedings dealing with this particular racially deviant group?
And I've got bad news for you: **** couples ALREADY have and adopt children, even without marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I know there are children in foster homes all through the country, but there's also hundreds of thousands of married couples who want to adopt, but are tied up in the red tape and or unable to pay the legal fees of an adoption attorney.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No: what they want are healthy white babies. The kids already in foster homes are not in very high demand at all: that's why they are in the foster system in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
QUOTE (http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm)
"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"
And,
QUOTE (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)
Criteria for good parenting
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years;
not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).
How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
Stability
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.
Statistically, a homosexual union will not be as "close-coupled" and thus, more prone to becoming a, to use a somewhat cliche'd phrase, "broken home."
72% of all juvinile deliquents come from a broken home, and the money spent on feeding and sheltering them is staggering.
So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption, which, logically, will increase the ammount of kids with mental and emotional disorders.
That is a gross violation of the "greatest good for the greatest many" that I established earlyer, on completely secular orgins. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If African American homes were found to be less stable than white homes, should we then stop all adoption proceedings dealing with this particular racially deviant group?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a nice straw-man argument, but it is just that. Race is not a choice, nor is it a detrement. Homosexuality IS a choice, or at the very most, a conditioned response to the same sex that can be overcome.
A more accurate analogy would be looking at the home of two alcoholics. Yes, they both inherited the gene's that cause that particular weakness, but they still make the choice to drink or not. If constant and obsessive drinking is shown to be detrimental to the mental and emotional health of a child living around it, shouldn't adoption by an alcoholic couple be barred?
The same argument applys aptly to homosexuality. If it's shown that making those choices causes a detriment to kids around them, then kids should be protected against them. In my post you failed to read, I made just that case, that the environment created by homosexual parents is damaging.
And yes, even a trend wouldn't stop a particluar couple from being good adoptive parents, but the study showed that only 10% of male couples had a "close-coupled" relationship, with the divorce rate soaring at 50% in the first <u>6 years,</u> opposed to the 40 or 50 year timetable for the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.
Thats a large leap that defys the logic of your own post. Your post clearly states:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years;
not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what you're saying is that somehow these criteria will be circumvented by allowing homosexuals to marry. Which makes absolutely no sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality IS a choice, or at the very most, a conditioned response to the same sex that can be overcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what evidence do you have for this? Being homosexual is no more a choice then being heterosexual.
"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok-- so we're referencing a pamphlet last updated in 1974, which quotes from an anecdotal speech by an <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover' target='_blank'>extremely questionable public figure</a> without any sort of data to validate it, and this is supposed to be be taken . . seriously?
And I'm wondering if this Garner Ted Armstrong is the same as <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/17/db1702.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/17/ixportal.html' target='_blank'>this one</a>? You know, the gambling, philadering, sexual assaulting pillar of society. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garner_Ted_Armstrong' target='_blank'>More here.</a> (For bonus fun, look up his father, Herbert Armstrong, and see what <i>he</i> was accused of).
Well, I guess if anyone knows what causes deviency, it'd be these two.
Prove that.
If we're talking about the validity of his child-rearing <b>advice</b>, I think his character is admissible-- Especially considering that, aside from anecdotal snippets, he doesn't seem to offer very much hard data to support his proclamations.
Of course, in lieu of 'data', he <i>does</i> gives us over-the-top prose like the following:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin and other so-called "international gangsters" -- yes, and all the "bums" on skid row, the drifters who come to your back door for a handout, the arch-criminals, the petty offenders, and the sex fiends who have committed horrible atrocities -- all of them -- were little babies once!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's like a transcript of a Jack Chick tract. All it's missing is some horribly over-shaded villian following it up with a hearty "HAW, HAW, HAW!"
You missed the important part:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>without any sort of data to validate it</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, if, after reading about his other opinions and exploits, you want to take his <i>advice</i> (because that's what the 'article' offered), by all means: be my guest.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er . . . they're comparing apples and oranges here, since it appears that they're equating lesbian 'pairs' with married heterosexuals.
It seems like it would be more accurate to compare lesbian <i>pairs</i> with heterosexual <i>pairs</i>-- Though, I'm sure that would have skewed their stats unfavorably, so they chose to compare all lesbian couples with heterosexuals couples who were in a <i>legally binding</i> relationship.
Anyone else see how that would stack the percentages well in their favor? I notice that they don't provide stats when they bring in cohabiting couples at the end (again, still a smaller subset of the larger group, but closer to the target) . . . seems like that would be appropriate.
Edit: And this is just me thinking out loud, but I wonder how much the <i>prospect</i> of marriage would alter the dynamics of homosexual couples. Because it's an impossibility, does that help to define the nature of what their relationships entail?
The problem here is that there is no easy way to distinguish lesbians who are dating or cohabiting from those who have lifelong commitments to each other. So that means that this study is as stupid as:
"Study finds that heterosexual pairs (defined as people who are causally dating all the way up to AND including marriage) are less stable than heterosexual marriages (defined as ONLY those who have decided to be legally committed to each other)"
It's worse than comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying that a red apple, compared to a second group of both red apples and orange oranges, is more red in color than the average color of the second group!!!
This is a good analogy, because whereas alcoholism can cause a husband to crash cars into things, beat his children/spouse, and generally be nasty, homosexuality (an equally terrible dissease) causes a husband to decorate more.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make a nice straw-man argument, but it is just that. Race is not a choice, nor is it a detrement. Homosexuality IS a choice, or at the very most, a conditioned response to the same sex that can be overcome. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the real argument kiddies. All this talk about equality, marraige, rights, etc, is all just another way of argueing the very basic moral concepts of homosexuality: Is it a choice and is it a bad thing?
If homosexuality is truly a choice, then all of this is a moot point to any debater. One who beleved sexuality to be completely up to the individual and not a product of factors outside of the individual, then rather than mucking about in all this legal stuff and making straight America uncomfortable, they can just stop, especially if morals are brought into the picture. Unfortunately this is not an easy question to answer, and even if it is proven somehow that homosexuality is a choice, there is always the option of saying "so what, why should we make this choice the way you say?"
This leads to the second and more important question, whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "good" (in the moral sense of good and evil, not good as in enjoyable). If homosexuality is considered "wrong" no amount of talk about rights or equality will sway a person's opinion on the subject of marraige or adoption of other such matters. If homosexuality is wrong and homosexuality is a choice, then homosexuals are oblidged to make the right choice and stop being homosexual. If homosexuality is wrong then marraige is an institution that needs to be protected from homosexuals (who are commiting "wrong" and "bad" acts), if homosexuality is wrong then the children need to be kept away from it, as it will automatically have negative affects on them by association (even if those affects are difficult to impossible to define with any degree of certainty). At this point any argument of rights, logic, or one that only pertains to that one particular question (just marraige, or just adoption) becomes useless and irrelivent next to saving the children or saving the concept of marraige. Of course it goes without saying that the same holds true for the opposite viewpoint. Now, if all these other arguments about all these other topics revolve around these very basic questions, that means that argueing these other topics without first resolving the core issues is useless and will always lead to the same points being thrown back and forth.
Sorry for the rant, just figured I'd let you know that the current thread of argument we're on right now is absolutely useless and misguided.
I think you must have intended this reply to go somewhere where it makes sense. All I said was that there may be statistical differences between the rate of problems within different groups, whether they are chosen or not. That means, by your standards, African Americans shouldn't be able to adopt, because their children are much more likely to end up in prison than white people's children.
That's not a straw man. That's YOUR logic, simply applied to a different group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In my post you failed to read, I made just that case, that the environment created by homosexual parents is damaging.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read it: and you didn't make the case at all. You just posted some rantings by a crackpot than didn't have any sort of relaible data in them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, even a trend wouldn't stop a particluar couple from being good adoptive parents, but the study showed that only 10% of male couples had a "close-coupled" relationship, with the divorce rate soaring at 50% in the first 6 years, opposed to the 40 or 50 year timetable for the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can people that can't marry have a "divorce" rate??? And if you did a LIFETIME study of a group, and then compared it only to marriages, you'd get the same results with heterosexuals. In my lifetime, only 5% of my relationships have been "close-coupled." Most people have lots more shallow relationships before finding "the one" so if you just sample the total number of shallow relationships, you end up with an inflated figure.
Ah, I see this particular study has raised its ugly head once more.
As I explained the last time as well, this is a very _misleading_ statistic. First of all you will have to provide the equivalent % divorced amongst heterosexuals in the first 6 years for any sort of comparison to be meaningful.
You see the 50% over a "lifetime" hides the fact that the majority of divorces will occur relatively early on (within 6-9 years) of heterosexual relationships as well.
See here:
"_DURATION OF MARRIAGE TO DIVORCE
Between 1989 and 1999 the median duration of marriage for divorcing couples increased from 10.2 years to 11.3 years. Of the couples who divorced in 1999, 36% were separated within the first five years of marriage and a further 23% were separated in the next five years_"
<a href='http://www.family.org.au/update/2000/u20001103.html' target='_blank'>Source</a>
Then as others have mentioned you are not comparing the same things. You are comparing legally married (entitled to all benefits) couples probably with children to non-married couples probably without children. How many heterosexual marriages go the long stretch for the sake of children?
There are way too many unknowns to draw any meaningful statistics from this study.
LMAO! Are you serious?
C'mon, you can do better than that.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, alternately, because getting divorced can also be such an enormous headache. A Hell of a lot more effort is required than simply telling your boyfriend/girlfriend, "I think we need to talk . . . "
Explain why a large group of people decide they want to be oppressed and even hated.
And I'm pretty sure its not a choice. I'm bisexual, so if worst comes to worst, I'll only flirt with women, but that doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly stop being attracted to guys. It doesn't work that way. Its a realization, not a choice.
Explain why a large group of people decide they want to be oppressed and even hated.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could say the same thing about the early Christians.
Fact of the matter is, people as a whole are neither stable nor predictable. Those damn memes of self-sacrifice and idealism, whatever their particular form, keep cropping up among us. If someone has a predisposition to homosexuality, and they feel opressed, they'll most likely go out of their way to preserve the dignity and meaning of their own life, and demand equality. It's natural, and it's one of the reasons we as a species are still around, because we do demand fairness and respect from our fellow man, and we treat him with that same dignity.
<!--QuoteBegin-Allurhive+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Allurhive)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the real argument kiddies. All this talk about equality, marraige, rights, etc, is all just another way of argueing the very basic moral concepts of homosexuality: Is it a choice and is it a bad thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
<a href='http://www.gettingit.com/article/56' target='_blank'>Semen Warriors of New Guinea (Mature Content)</a>
This article describes some of the rituals and practices of several Malasian tribes, notably the Sambia, in which homosexuality is simply a part of growing up.
I don't mean to insinuate that homosexuality is primitive or based on bad medical science, so don't get carried away here.
My point can be found <a href='http://www.globalgayz.com/newguinea-news.html' target='_blank'>Here.</a>
Note that "Very rarely do adult Sambian males adopt a homosexual orientation; the pressures to establish and provide for a family are keenly felt (Herdt, 1987)."
How is it that it's possible for 100% of Sambian males to lead bisexual lives up until 22, and then afterwards have over 95% of those same males lead monogamous, heterosexual lifestyles?
I would argue that the perception of homosexuality in our culture as a factor similar to race, which the person has no control over comes directly from our country's majority scorning homosexuality. Those that might have a predisposition to homosexuality would feel compelled to either suppress it and deny the fact that it's even there, or embrace it and deny the fact that they had a choice in the matter. The former would lead to psycological stress, and the latter to an understanding of self reached through crooked logic and experiencial evidence.
As I said before, the net effect on the culture of one homosexual couple is nil, but the acceptance of it to the point of ignoring any question as to whether it could be harmful or not could be devastating.
Lets debate this point before we move on.