I mean, if same-sex couples are allowed the same rights as "straight" couples, how exactly is this going to turn society on its ear, given that there's so few of them in the first place?

I suspect that opponents of same sex legislation will have to come out in the open and admit that they believe that anyone can catch Teh Gay[TM].

First off, I am not approaching this from a "morality" aspect. Whether homosexuality is "right", "wrong", or "neither", it still has real consequences. Are they good, are they bad? I have no clue because I was raised religious and the moral side of things always ended the argument. Please take it easy on me as I try to expand my mind.

You kinda missed my point. "Harm" and "consequences" are subjective, unless you're talking about very strict medical or scientific definitions. Specifically, I challenge you to come up with one example of a "consequence" of homosexuality in society that doesn't arise as a result of the interactions between society as a whole with the homosexual minority. They can't be disentangled and examined "objectively" from their surrounding contexts.

Right or wrong, that is a fact of the reality we live in. A very small percentage of people are homosexual. It is likely that it will always be that way especially if homosexuality is genetic, unless there becomes an economically feasible way for a large percentage of homosexual couples to reproduce biologically.

Same-sex couples already can reproduce biologically. Gay men can and do find women willing to bear children for them or, more often, have children from previous "straight" relationships. Lesbians only need to visit a fertility clinic, find a sperm "donor" or, like gay men, already have children from previous relationships.

What we're talking about here is access to legal rights, entitlements and protections. Any argument, as A.L. is pointing out, which can be mustered to deny rights to this minority can easily apply to any others. If the ability to concieve children is a hallmark of marriage then millions of heterosexual, childless couples are no longer entitled to call themselves married. Let's talk about the impact they have on society, since they're probably a larger "minority" than gays or lesbians. I haven't seen an argument against extending societal rights to homosexuals which wasn't similarly riddled with holes.

Furthermore, this isn't a slippery slope, but an issue of basic fairness and moral equivalency. Given the fluidity of sexual expression, "minority" is a social construct. What's meant by "homosexual"? Someone with an exclusive attraction to men? Someone who would prefer to be with men but is in a "straight" relationship? Someone who would never admit his attraction to the same sex, even on an anonymous survey? How many "homosexuals" are there, really? Any line you draw will be an arbitrary one.

So it is very likely that the minority issue will always challenge homosexuals. It is a valid aspect to look at when determining the impact of homosexuality on a person.

I find that kind of analysis pointless. For me the most important issue is: what kind of society do we want to create? This is important for every citizen because an inclusive, permissive society makes room for almost everyone*. I want to live in religously- and socially-tolerant society because I can belong there. Opponents of extending basic societal rights to minorities need to be aware that their own entitlements only last as long as they're not the minority.

Now in Canada, the issue was laughably simple. Discrimination against people because of sexual orientation violated their Charter rights and freedoms. End of story.

I do understand that in the United States, your different system of laws, constitutional framework and history may make the issue more complicated, though the question still remains as pertinent.

The acid test is this: take any argument against extending rights to people who are same-sex oriented. Replace any reference to homosexual/lesbian/gay with the name of any other minority (Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Iroquois...). Did the argument just get more or less repellent?

Why or why not?

* Peanut Gallery: please no stupid red herrings about polygamy, bestality, child molestation, terrorists...

As mentioned in my policy proposal, there are a lot of other groups who suffer from the minority issue to a greater degree than the homosexuality group. There are also many other factors aside from homosexuality that have real consequences. Of course we should look at the impact of any factor that has an consequences on a human being, but why concentrate on a factor that if it does create harm, won't create as much as say being overweight or poor.
You have said that homosexuality is the fact of the reality we live in, so why spend time determining its direct impact on a person when you can't change it. The harm that comes to a person in a minority, comes mostly not from being a minority but the interactions with society and that is where studies are carried out and that is where can occur. Which what Heliobates was saying.
If you are concerned about the effect of demonostrable harm on being born a certain minority, then you should concentrate on the differences between ethnicity, such as why blacks in America have higher rates of kidney discease. This is because the greatest differences in 'inbuilt' differences in 'harm' will come from genetics and there would be greater variance between ethnicities and between sexes than there would be between those of difference sexual orientatation.
Or how about spending your energy on the policy issues of overweight people. There is quite rightly a lot of discussion spent on this because, it, unlike homosexuality, has significant stastically proven effects on people and society and will become an increasingly more serious issue as time passes. It, unlike homosexuality is something that we can technically do something about (whether we should of course is the key.)
So while your question is valid, your concern is misplaced as there are a lot more useful questions that can be asked. For example try swapping the word homosexuality in your question to any of the other words I have listed and you will get many more useful and relevant questions. "Whether homosexuality is "right", "wrong", or "neither", it still has real consequences. Are they good, are they bad?"

It's exceedingly difficult to separate "harm caused by homosexuality" from the entire social dynamic which gives rise to the harm caused to homosexuals in the first place.

First off, I am not approaching this from a "morality" aspect. Whether homosexuality is "right", "wrong", or "neither", it still has real consequences. Are they good, are they bad? I have no clue because I was raised religious and the moral side of things always ended the argument. Please take it easy on me as I try to expand my mind.

Right or wrong, that is a fact of the reality we live in. A very small percentage of people are homosexual. It is likely that it will always be that way especially if homosexuality is genetic, unless there becomes an economically feasible way for a large percentage of homosexual couples to reproduce biologically.

So it is very likely that the minority issue will always challenge homosexuals. It is a valid aspect to look at when determining the impact of homosexuality on a person.

Cheers,

Matt

I wish you would not have used the word "condition" it makes it sound like I think people who are homosexual have a disease or something.

Matt

However a better method than just crudely outlawing groups from procreating, is creating measure of suitability for procreation based on a variety of indices. For the UK I suggest these indices be based on data from the census (for how close to the norm your ethnic group, religious group etc is), index of multiple deprivation (for the suitability of your current and past geographical location), statement of annual income, education records, criminal records, health records and a t test using data from a standarised national questionairre to see how close your views are to the norm. At the international level I suggest start with the Human Development Index and Failed States Index. Also I agree with MJJP about the importance of womens' nuturing role. However researchers have shown that some women can have 'male brains' and vice versa. These women, like men, need to be disallowed from child rearing with another man (unless he is identified as having a women's brain) by taking test such as a this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

This is much fairer and much more logical than MJJP's original suggestion as it takes account the many different factors involved in a child going awry and how they interact with each other. This may seem strict, but so are (quite rightly) the current laws for adoption. As MJJP said 'The best society can do is tolerate the reality and avoid discrimination'. Hopefully in the future, we can use genetic engineering to eliminate these deviations from the norm and those potential traits that could go awry and no child will be subject to discrimination.

I'm sorry for putting up such long posts, but as MJJP put so much time and effort into their posting, if I am to support and refine their arguments it would be respectful to do the same.
==========================================================================
"The latest contribution comes from the Joseph Rowntree foundation. Its report, Experiences of Poverty and Educational Disadvantage, which pulls together eight research studies, shows that children from poor homes are nearly a year behind when they start school, and two years behind by 14.

Most never catch up. Only a quarter of students eligible for free school meals gain five good GCSEs or their equivalent, compared with over half the overall population in England. What is more, the achievement gap between disadvantaged and affluent children is wider here than in most similar countries. The report showed that disadvantage is not just material: children from poorer homes tend to have a far less positive view of learning, of school and of themselves."

The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.

Now when we discuss children who no longer have a father and mother which is surly traumatic to the child WHY would we place a child in an atmosphere that is clearly NOT the norm? If anything I think the emphasis should be to bring that child up as unscarred as possible. I really don't care what you think you should be allowed to do because you can. Whether you want to admit it or not there is a negative to the gay lifestyle and again I don't see any reason to expose a child to this probable negativity.
==================================================================================

I absolutely agree with these above points by MJJP, however he isn’t addressing the biggest problem. Overweight people. Their kids are likely to be overweight either through passing of genes or passing of bad food habits, a prime case of ‘adopting the lifestyle’ therefore most likely to have physical harm. There is in my experience being overweight is almost certainly going to expose you to negativity and potential mental harm. Also even more so than children of gays, overweight parents will have decreased lifespan and reduced health as will their children and are most likely to have mental problems from lifelong bullying and jokes so there is nothing more hazardous to children than overweight parents. A point that was acknowledged in Britain when an overweight person was denied the right to adopt due to their weight.

"Having gay parents in San Francisco or in some other big city may not be a big deal. That reality is not a fact in many other areas of the country and I see no reason to subject a child to this potential and probable discrimination."

Again point well made but needs to be wider implemented. Ethnic minorities should not be allowed to have children in areas were they are the minority as their children will not be the norm and most likely experience discrimination. In particular those ethnic minorities that have a negative lifestyle for example the black community. In fact as their average life expectancy is much lower than the norm, liable to listen to gangsta rap, be overweight, lack two parent families. Black children in total face overwhelming negativity. It is exceedingly irresponsible to subject your potential offspring to this. Also people in strife ridden areas shouldn’t have children. What hope does a kid in gaza strip, Iraq or Congo face?

I practice what I preach and intend to have no children as my potential child would deviate from the norm being bookish, have obscure taste in music and would be reading a non normal paper and so suffer significant mental scarring and negativity while growing up as I did. Like MJJP I’m appalled by the fact that others are not so considerate to their potential offspring and as a result discussion of legislation for criteria on having children, fostering, adoption should be started. To summarise this posting, overweight, certain ethnic minorities, above/below average intelligence, enjoyment of speciality pursuits, dwelling in a strife ridden area and ideas that aren’t possessed by the norm should be the top of the list.

This is the most laughable, ignorant sort of fallacious correlation-implies-causation thinking.

Folks, you do realize you're arguing with someone who offers NARTH studies as supporting evidence, and does so with a straight face?

That told me all I needed to know.

And Matt: It's exceedingly difficult to separate "harm caused by homosexuality" from the entire social dynamic which gives rise to the harm caused to homosexuals in the first place.

Look at Gregory Hecks' writings for links to some serious sociology.

Additionally, you might ask some homosexuals, unless one Drinks the Kool-Aid when it comes to accusations like MJJP's that a Vast Sinister Conspiracy controls all the gays and lesbians (or all the "uppity" gays and lesbians, anyway) in America and has them feed misinformation to unsuspecting straight people. I forwarded your question to a lesbian friend via instant messaging; the conversation went as follows:

*** (9/17/2007 00:01:16): :| wait...so, this guy wants to know if the 'condition' of being a homosexual causes problems for homosexuals??
*** (9/17/2007 00:01:46): am I reading this right
Alex Weaver (9/17/2007 00:02:34): Whether it results in problems. It's a pretty open-ended question as regards what kind of problems, though x.x
*** (9/17/2007 00:03:11): erm...I'm guessing it would be the same problems that a heterosexual would have...except you know, the outbursts against them
*** (9/17/2007 00:04:27): heheheh the only problems I've ever had because of my "condition" has been the inability to openly share my 'condition' with others due to various reasons
*** (9/17/2007 00:08:42): That seems to be the consensus.
*** (9/17/2007 00:09:03): other than that he may experience some dry mouth and upset stomach
*** (9/17/2007 00:09:13): :P
Alex Weaver (9/17/2007 00:09:13): LOL

I am interested in a frank exchange of ideas on the facts about homosexuality, specifically whether it actually does cause problems for homosexuals. I recognize this is peripheral to whether it should be legalized or not because there are many things which are demonstrably harmful to people which are nonetheless legal. I am just curious about getting some facts which do not have a slant either way. Any sources would be helpful.

matt