Glad to see this back. It would have been sad had it been confined to the politically-correct lead-lined vault!
ORAC
I did a bit of digging on your references. The result concerning the second, NARTH, is most interesting. They are a fundamentalist Christian group supporting "Reparative therapy" and believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and can be cured
Fair hit, NARTH isn't exactly a 'fair and balanced' organisation, however the specific article I linked to contained the most concise precis I could find of the 'environmental pollution' argument. I do not agree with their assertion that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice - however, I remain convinced that many people opt to live the 'gay lifestyle' without actually being gay because it is somehow percieved as 'fashionable' at the moment.
Tablet_Eraser
Doesn't explain why homosexuality existed BEFORE exposure to DDT. DDT is a modern chemical, so how does this explain homosexuality prior to human exposure to such chemicals?
True, Tabs, but environmental pollution has been around alot longer than DDT has. It is now becoming generally accepted that certain types of chemicals can really screw with an animal's endocrine system, particularly during the vulnerable early stages of gestation. One has to admit that there seems to be a correlation between pollution levels over the last 50 years and the
apparent explosion in the levels of homosexuality. You may argue that 'the homosexuality was there, it was just never made public because society frowned upon it' - however, that is one almighty assumption that can neither be proven nor disproven. I agree, though, that this model does not adequately explain homosexuality that occurred long before the industrial revolution, but it is an idea that is still in it's infancy.
Sexuality and masculinity are very distinct.
I disagree, as would many biologists - both are VERY heavily influenced by the same hormonal mechanisms. Whilst they may well not be DIRECTLY linked, they are not unrelated.
I am not a fish. I am a man. This article has nothing to do with sexuality.
You've also made the disingenuous argument of linking human and animal sexuality
..then why cite examples of alleged homosexual behaviour in animals to support your position?
And since Plato, Edward II, James I of England, Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing - among other luminaries - were homosexuals BEFORE any of your chemical arguments applied, I do not see how you can prove your case at all.
The short answer is that I cannot
prove my case - anymore than you can prove yours. I can merely state my beliefs and provide thought and/or information to back those beliefs up. 'Biological and immunological' changes can also occur artificially - if these
are the 'cause' of homosexuality, that doesn't
automatically make it 'natural' - that was the point I was trying to make. If the other school of thought is true, that homosexuality has a genetic cause, that too does not
automatically make it 'natural', since many things can influence one's genome.
Proud2Serve
I'd be interested for some guidance as to how far the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct governs current service and reserve personnel and their public pronouncements when out of uniform, and online.
It doesn't - your private life is just that, unless it can be shown to affect operational efficiency as per the service test. And postings on an anonymous internet forum fall even further away from that net, since you are not personally identifying yourself.
Holding "traditional" views for a long time does not necessarily make them right
Nor does it automatically make them wrong. Traditional views have generally survived for a long time for a reason.
On HM Government's estimate you are talking about 7% of the working population. Some might even put it as high as 10%. This is not tiny - it is anything up to 20 000 currently serving personnel in the regular forces.
I don't believe this to be true. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that this govt is in the thrall of the 'gay mafia' and actively chases the so-called 'pink vote' - Most of the credible research available puts the figure between 2-6%, so let's take a mean and say 4% - even the almighty 'gay gob****e'
Stonewall now puts the figure at around 5% (and even then, they admit that this is largely based on 'assumptions').
Taking this, one can reasonably assume that the Military does not particularly attract gays - for the same reasons that some other professions (cabin crew, for example) seem to attract a significant proportion of gay men. Even if we DID, that works out as something like 3-4000 gay personnel - I have no idea where your 20,000 came from. Given the relative unattractiveness of our job, the reality is probably in the mid-hundreds, if that, bearing in mind we have only just begun to accept openly gay personnel. I would even go out on a limb here and guess that we have
less than 200 openly gay personnel currently serving. I challenge you to refute that, with evidence.
"Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children." ... which is why it is working so well in contemporary society. Are you sure marriage isn't a construct of the church to aid social control and try to prevent STI spreading through sexual promiscuity? That's a whole other discussion.
What makes you think a gay 'partnership' would succeed where a marriage has failed? The primary causes of marriage failure are personal failings of the individuals involved - something which ALL people - gay AND normal - are overly prone to nowadays. Surely our
entire society is a 'construct of the church', since our laws, customs and morals are based upon (largely) christian beliefs?
"A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment" - Why isn't it? What evidence do you base this on?
By simple virtue of the fact that it contains two adults of the same sex - therefore children are not being influenced by the gender role of half of the worlds population. Children learn by example, and are influenced by their parents more than any other individual. They need the influence of both sexes in this to develop a balanced view of the world around them. How confusing it must be for a child when they have 2 people they call 'Daddy' (or 'Mummy'), despite the fact that only 1 of them can be it's actual parent? I'm not saying it would always automatically be a disaster, but it is certainly far, far removed from the ideal. Human society has managed to survive quite nicely for over 6,000 years (or even longer) with the traditional family unit at it's centre. This is not a coincidence.
Re-Heat
Re-Heat - The problem with this view is that to be a leader - to care about your staff/troops/men/women whom work for you - you have to care what people do in their own time in order to effectively motivate them to work for you
This is, I'm afraid, bollox. You are obviously not a member of the armed forces if you think we run some kind of cuddly-fluffy management style - we don't, and never have. You do as you're told, simple as that - it's why we
canachieve what we
do achieve. And just to re-iterate - the new code of social conduct explicitlly states that your private life is private, except in extremis. Those who constantly bring their personal problems to work are frowned upon.
If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet.
I, and many, many others, will never ask this question, for two reasons - firstly, I really don't want to know, and secondly, it is none of my business.
16B