Correct me if i m wrong. There has been no conclusive study till date showing that homosexuality is solely because of genetic & hormonal stimulus. Upbringing can have a huge impact on the child's sexual orientation.

Amongst the categories of sexual orientation are heterosexuals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals. The heterosexuals desire and fantacise the opposite sex only. The gays and lesbians desire and fantacise the same sex. Bisexuals fantacise both the sexes. But isn't it true that such specific categorization of sexual orientation is misleading and not at all practical?

There are categories of people who are heterosexuals adults but don't mind making-out with the same sex. these are heterosexuals who are not repulsed at the idea of making-out with the same sex. (mind u they don't necessarily fantacise being gay/lesbians).

Now, if a LGBT couple up-brings a child, wont it be like predisposing the child to a confused sexual orientation as mentioned above. A heterosexual male child after attaining puberty may thereafter not only be tolerant of consensual sex between two males but may also indulge in homosexual activity if circumstances insist. (its not unheard that 2 male soldiers indulging in sexual activities on long voyages. they return to their respective home and behave as normal heterosexuals). (threesome between 2men and a female is also an example of such tolerant/ indulgent behaviour).

I also argue that, by nature a heterosexual male is more polarized than a heterosexual female. The sight of 2 heterosexual females holding hands and kissing is not exactly repulsive. But thts not the case with 2 heterosexual males.

In that premise a heterosexual male child's sexual orientation may be highly influenced by the upbringing of LGBT parents.

I support LGBT rights minus their right to bear/up-bring children.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about sexual orientation. Here in the US, the Christians have funded a propagandist by the name of Paul Cameron. He's been thrown out of every serious professional society and his name is finally being recognized as a voice of bigotry, yet Christians still quote him uncited.

Some accurate information can be found from the American Psychological Association, such as this pamphlet:

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

Sexual orientation isn't taught. That much is known. Children of same-sex parents have been studied and no harm has been found:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/

Shouldn't the measure we use to meddle in people's lives be based on demonstrated harm, rather than cultural bias?

You've dismissed my concerns very briefly Don. These links don't provide any additional information that is missing on other websites.

Research shows that there is no psychological harm caused to a child raised by LGBT parents. But consider a situation in which 2 adult heterosexual males are walking down the road hand in hand holding their pinkies just expressing their friendly affection for eachother. Its not harmful is it? But is it disturbing? I guess it is. This feminisation of male child and masculinisation of a female child like playing with toy trucks etc is unnervingly predisposed and forced onto that child.

Ofcourse its not harmful. but is it healthy?

You mean, like this picture:

http://www.popular-pics.com/Bush_King_Abdullah_Holding_Hands

Hopefully, this drives home the idea that cultural perspectives of masculinity and appropriate behavior are all relative.

I know that public displays of affection are generally frowned upon in many Asian countries. Putting that aside, isn't an expression of love a beautiful thing? Isn't it something to be cherished?

Fine. Bear with me once again. The entire crux of my argument is, Whether the Right to raise children is an intrinsic part of Gay Rights? Moreover can Gay couple claim this as a "Fundamental/ Primary Right" or "just a Privilege"?

There were various Human Rights struggles in the past and present. Now if u notice, all these Human Rights struggles were meant end the dogma created by the society and RESTORE the natural state of affairs and maintain it. Its important to note that there always existed a natural state before a dogma kicked inn. For eg. Apartheid in Africa, Untouchability in India, Inequality to Women , and finally discrimination against LGB people are all the part of various dogmas but there existed a natural state prior to this dogma in which there was no injustice. So before Apartheid there was no mass discrimination against blacks; before the caste system in HINDU religion there was no Untouchability in India; similary women were not discriminated under an organized dogma; and homosexuality was as natural as heterosexuality before the religious dogma kicked inn .

Now if u consider the question of LGB couples raising children, i dont see any prior state or ancient society in which raising children by LGB couples was considered a common practise. No doubt homosexuality was celebrated/tolerated in many communities but raising children was neither documented nor practised on a large scale.

As per my knowledge there was no concept of a nuclear family with a homosexual couple and kids. So what 'rights' are u trying to restore back? By that analogy how can parental rights be a fundamental right of a gay couple? At the most it could be given the status of a "privilege". Once a "Right" is reduced to a "Privilege" it becomes the responsibility of the LGB community to establish an absolute necessity to enjoy that "privilege". It therefore could not regarded as fundamental for the harmonious existence of the LGB community with the society at large.

A child will always love his parents no matter what. So a testimony by an adolescent son/daughter in support of their homosexual parent has hardly of any standings. As for the sexual orientation of the adolescent son/daughter of LGB parents I fail to understand how nature will persist against nurture in the long term.

You may have hit on precisely the reason why religious conservatives here in the US don't want same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as "marriage".

I'm not sure I buy the "restoring rights" argument. The woman's rights in the context of a heterosexual marriage has changed dramatically over the years. She was traditionally considered property. Now she has more equal rights here in the US.

You might be surprised to know that 1/10th of gay people today are biological parents. Gay people have been around, raising children for a long time. Gays are just more visible now.

The article below gives statistics measured a different way.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

Two people who are dedicated to raising a child would seem to be better than just one, regardless of the sexes, wouldn't you agree? Nobody seems to have as big of an issue with single parents.

Bharat, what do you mean by "natural state of affairs"?

Some people would say that anything existing in nature is "natural" (this is how homosexuality is proclaimed "natural"). Now, to most people, it seems natural that the sun goes up every morning and sets down below the horizon every evening, because it is a common every day experience. But not for the eskimo people. They might hold a different view of what is a natural behavior for the sun.

So, we can define "natural" using the "everyday experience of most people". In other words, using repeatable observations, traditions, and customs. But that definition does not help us at all, because traditions and customs depend on culture, religion, economic conditions, etc., and observations of human behavior are anything but repeatable. However, this is why many people claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Wasn't slavery or apartheid traditionally accepted in some parts of the world and claimed "natural" by the people benefiting from them? We can claim that "it is natural to have paved roads in a civilized society", but that only means that we are used to them.

Some people call "natural" what is aesthetically pleasing. Remember your own quote? "by nature a heterosexual male is more polarized than a heterosexual female." (I guess, you meant "homosexual"). This statement seems to be based purely on what you consider more pleasing for your eyes or taste.

Some people would define what is "natural" based on ethical considerations. E.g. "it is not natural to steal". This leads to circular reasoning. "Homosexuality is unethical because it is unnatural", and "it is unnatural because it is unethical". This merely means that people do not normally do what is considered to be unethical - see the note on traditions and customs above.

Other people would turn to holy texts for their definition of "natural". Now, which holy texts should we use? This is, probably, the most questionable definition of all.

As you can see, there is no common ground whatsoever in definition of "natural state of affairs". It is impossible to agree on conclusions when there is no agreement on premises.

You said: "This feminisation of male child and masculinisation of a female child like playing with toy trucks etc is unnervingly predisposed and forced onto that child."

By this logic, all children must be taken away from their parents, because all parents "force" one thing or another onto their children. And society (school, media, etc.) forces a bunch of other harmful stereotypes on everyone. What shall we do about that?

Is having and raising children a right or a privilege?

Reproduction and growth are in the very definition of life. That's something all living organisms do - from amoebae to humans. Even hardcore creationists cannot deny a living creature a chance to "be fruitful and multiply", because that was the first thing God allegedly said to all living creatures, way before "love your God" and "love your neighbor". I'm not surprised at all that homosexuals have biological children. Now, who has the *duty* to raise them if not the biological parents, if they are physically and mentally able? To disqualify homosexuals from raising their own children, we must argue that homosexuals are not physically or mentally able to do that. But that would be arguing for inferiority of homosexuals which does not make sense if you allow homosexuals to marry, because the argument for homosexual marriages is based on recognizing that homosexuals are equal to everyone else.

Bharat said: "No doubt homosexuality was celebrated/tolerated in many communities but raising children [by homosexuals - AG] was neither documented nor practised on a large scale."

In ancient Greece, pederasty was was considered to be a part of raising boys as a bond between generations. It was widely practiced and well documented. Google "pederasty in ancient Greece".

In this very forum, I have seen people using statement that "two people of same sex cannot have natural offspring" as an argument *against* homosexual marriages. If we follow this line, having and raising children would be a *requirement* for a homosexual marriage license, not a restriction.

Don here likes to base moral rules on harm. Some harm can be demonstrated and recognized as such by all humans (e.g. death or injury). But some harm is very dubious and subjective (like girls liking to play with trucks). It seems to me that most if not all statements regarding "harm" associated with homosexuality is dubious.

I cannot see how *any* opinion on morality of homosexuality can be convincingly backed up by rational reasoning or factual evidence. What have we left to form our opinion on this matter other than personal belief? When it comes to beliefs about human rights, nothing seems to back them up except our passion and "self-evident truths" as Declaration of Independence puts it. It is remarkable that same people who defend their position on homosexuality often hold a vehement opinion against religion. I do not see how it is possible to defend any opinion on homosexuality and say that it is wrong to believe in moral values without evidence.

In addition to what Don said to which I totally agree:

You seem to recognize that definition of sexual orientation is very unclear. Who and how would decide on those parental rights? What would cause more psychological damage to a child - forceful taking the child away from a loving biological parent or growing in a homosexual household? As a parent, I can imagine few things more psychologically damaging than forceful taking children away from their loving biological parents.

The problem with your assertion is simple. If parenting sexuality predetermined the child's sexuality, all heterosexuals would have heterosexual children.

However, the majority of homosexual children come from heterosexual families.

Additionally, if a person is making out with the same sex, they are not heterosexual.

As a deeply heterosexual woman, I can honestly tell you that snogging another woman would be like snogging a horse to me. While I can appreciate that both horses and women are lovely creatures... neither arouse me and the idea of snogging either one is repulsive.

Many environmental factors may play into homo or hetero sexuality. At the end of the day, though, neither one of these 'conditions' are reversible for most of those who experience them. My heterosexuality is not reversible, so for me, the claims that it's "a choice" are utterly ridiculous.

No way on Earth I could CHOOSE to become homosexual or bisexual any more than I could choose to become aroused by a lamp.