Is the US a Christian nation?

[Poeticus]

I was under the impression very few scholars can read Sanskrit.

Namaste,

Millions of people can read Sanskrit.

But, only a few thousand can understand it. Unfortunately, I am not one of them.

It's a Christian nation, and not. Depends on who's talking at the moment.

Namaste,

It makes sense now.

M.V.

 

[Agnostic75]

You completely missed the point. I was pointing out that biological processes explain nothing. Theories about them do. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is as ambiguous as snake oil and is said to explain everything and that renders it meaningless. as a man made theory (not as a biological process). Are you suggesting theistic evolution is true? I believe it is and it would explain a lot but your side does not usually go that route and the person I was giving that statement to was not.

Since I am an agnostic, I believe that theistic evolution is a reasonable possibility.

Do you accept common descent? If so, then you must believe that God has caused, and allowed natural selection to create, and maintain homosexuality.

Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is important to note that Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," not an atheist.

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the time of Attila the Hun, and had been raised, and well-treated by him, your morals would surely have been much different than they are today.

The above is a repeat or so similar to a former post I will disregard it.

More accurately, what I said was a much better argument than the argument that I previously used, and you know that you cannot adequately refute it. Unless you reply to those arguments, it would be reasonable for me to claim that I won that argument.

There is no way that chance and circumstance do not partly determine what people believe.

It is a given that many children who were raised by Christian parents in the U.S., and became Christians, would not have become Christians if they had been raised from just after birth by people of other religions in many countries. It is a fact that parental influence is frequently a big factor regarding the worldview that young people choose. A landmark book that it titled "One Nation Under God," by Kosmin and Lachman, shows that geography, gender, family, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The book is praised by Billy Graham, and by John Cardinal O'Connor. I suggest that you buy the book. Some reviewers have said that it is the best documented book of its kind in the world. The authors do not make a case for, or against religion. All that they do is report the results of lots of documented research. The book leaves no doubts whatsoever that chance and circumstance are important factors regarding what people believe. All that the authors basically said about choosing a worldview was that while they would not presume to claim why people choose their worldviews, apparently geography, gender, family, and age must at least have something to do with why people choose their worldviews. I have the book, so if you want to buy it, and read it, we can discuss it.

It is also a given that some skeptics who have died without accepting the God of the Bible would have accepted him if they had been transported at birth back in time to Jerusalem, in the time of Jesus, assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus performed many miracles.

As for the last sentence I did not say God has freewill but I believe he does. What would restrict his will?

Quite obviously, his nature. God cannot lie. He does not choose to tell the truth since choice implies that there is an option to lie. God does not have the option to lie. He must tell the truth. Therefore, he should not be complimented for telling the truth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The US government has and for the most part, continued to be a secular government. The ability to have freedom of religion and to "make no respecting an establishment of religion" is one reason why religion has flourished so much in this country. So in a dramatic twist all of the arguments that are generally made to say America IS a christian nation should actually be thankful to all the reasons why it is not.

America protects religion far to much in my opinion but such as it is. Tax exemption, extra protections for followers, ect. Even within the Christian umbrella of faiths there are several contradicting views. America is not a prodistant nation and nor is it a Catholic nation. To make that leap and say it is a Christian nation would require redefining not only the general terms of what they mean by "nation" but also "christianity".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What language is your name in? I have given much evidence in every category I would think anyone would use to determine it. We are or were before 1960. Since that was my entire burden I just followed where the conversations went. If you are expecting any issue to be resolved finally, or for a thread to be consistently followed you are in the wrong place. I have seen no one from any side convert to another side in any debate. I will however concede points at times. However I have noticed a non-theist will never concede anything. It is like their house of cards will implode if one ray of light gets in. Forums are full of people very committed to their side.

You never addressed my point, which to refresh your memory was two documents that disprove your claims, including one that explicitly states the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have heard countless people and scholars suggest non-theistic evolution is true. Not a theory but a fact.

I doubt you've ever heard a scholar claim this, because this is just an elementary confusion- evolution is not a fact, it is supported by facts; it is a theory. Remember 2nd grade science class and how the scientific method? If a hypothesis is supported by facts, then it becomes a theory. Thus, a theory is higher, as it were, on the hierarchy of scientific claims; a theory is what a hypothesis becomes when it is supported by sufficient facts.

Evolution is more than just a fact- it is a theory.

Yet no evidence exists for the non-theistic part

What are you talking about? All of evolutionary theory is non-theistic. And since, as you admitted, there is evidence for evolutionary theory, it follows necessarily that there is evidence for "the non-theistic part" (which is all of it).

and the entire theory collapses in ruin without evidence abiogenesis occurred or ever could.

No. That's impossible; abiogenesis falls outside of the purview of the theory of evolution. It simply has nothing to do with it. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of biological life, in other words, why different species exist. It does not even ATTEMPT to address the origin of biological life.

You cannot reasonably require a theory to explain phenomena which fall outside of the scope it was intended to address. This is yet another pseudo-criticism.

An example of what?

An uncontroversial example of-

all major body types appearing in a geologic instant

If by this you're referring to the Cambrian explosion, as it would seem, then your description simply was not accurate. The explosion did not occur in "a geological instant"- 70-80 millions years is a considerable chunk of time, even in evolutionary time; and the timeframe of this explosion is very much under debate.

Regardless, you're advancing an argument from ignorance here, and clearly fallacious arguments won't cut the mustard.

This statement is of the exact same type as mine which was the exact same type as yours.

Right. The difference is, if you mean to challenge what is regarded as well-established common knowledge, you shoulder a much greater burden of proof than if you simply were claiming that what is regarded as well-established public knowledge is actually true.

Within my view your inability to be interested in men is perfectly logical and accounted for. That does not help the case that homosexuality is mandated by biology.

Of course it does. If you maintain the laughable position that homosexuality (and homosexual attraction) is a matter of choice, the inability to choose to have such attraction is more or less contradictory.

The heck erections are not choice. Though they can be either difficult (I almost said hard) or easy. Even in the rare case they are impossible for biological reasons it is not a result of an evolutionary but a breakdown in operation sort of problem. I stated that clumsily but you should be easily able to grasp it anyway.

Sure, it's just patently false. But I guess when you're obligated to hold a certain position by your religious beliefs regardless of what the facts/evidence turns out to look like, you get backed into corners like this as a matter of course.

(of course, this is instructive why DOGMA is such a stupid thing)

Oh Lord the ever present ally of your side. The hyperbolic use (whether they are true or apply) or argumentation legality. Fine the post is too long anyway. Actually I went back and looked and this is not even potentially a straw man.

Of course it is. You are mischaracterizing my position. That's what a strawman is, my friend.

I can't think of one area where science conflicts with faith that is not at the fiction end of the scale.

Lol... Heliocentrism, evolution, human psychology, linguistsics... All fiction, eh?

Then you may not be able to detect sense efficiently.

Riiight... I'm obviously pretty slow on the uptake, so that's quite likely. :sarcastic

Give me a link to rat conversion then.

Look up Calhoun's rat experiments, for one.

Before I do, how many examples and of what degree of discrepancy would I need to get, for you to admit that evolution while I am certain is true is also not that well quantified, or understood and countless anomalies and inconsistencies exist. I need motivation.

Wait, are you backpeddling now? You seemed to think there was an abundance of disconfirming evidence; I'd settle for just an example or two (from a credible source).

 

[SkepticThinker]

If there is no gay gene then how is homosexuality genetic? I got that that from I believe one of the sites you guys gave. However forget that.

Well, as far as we can tell, there's no single "gay gene" responsible for homosexuality, any more than there is a "heterosexual gene" responsible for heterosexuality. There appear to be a combination of factors (pointed out by myself and others) that lead to human sexual identity. It can’t be 100% genetic, as indicated by twin studies. Epigenetic markers are what we should be looking at. That’s what I meant by that. Sorry for the confusion.

I want you to answer a question that occurred to me the other day. Evolution is the relentless weeding out of things not conducive to survival and the selecting of what is beneficial for survival. Hopefully we can agree on this or tis his a moving target that can morph into anything convenient as well? Given that very few genetic abortions or corruptions could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity to breed, why has evolution not weeded out the genetic components of homosexuality if they exist? This is not an argument in the form of a question. It is an actual question.

Well, first of all, all human beings with genitals have the capacity to breed, whether gay or straight.

But I see what you’re asking and I agree it seems counterintuitive. The answer is that nobody knows for sure, but there are a number of ideas out there.

There’s the “gay uncle theory” where back when we were hunter-gatherers, the dominant males would go out to hunt leaving the women, children and non-dominant males behind to care for the children. These non-dominant men would have passed on their genes to children by protecting and caring for their relatives’ children who would have carried the some sort of gay gene.

Then there’s the idea, which is somewhat similar to that above, where males who possess some kind of gay gene may have been bisexual, so that when the dominant men went out to hunt and left these non-dominant males behind to care for the women and children, they ended up mating with the women and passing on their genes to their offspring.

The much more plausible idea, at least in my opinion, is that the some kind of gay gene only produces homosexual behavior given the right social or environmental settings, because we know that having a gene for something doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be a gene for that particular thing – it can be a gene for a thing under the right environmental conditions (much of human development works in this way) which means there would have been nothing to stop it from being passed on because it was good for something else in the past. So in a sense there’s really no “gay gene” that will manifest itself regardless of external factors, there’s a “gay gene” given that the cultural, environmental, neuroendocrinal, etc. settings are right.”

Also, we know that the hypothalamus controls who we find sexually attractive and we know that all fetuses are female up to a certain point in development after which time testosterone masculinizes the body and the brain in males, so these factors must have something to do with it as well.

But all in all, we don’t know for sure exactly what evolutionary advantage homosexuality produces. And I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s more to it than just genetics.

Also can you post a link to a single example of a genetic train wreck? A bird with one wing, a bear with no mouth, or even a fish with no ability to get oxygen from water. I believe Darwin said we should be tripping over anomalies like this, do you know of any?

Animals are born with two heads all the time. Just the other day I saw a two-headed turtle. One of the girls on that Honey Boo Boo show gave birth to a child with an extra thumb. Have you never seen something like that?
Take a look here:
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/natural-born-mututations-2-siamese-fish-10-more-bizarre-genetic-anomalies

 

[Agnostic75]

I have heard countless people and scholars suggest non-theistic evolution is true.

I have heard you say that all of macro evolution has problems. You must have also been referring to theistic macro evolution since macro evolution is macro evolution regardless of whether it is naturalistic, or theistic.

Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

As Behe shows, the only dispute that theistic evolutionists have with naturalists is about the mechanisms which account for common descent, not whether or not common descent is true.

Since you know that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, and does not attempt to explain the mechanisms for evolution, why do you continue to misrepresent what evolution is about? Evolution only attempts to explain "what" happens that accounts for common descent, not "why" common descent happens.

How do you account for the origin of homosexuality among animals, and among humans?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, but what I have noticed is that evolution seems to be capable of anything desired of it and not indictable for the slightest thing undesirable regardless of consistency with it. For example take the title of the most famous book on it: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Now it is claimed that the concept described by that title could never be used to justify racism.That is just plain nuts.

Wow, so I responded to this claim once before, and here I see you making it again.

Once again, Darwin is not referring to human races, and in fact, the book hardly discusses humans at all. He’s talking about populations within specific species, referring to things like pigeon and pig breeds. How that can be used to justify racism, I don’t know. That is just plain nuts. Maybe you should try reading the book, for a better understanding of what Darwin is talking about in the title.

Consider the label for the primary aspect of evolution. Natural selection or survival of the fittest. Now that is claimed to also allow for a practice that would end the human race in a generation if applied across the board. It can improve the eye on a thousand levels but can't weed out a single lethal sexual practice? That is the most elastic theory ever stretched.

This is what we would expect to find if homosexuality is 100% genetic, which I don’t think anyone actually believes anyway.

If what you say is true, then heterosexuals would not engage in what you consider homosexual acts either, because it should have been weeded out by now. And yet they do. How would you explain that? And how do you explain the homosexuality that exists all over the animal kingdom?

Also, I find the argument that “if everyone were homosexual, the human race would come to an end” to be a bit odd, because similarly you could say “if everyone born from now on were female, the human race would eventually come to an end.” Does that mean that being a female would then become bad or wrong?

Well I guess an elastic theory would be composed of ambiguous terms as well. I guess you are right at home. However Darwin said this about that issue and a hundred more quotes of similar nature.

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859).

Commence the elastic efforts to extract Darwin from where he went and I said you would find him at once, or do you simply redefine transitional as everything that ever existed so you have to find nothing specific in the geological record at all. Once again elasticism on steroids.

The fact that children are not clones of their parents justifies the assertion that every living thing is a transitional form.

 

[Agnostic75]

If there is no gay gene then how is homosexuality genetic?

But it doesn't matter since 1) sexual identity can rarely be changed, 2) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 3) there is no need for homosexuals who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years to practice abstinence, and 4) lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk factors than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

Are you implying that when young people experience puberty, those who choose to become homosexuals do so entirely because of environmental factors? If so, how do you explain the fact that when one identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual? It is well-known that identical twins have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. If homosexuality was caused entirely, or even primarily, by environment, that would not be the case.

Why do the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals?

Some children will become homosexuals even if they are raised in Bible Belt states, attend Christian churches that strongly oppose homosexuality, have conservative Christian parents who strongly oppose homosexuality, and have an identical twin who is a heterosexual.

Homosexuals did not cause AIDS. AIDS was originally transmitted to humans through infected primates. If a God inspired the Bible, he created the virus that infected primates. It is well-known among experts that many viruses that humans have originated in animals.

What did innocent animals do to deserve being infected with viruses? What legitimate purpose could God have had for doing that? Higher animals are self-aware, and have emotions. Animals suffered long before humans existed, so the existence of humans could not have anything to do with the suffering of animals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution as strictly a biological process has no explanatory power. My comments are "counting against" the theory as it exists in the minds of men. That theory seems to be able to become whatever is needed. It selects survivable thing unless it needs to account for homosexuality (then it suspends it's relentless drive to weed out non survival inductive things), it is said to produce morality (or a version of it) unless we are discussing bad morals then it can't produce a single one, it is the slow march of progression over time unless we figure out that all major body types exploded on the scene in a moment of geological type then it produces that dynamic, evolution is a tree until it's a bush until it is a forest.

They didn’t. You can stop repeating that. Plants and flowering plants postdate the Cambrian explosion, for example.

And, this “explosion on the scene” that you discuss happened over the course of 10-50+ years, not overnight or something and there have been transitional fossils found within the Cambrian explosion fossils as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The theory is apparently not bounded by anything including evidence.

Huh? It’s bound by mountains of evidence.

It is said to do mutually exclusive things and is distorted into any shape needed.

Such as?

It is sort of the modern equivalent to the snake oil cure alls of the 1800s. It can change tires and cure heartburn. The theory in many places it's applied is as useless as snake oil. It is sort of like a theoretical universal solvent. Anything that is dissolved must have some of it in it or on it. Yet no container (reality) can hold it. As a theory it is a theoretical term that means whatever a proponent wishes it to and then points out how comprehensive it is. What ever evolution actually is it certainly is not accurately represented by the conglomerate of theories with that label.

You just seem to be just lamenting at the fact that the evidence fits the theory here.

Are you suggesting that the inability to perpetuate the species is conducive to survival? If so you have way more explaining to do than I. Until two men have a baby themselves your out of luck.

You are aware that gay people have the same reproductive organs as straight people, right?

I have no bias in this context. I believe evolution occurs. I know homosexuality is not a plus concerning survival. I know that will not stop theoretical biologists from creating fantasies that are at best based on faith to reconcile the irreconcilable. I also did not use the word bias anywhere in what you responded to.

You don’t know any such thing. You want it to be true though, that’s apparent.

LOL Biologists create fantasies? Riiiight, only when they disagree with your religious views are they considered fantasy, right?

I can't think of any behavior less favorable for survival than homosexuality even theoretically possible besides exploding fetus's maybe.

Good for you. So what?

I have no idea what this means but I am sure it is wrong. How has anyone proven that things of great sophistication have evolved in steps that are reducible? Dawkins cartoons and drawings sure are not an example nor is the argument (forget his name) that a biological injection system with some of the parts of a biological electric motor are in the same evolutionary path or could be.

Irreducible complexity is bunk and has been exposed as such.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fossils out of place. There exist millions. The problem is the amount they must be out of place is just a little bit further than the farthest one known.

Name one.

Until you show a biological electric motor not only is reducible in the fossil record but was reduced and we have the record it is theoretically irreducible Then the theory simply morphed into something to account for it.

Done.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.abstract
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html#.UfQKBIxraM8
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

WE should not have Cambrian explosions given evolution as it was known have occurred right up until it was found.

Yes we should. Read some Stephen Gould.

You can't stop a theoretical boggart (if you get that reference my time was not wasted). When the tree model was around we should not have found bush model evidence, when we did it morphed into a bush, until forest evidence was found, then it became a forest. If a concept has no bounds it is meaningless. Call it anything and everything and get it over with.

Funny how it didn’t change into something that showed all life is not connected though, isn’t it? It still shows the common ancestry of all living things.

There have been boots found in Coal supposed to predate man many times over, tools found is layers even older, organic material found in dinosaur fossils, in fact the list is almost inexhaustible but I am more interested in exactly how your self preservation gay conversion theory occurs.

Creationist claims are funny sometimes. Please provides some sources, and let’s examine these claims.

 

[Agnostic75]

Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population.

I will start a new thread about that. I will quote you, but I will not use your name unless you give me permission to do so. That is one of the wildest things that you have ever said.

 

[Poeticus]

I will start a new thread about that. I will quote you, but I will not use your name unless you give me permission to do so. That is one of the wildest things that you have ever said.

Namaste,

She/he actually said that!!?? Wow...

M.V.

 

[Agnostic75]

Namaste,

She/he actually said that!!?? Wow...

M.V.

I know, it's crazy, but he said it. I just started a new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...uality-mandated-choice-alone.html#post3424581, and quoted him.

Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. They choose to do so because they derive pleasure from it, frequently, if not usually without any harmful effects. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual, and experts say that they derive some benefits from their bi-sexuality. Just like animals, some humans derive pleasure from homosexuality, and that is fine as long as they practice safe sex.

I am pretty sure that the Christian is a man.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think its probably taken out of context; he's strawmanning my point that current research supports the idea that homosexuality is adaptive in that it helps prevent overpopulation (for instance, in experiments with rodents, once the food supply is limited, future generations exhibit a drastically higher rate of homosexuality)...

But its still a ridiculously stupid thing to say- claiming that homosexuality is a matter of choice is just blatantly ignorant. (it flies in the face not only of all our best add soundest scientific knowledge but also plain common sense)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I know, it's crazy, but he said it. I just started a new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...uality-mandated-choice-alone.html#post3424581, and quoted him.

As dumb as the comment was, this is sort of inappropriate since I really think you've quoted him out of context. You should at least note that, or link to the post in which he made the comment, so people can understand the context.

Misrepresenting people's position is a double-edge sword.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I did not misrepresent him. He said:

... One of two things must be true in your explanation. Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population. BTW how are monkeys calculating all this? Or homosexuality is genetically caused and would not happen in the time needed to allow for the pond drying up. That also would not explain why it is a common practice within a species (or whatever group name is correct)n and not only true of regions. We could test your theory by taking away resources from fast reproducing forms of life and see if all the fruit fly's turn gay or something. Try it and give me the data. Since your claim lies within all mighty, arbiter of all truth science then that is your burden."

As we can see, he is trying to parody my position. He is not actually himself claiming that "homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and...large groups choose to be gay to avoid overpopulation.

This is confirmed when he says later in that same post-

No, what is silly is trying to imagine a bunch of whales getting together and figuring out who is going to switch hit because the seals are in short supply.

Like I said, he's strawmanning my position, so your characterization of that quote is incorrect; you are misrepresenting him as badly as he was misrepresenting me.

In the interest of a good intellectual conscience, you really should either delete your thread, or edit it to reflect the fact that the quote was taken out of context.

***

Good grief, I shouldn't have to be playing referee over something basic like this. You can't rip **** out of context like that.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have heard two other explanations for homosexuality. One given by another poster and one I looked up. Neither mentioned a single detail you did. In fact neither were the slightest bit similar and gave a completely different explanations. Forget that indicates that evolutionists will say anything to apply evolution to whatever reality coughs up, lets examine your version among the myriad out there. Nothing evolves that fast. When an insect group is noticed to be resistant to the same chemical that killed thousand of them a few years earlier that is not evolution. It can't possibly be evolution. Though it was a very common example given of evolution constantly. There exists almost no chance that a bug will have the exact mutation needed to resist a chemical at the exact moment needed, and there exists no chance that will occur over and over again. What actually occurs is the bugs that already had a resistance to the chemical are the only ones left to breed. No new genetic information. Nothing evolved. One of two things must be true in your explanation. Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population. BTW how are monkeys calculating all this? Or homosexuality is genetically caused and would not happen in the time needed to allow for the pond drying up. That also would not explain why it is a common practice within a species (or whatever group name is correct)n and not only true of regions. We could test your theory by taking away resources from fast reproducing forms of life and see if all the fruit fly's turn gay or something. Try it and give me the data. Since your claim lies within all mighty, arbiter of all truth science then that is your burden.

In your opinion, why do over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality?

Assuming for the sake of argument that theistic evolution is true, God created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds. Some religious conservatives argue that animals do not practice homosexuality, and are exhibiting dominance behavior. As most biologists know, that is absurd, but let's assume that dominance behavior is the correct explanation. So that leaves the issue of how homosexuality developed in humans. You will no doubt claim that evolution had nothing to do with it. Same-sex behavior must have started, and endured among humans at least largely because it provides a good deal of pleasure for the participants.

Even if creationism is true, not theistic evolution, and homosexuality in humans is caused 100% by environment, children have little control over their environment, and do not choose their sexual identity when they experience puberty.

Many children who are in foster homes need adoptive parents, especially those who are beyond a few years of age. Do you object to homosexuals adopting foster children who have become teenagers, and are much more difficult to place than younger children are?

A good number of homosexuals have adopted children who are difficult to place, such as children who have physical deformities, or have mental problems. Do you object to that?