First, I've been civil in the face of as yet unsubstantiated attacks. Before you flout terms like "cure," and "defect" around, why don't you.... support them? We understand that people aren't going to come on this forum or others and speak negatively of racial minorities without some kind of support. I ask that you present your ideas with a solid theoretical base and not as you have, which is a negative opinion without data or expertise, in other words, a prejudice. Now on to your comments:
"I have never studied Freud extensively, just enouph to know the guy was a flake and (in my opinion) borderline madman."
It's his theory that you're endorsing.
"This seems to be the case in every example I am aware of on a personal level."
Well, something tells me you're seeking out troubled gay people, or, only troubled gay people seek you out. "Several cases," doesn't really mean squat. To ruin your streak, I happen to get along a lot better with my father than my mother, who was out of the house during my upbringing. I was never abused, although I several times threatened and once assaulted by heterosexual / christian individuals. And I knew zilch about homosexuality and had met zero gay people when I had my first crush. Just the way I was made. As president of a student activist group at UVA, and as someone who's been out since age 18, I could introduce you to dozens and dozens of people who can explicitly refute your theory. I've never met one to substantiate it. Has it ever occured to you that when a father is withdrawn from his gay son, that this could be an effect and not a cause?
You wouldn't make a decision about shotokan's effectiveness based on meeting "several" people and who felt their shotokan was insufficient and were considering change. Or so I presume.
"There is no cure for heterosexuality is there?"
No there sure isn't. And neither should anyone be looking for a cure. It's not a problem, and it doesn't resolve with therapy. Just like homosexuality.
"What about a married person who has a higher sex drive?"
Well, that married person CHOSE their mate. You're not allowing gay people to have a chance to be intimate with ANYONE. And that married person has SOMETHING. You are asking for total celibacy, which strikes most people as absurd. Hey, why don't you eat only broccoli, because I want you to?
"Should we give a baby to anyone willing to sign an agreement that they will not burn it with cigerettes, or should there be some sort of moral standard that an applicant has to meet?"
Here you're implying that letting gay parents adopt is a step on the road to torturing babies and having zero standards, an insult which IMHO has no place in a discussion unless you can substantiate it at ALL. I will respond to intelligent arguments; baseless insults, I will ignore, except to say that I feel holding baseless prejudices should rule out a foster parent as a good choice, except that this would involve excessive government intrusion and investigation into private lives and opinions.
"Truth is not relative, it is absolute. If this is not the case, then you should have no objection whatsoever to the above examples."
Of course I feel my examples are of bad situations, that's why I made them. But I feel you should acknowledge that in every instance, there were confidant supporters of those concepts who cited absolute truth and biblical precedent. Our understanding of truth is imperfect. Before you strip away the rights of an entire class based on an opinion, I feel like you ought to bring something, ANYTHING to the discussion to support your, well, prejudice.
"Well, I object to the fact that he was beating her at all, does this mean I am out of line?"
You're trying to make a point about cultural relativism. It's failing. You need to have some kind of coherent, consistent ethical structure backing up your ideas. And while you do have one--conservative religious thought--I hold that it is irrelevant to USA policy decisions. State something concrete. For example, when you imply that gay people have a "negative effect on society as a whole," you need to explain why. If you want to cite some negative aspects of some parts of gay culture (risky pormiscious sex would be one), you need to prove they are essential to homosexuality. An analogy:
A racist could claim that the disproportionately jailed black segment of society has a "negative effect" on society as a whole and could even complain about rap and gang culture, and the celebration of violence. He could then claim this disqualifies blacks from parenting adopted kids. HOWEVER, while these things ARE connected with some blacks, they are not integral to black culture which is diverse, and the majority of blacks are capable parents. Just like risky sex IS detrimental to society BUT there are many gay people who are far safer than many heterosexuals. (I am one).
"I can love a homosexual without supporting the fact that he is participating in what is (in my opinion) sinful, perverted, and destructive behavior."
I'm somehow not feeling the love there, dude. This is what I mean about prejudice. I understand you feel this way, but understand how I feel: this is not the way to address a stranger who's been civil to you. There are any number of nasty things an atheist could say about your beliefs and THEY would have some scientific backing. But this is a place for discussion and not name calling. Get it?