I take "rights" and "morality" to be based on social expediency as decided by a consensus.
The problem posed by homosexuals as a group is that they claim "rights" such as "child rearing" which the majority see as conditional upon on heterosexual pairing and subsequent natural biological processes. Concessions are made b way of adoption to those heterosexuals whose biological functions have been impaired, but not to homosexuals who have chosen to refrain from the reproductive process. This seems correct to me whilst heterosexuals constitute the majority.
Why should you pay any deference to the majority in this instance? Is it because you contend that rights are based on social consensus?
The counterargument by homosexuals, that their activities are themselves based on biological causes does not seem to be sufficient grounds to constitute "involuntary impairment" and in any case such "biological factors" it could be argued could affect their transmission to their potential charges of "normal" parenting skills for onward transmission, or "normal" bonding skills. i.e expediency fails in the eyes of the consensus.
If rights are based on social consensus, then why is any of this relevant? Why does it matter that the consensus views these arguments as unpersuasive or "inexpedient?" Wouldn't it be just as valid if the majority thought that homosexuals are all perverts and don't deserve any rights whatsoever?
Now it may be that "child rearing rights" is a special case in as much that involves "power over the lives of others". Perhaps you Joe would give us your views on say "gay marriage" with repect to any property "rights" implied by this ?
I have no clue what you mean by "property rights implied by this." I don't see any property rights implied anywhere.
If, on the other hand, you are asking me about my views on gay marriage, I'm in favor of it. As long as the state grants rights and privileges based upon marital status, it is discriminatory to deny that status to a class of people based solely upon their sexual orientation. The moment that the state stops granting those rights and privileges to married couples, I will stop supporting gay marriage.