The reason I brought up the story about the kid in the first place was to illustrate how liberal and accepting the general public was towards homosexuality, even back then.
Which in turn proves that your hypothesis about "rampant homosexual epidemic" is false, because the scandinavian society has been accepting about homosexuality for an entire generation already without seeing any signs of such an "epidemic".

Lala thinks that story is ridiculous. The uncle is going to take him to a gay bar in the future, that is obviously encouraging homosexuality. He's from a website called GlobalGayz so the attitude towards gays on the website is obviously supporting homosexuality. Especially if a little boy asks his homosexual uncle that he thinks he might be gay does not demonstrate your country's attitude towards homosexuals in general. It just proves that homosexuality is being encouraged to little children.

Thanks for criticising my idea.
But if I'm a coward, be it.
Live and let live.

If the kid is interested in being taken to a gay bar, then why shouldn't he? A gay bar is not some den of sin where people are making out and having sex in front of each other right in the open.
And again, only if the kid is interested. It's not like he'd force the kid to go to a gay bar if he didn't want to. And by the time the kid CAN go to a gay bar, he will most likely already have dicided on wheather or not he is into that sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Morten has any relation to the website this article was posted from. More likely, he was a contact they had or someone they just met. "They" being the couple who wrote that article met on their journey to Norway.
So most likely, Morten had little to no relationship with the website as a whole.

Of course he is gay friendly, seeing as he is gay. But like stated earlier, the kid only just found out that the uncle was gay.
Meaning the kid was unaware of his uncle's homosexuality up until that point. And despite being unaware of that, he still had an accepting attitude towards it.

That is not a result of the uncle promoting homosexuality, but of an accepting attitude. Both from his parents, school, and society in general.
So it does prove the general attitude towards homosexuality.
And even if it doesn't, I myself as a member of the scandinavian society can vouch for it.

And in fact, if homosexuality WAS being promoted, like you say, the kid would've been aware of the definition and meaning of being gay.
But he didn't. He had a misunderstanding of it, which proves that he was not more than slightly exposed to the subject.

You didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia.that makes no scientific sense.

Lala thinks that does not prove anything.

#1: It could have been a coincidence

#2: His parents could have easily hinted that his uncle was gay

#3: His uncle could be making it up

#4: His uncle could have forgot that he told the child that he was gay

#5: The child does not represent the entire community

#6: Children usually don't even understand the concept of sex

#7: If the boy didn't even know what homosexual sex was then the whole story is irrelevant

#1: Lala knows you are spamming.

#2: Prisoner behavior is evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual.

#1: What exactly?

#2: I fail to see how that is "promoting" homosexuality. By that logic, everything short of disencouragement is promoting.

#3: Why would he? Unless you can come up with a motive for why he would make up a funny story about a family member, saying such a thing is nothing more than wild, desperate assumptions. If there is no reason to belive he had a reason to do it, he most likely didn't.

#4: Not likely. Even if homosexuality is accepted in Norway, it is by no means as common as heterosexuality. And if he was able to express with certainty that the kid had just recently found out that he was gay, it probably means that the kid had asked him to confirm it. Like "is it true that you are gay"? or something along those lines. This is yet another desperate "could be" assumption.

#5: No, but he is an example of how the general attitude affects children. And again, I can vouch for this myself.

#6: No, but they do understand the concept of attraction and love. To some degree anyway. And that means that if homosexuality was promoted, the kid would understand that being gay means being attracted to and/or loving members of their own gender, not just having friends of the same gender, like he thought.

#7: No, because being gay involves and encompass much more than just sexual acts.

Wrong, when The Stanford Prison Experiment only showed how homosexual activity was used by decent US citizens, as one of several methods to further dehumanize and torture individuals.And before you overgeneralized the prison experiment data, the Scandinavian society known as Norway isn't a prison. Thus your baseless claim makes no scientific sense.

No prisoner behaviour is evidence that some hetereosexual men see sex only in terms of power and are quite willing to rape another man if it makes them feel good about themselves.

In other words, this is just sexual battery happening in prisons, conducted by figures of absolute authority.

#1: You are so wrong. Prisoner behavior is EMPIRICAL evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual. Lala knows that you are aware of this. Lala just wonders why you are trying so hard.

#2: Everyone has a predisposition to bisexuality according to Sigmund Freud.



#3: Lala knows that you are just spamming.

EDIT

Lala looked back at the start of this conversation. Lala remembered that you said people who refuse empirical evidences observable by your own sense, have no self-respect towards sensibility. Can Lala call you a bigot now? For calling Lala a bigot?

#1: The whole thing.

#2: Lala is talking about the child's knowledge of the uncle's homosexuality.

#3: The uncle could not even exist. Maybe the website made up the whole story.

#4: Yet the uncle is encouraging homosexuality.

#5: No it does not. One made up story does not apply to the entire community.

#6: The child said he thinks being gay is playing with boys.

#7: Lala was saying that the boy does not even know what gay means.

You didn't provide empirical scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia that makes no scientific sense.
Furthermore, Sigmund Freud and his associate Wilhelm Fliess were wrong with their hypothesis/assumption on how humans' "innate bisexuality" was psychologically made either heterosexuals or homosexuals. When the process was later on discovered to be hormonal in nature before birth and during children and youths' neural biological brain development, not psychological. This was because during Freud's time, evolutionary biology and genetic sequencing didn't even exist. The fact that your own Wikipedia source, which you copied/pasted words from words but without yourself citing the actual source itself for transparency and accountability(a lack of scientific ethics), had mentioned here that modern "innate bisexuality" is now based on the 1948 "Kinsey Reports" by Alfred Kinsey. This means that your argument shares the same weakness as Kinsey's rather biased sample group.And another historical fact you didn't consider is that until 1962, homosexual behavior is a federal felony due to the US sodomy law. This is also how and why back in 1948, the US prisons were overrepresented by homosexual and bisexual men; they were imprisoned because they're illegally gay and bi to begin with. Not the other way around. In other words, the prisons didn't made them gay or bi, while making homosexual behaviors illegal didn't prevent men from turning gays due to hormones back then.

Finally, you also didn't consider how sexual behaviors in prisons now is just sexual battery conducted by figures of absolute authority.
So not only that you're a bigot, you're also rather sloppy for a researcher and critical thinker, who let her irrational fear of homophobia ran out of control. When you're needlessly worrying that legalizing gay marriage might somehow psychologically "encourage" more people into homosexual orientation, without yourself presenting any empirical epicgenetics finding, on how mere thinking can cause hormonal and neural biological changes that dictate human sexual orientation. While you completely ignored how almost half a century ago, the same society that you based your "prisoner behavior" argument from, was abusing the power of the legal institution, to legally punish, imprison, torture, if not down right murder anyone who wasn't a heterosexual for more than 180 years.With such a longstanding and rich cultural legacy of thoughtcrime and genocide embedded within an oppressive and authoritarian legal institution, which "discouraged" anyone who wasn't a heterosexual, or any visible minority group other than the politically powerful and the financially wealthy, I have every rights to call you out as who you are, for yourself favoring such inhumane and cruel heavy-handedness of the laws, a fascist and sexist bigot.

#1: Please be more specific.

#2: Yes. And how is hinting at the uncle's homosexuality = promoting homosexuality?

#3: Why would they make it up? Again, don't throw things out there unless you can provide some sort of reasonable motive for it.

#4: How? The nephew had just recently found out that the uncle was homosexual, and the only indication we have to the uncle encouraging homosexuality at a later point is that he says he will take the kid to a gay bar if he is interested.

#5: You can not say that the story about the kid is made up and then run with it as if it was the truth if you have nothing to back it up with. That only shows how desperate you are.
And AGAIN - I can vouch for this. I know what the general attitude towards homosexuality is in Norway, and it fits perfectly. There is nothing peculiar or out of place with the story about the kid.

#6: Exactly, which proves that there was no such thing as "promoting of being gay". Because if there was, the kid would know what being gay was really about.

#7: See above.