It’s never a good sign when you start you argument by completely changing the subject.

Try doing that in a scientific paper.

““Causes” homosexuality is politically loaded terminology. Some people read in a judgment of homosexuality. Not being judgmental about it, but still trying to understand how it arises, I am willing to use the word “cause”.”

You’re right, my use of “cause” was a poor choice.

“There is some evidence of a correlation of brain structure to homosexual orientation. However, I don’t know of any definitive conclusion of cause.”

That’s what I thought. Though the original article seems to state this as fact.

“However, there is no evidence even suggesting of a bacterial or viral cause. There is no identifiable brain damage or identifiable chemical imbalance.”

I’m assuming you mean “There is not YET evidence even suggesting….” Unless you know of some medical research that actually states this as fact. If so please provide some links or references for us.

“There is probably a neurochemical connection, of only because that is the root of all brain activity, but the complexity of that may be as complex as, say, political party choice. And frankly, sexual orientation may even be a mixed trait, some of it biochemically determined and some of it chosen. Of course that is another political minefield, becuase of the arguments over the acceptability of homosexuality.”

Agreed.

About the only thing you can say for sure is that the Romans were doing pretty well until they became Christians…

While there are probably players on both sides playing the cynical politics game, there are also sincere people on both sides. Conservatives who feel allowing homosexual marriages is advocating them, and liberals who wish to support active steps to address what they feel are weaknesses in the current laws.

KC said:
> Or, if youâ??d like food for thought, consider what what President Ahmadinejad of Iran said about gays in his country – and consider that Iran isnâ??t a Western country.

What does President Ahmadinejad of Iran say about gays in his country?

KC said:
> You come so close. Try Googling Sharia Law and consider the freedoms we all enjoy stem from centuries of Western culture – the way we think about things and the world around us. Strip away that culture and donâ??t be surprised if the freedoms go with it.

Now I’m confused. What are you trying to say? Your first comment sounds like you’re trying to criticize Western culture, but now you’re lauding it for the very same thing. I can’t figure out your point.

Dick Dawkins said:
> Shouldnâ??t you be say you have friends that are gay, rather than calling them your â??gay friendsâ??.

What’s the distinction?

Mena said:
> Robbie, the word that you are thinking of is â??bisexualâ??.

Actually, the work I think he’s thinking of is “denial”.

Kim Poor said:
>I believe the Dick-switch on â??Bewitchedâ?? was the other way around. Elizabethâ??s first Dick was York, and, her new Dick was Sargent. It was a little disconcerting (as an avid viewer), as no one seemed to acknowledge there was a new Dick.

According to IMDB, Dick Sargent (1969-1972) replaced Dick York (1964-1969). Apparently I misread what everybody else was saying. Oops.

>I think youâ??re confusing ‘the 30′ with the Sacred Band of Thebes who were 150 gay couples, fierce and feared. They refused to surrender to Alexander the Great and died to a man in battle.

Maybe, but Greek pederasty is also fairly well established, including the Spartans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty

The Spartans believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent boy was essential to his formation as a free citizen. The education of the ruling class was thus founded on pederastic relationships, required of each citizen.

Sailor said:
> People can and should be able to live with more than one person if they wish, no argument, but to allow such unions to be marriages and make them the social norm. I think there could be serious consequences there.

There can be serious consequences to any societal change: allowing Blacks to vote, interracial marriages, inventing airplanes, creating the Internet, allowing 18 year olds to vote, creating a secular democratic republic. Generic “serious consequences” is not justification to preventing making changes.

> The only one of these that for various evolutionary reasons is likely is Polygamy, and if it was legal, it could spread quite fast. Muslims in some countries can do it, and in USA some mormon sects would love it. The social consequences should this become popular are obvious. The rich and the powerful males would have many wives, leaving many disaffected males who can find none. Once it is encoded by law women also will end up being debased by it. So if you want to step backward a few thousand years, be my guest.

I believe you are making assumptions. First off, rich and powerful men already have more women, leaving the disaffected males. Money may not buy love, but it sure can buy company. Second, you’re assuming a social structure that encourages an unequal relationship, rather than looking at all partners as equal. Mormon and muslim polygamies are built on the premise of subservience of women to men. With a cultural attitude of sexual equality, actual implementation of polygamies could be different.

biology 505 said:
>The real question about legalizing gay marriage is the notion that if it is legal it is socially and moraly acceptable. Frankly, I couldâ??nt care less what folks do in their private lives, I dont have a religous dog in this fight, but I am concerned about the implication that gay life style is an acceptable alternative to straight. Does anyone know what percentage of the population that is gay? Has that number changed with more open acceptance? I question if there will be more people becoming gay because its more acceptable.

For someone who doesn’t care what folks do in their private lives, you sure sound concerned when you worry about making gay lifestyle acceptable. If you don’t care, then it is acceptable. You accept it – maybe not for yourself, but for others. Otherwise, you would care.

> For discussion, hereâ??s a scientific question; What happens if a larger percentage of population is gay than straight? What affect, if any, would this have on genetic diversity and population dynamics. How, in the long term, would this effect the human population?

You are assuming homosexuals would not reproduce. There are plenty of options – from sperm banks and surrogate mothers to social relationships between mutual gay couples.

TR, great stuff!

Chris CII said:
> The rest of my post about the confusion of issues is still valid and I still think marriage should be split in different realities that adress one issue at a time.
- A religious ceremony (for those who are religious)
- A corporate arrangement (for the combining of estates and the tax and pension issues.)
- A social function (which in our current world can be very informal).
- A covenant for procreation and rearing of children
- A covenant of sexual exclusivity

> And in my view anyone should be able to take any one of those without entering the others, and the government should only regulate the second.

Agreed!

“Meanwhile the liberals in California have made it legal deliberately to enrage the conservatives and prove their moral superiority to the rest of the nation. So the whole thing is nothing but a two-bit morality play with cynical motives on both sides. That’s my two cents on it.”

That’s a pretty warped take on California’s motive for legalizing gay marriage.

I think they just realized that gays were being denied the same rights as heteros. And please don’t spew the nonsense that they have the same rights to marry people of the opposite sex.

It’s 2008, it’s about time people are treated equally.