what about "equal rights" for the unborn? they don't get it.
LOL yes, but man are they hated in MA, we cannot even mention them!
We want our right to vote on this, and what the majority here want is no marriage rights AND no civil unions.
""Not that homosexuality is strictly genetic/physiological but that body chemistry may play a role in that type of behavior.""
I agree. For some it's nature and for others it's nuture. If we encourage homoesexuality as a society we will create more homosexuals. I do believe that for some it is innate.
You may have seen this before, but if not, you might find this of interest, pulled from the conlusion to Satinover's The Gay Gene?:
If more folks understood the above, there would be
- Isn't homosexuality heritable?
- Yes, significantly.
- So it is inherited?
- No, it is not.
- I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
- Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.
- What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
- There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.
- But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"?
- Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!
- So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?
- No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do-a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.
- But doesn't homosexuality run in families?
- Yes.
- So you get it from your parents, right?
- You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.
- But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
- That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is the associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.
- So what are these traits?
- An important question, indeed. Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed- encouraged-to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments- family or societal-foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit most from that kind of research?
- Well, what traits do you guess are "associated," as you put it, with homosexuality?
- May I speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific hypotheses are first generated. The important thing is not to avoid ideas that prove wrong, just not to cling to them if they do.
- Okay, go ahead, speculate.
- Intelligence, anxiety, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, taste. You know, all the stereotypes.
- But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited?
- We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes a thug.