[tdadams]

I was trying to establish that a genetic influence for a behavior is not a compelling reason to allow or encourage that behavior

Neither is it a valid reason for the government to assume the power to criminalize that behavior when it harms no one (except maybe the one engaging in it), when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights (with the necessary disclaimer that we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home).

We don't live in a nation where rights are granted by government approval and all activities outside that which is government approved is criminal.

[Clint N. Suhks]

when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights

Except when it conflicts with the 10th amendment.

[ArGee]

Neither is it a valid reason for the government to assume the power to criminalize that behavior when it harms no one (except maybe the one engaging in it), when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights (with the necessary disclaimer that we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home).

I agree, which is why I want to discuss those issues, and not the issue of a genetic link. Since mankind has recognized that homoerotic behavior is damaging to both individuals and society for at least 6,000 years, I'll ask you to tell me why you think it harms no one with the possible exception of those engaging in it. In other words, you are asking for a change in the status quo. Why?

Shalom.