giaman,
From my experience with animals I have never seen two bulls form an attachment for exclusive sexual pleasure while there are a majority of cows present. Bulls will only attempt to mate if they are seperated by fences from the cows. Bulls will in every case prefer an available cow, and if two bulls are present both will fight even to injury or death to mate with the cow. I do not see this happening in the gay community. Your analogy is flawed. Quote, "Homosexuality is present in all species, including homo sapiens."

Just in case you did not study human development, we have two sexes in homosapiens for procreation. That is the reason for males having a penis and a female posessing a vagina. Males will never give birth to a child from their anus. There is obviously a disoriented attitude to the real purpose of sexuality. Being gay is not a development in evolution if it is attached to the gene as some imagine it is obviously a deformed human mutation and will breed itself out of existence.

It is not linked to the gene it is an emotional choice because of damaged emotional attachments in early childhood.

Jeez Philo, haven't you ever seen cows or dogs mounting each other when they're 'horny' (pardon the pun)? Obviously this isn't reproductive behaviour, but they certainly seem like happy animals when they're at it in my paddock.

You actually raise an interesting aspect from a strictly functionalist perspective: regardless of whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined, it could easily be argued that it is 'adaptive' in populations that have outgrown sustainable levels in their environments. I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that our planet's human population has reached unsustainable proportions, and homosexuality can therefore be seen to have 'functional', or biologically and/or culturally adaptive, aspects under an evolutionary perspective.

On the other hand, perhaps such a strictly functionalist perspective is a bit limited when it comes to understanding human sexuality, particularly when rather clumsily deployed in a fundamentalist Christian argument?

Anomie,
Let me be very clear. If homosexuality was genetically determined (I.e. your genes alone make someone a homosexual), then in studying the brothers of a homosexual, 100% of identical twins would also be homosexual. Even the link you gave me admited this was not the case.

The pontifications of a boston globe journalist do not make a good basis for scientific pronouncements. Considering the research he didn't mention and the conclusions he made that were contrary to statements of the researchers whose research he quoted, perhaps you should not rely on him to justify your beliefs.

As Philo also mentioned, if there was a 'gay gene' it would be bred out of the population very quickly as it has a tremendous negative selective effect.

And before you decide that I am biased, understand that any arguments for moral status or homosexual marriage that I use are totally independent of whether homosexuality is completely genetically determined or not. It just doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is what reality actually is, and so people that twist words for their cause or misrepresent research and avoid contrary research in pushing their agenda need to be corrected.

Forcing my views on people? Deary me. I appear to have forced people to read my article, read my postings and to argue with me. It must be terrible for them. Like the "Christians" who are forced to watch the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on the sidelines. How they must suffer!

This debate proves time and again morality IS a matter of opinion. I regard fundamentalist Islam as morally wrong. Fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as morally wrong. Two irreconcilable views. There is no arbitrator. Morality is not like the laws of physics. Religious types can appeal to their Imaginary Friend but what we call moral or immoral will remain a set of opinions. They may be a valuable opinions but they are still opinions. Note how what we regard as wrong changes over time. Someone mentioned sex with children. In the Middle Ages, this was not regarded as immoral in itself. Richard II of England had a wife (Anne of Bohemia) who was only 9 when they married. Now we regard that as immoral.

Someone objected to the comparison of homosexuality with left-handedness. Actually, a better comparison is with heterosexuals who choose not to have children. Another refered to incest and bestiality. I treat that with the contempt I reserve for Yasin and others like him who have similar obsessions.

Now, how can I forward the Homosexual Agenda today? Decisions, decisions...

Grey
You are quite correct, there are two groups of research. Let's look at that research. The vast majority of independent research on one side, pulished in accredited independent peer reviewed journals argue that there is a definate genetic component in homosexuality.

The other research is published in non-accredited, non-peer reviewed magazines in order to persuade the lay public that something is wrong with homosexuality.

Tell Me which group of researchers do you think are the most likely to be displaying unsubstantiated data?

Here's another thing to consider. Several zoologists have noted that homosexuality is found in other species. In wild sheep, dogs, chimpanzees & even lizards. Did the lizard wake up one morning & think "I feel like being a homosexual today?" Doesn't seem likely does it? No. their acting instinctively. & if their desires are instinctive then so are ours.

Since homosexual desire is found throughout the animal kingdom & in all cultures & ages it CANNOT be merely the product of environment. There would be far too many environemnts producing the same result. It's far more likely that homosexuality like heterosexuality is genetically based. That doesn't mean that environmental facors don't play a part - just that from the time their born it's already decided which sex they'll find attractive. Now what they do about that will be influenced by a lot of factors not just biology.

Bottom line: you CANNOT change a homosexual into a heterosexual. Even with his full consent & eager partisipation. That's been shown in thousands of studies. And I'm afraid that ALL peer reviewed research supports me on this.

Back now. Made two converts.

I am surprised the issue of homosexuality as a sickness hasn't rated much of a mention - despite the fact it is not covered by Medicare nor private health insurance. Maybe because if you're trying to classify it as immoral behaviour to say it is a sickness is a contradiction. After all, the Bible specifically tells us that cancer and measles are not sins. Yet the Catholic Church does try to have it both ways - and predictably loses credibility.

The fascination with whether homosexuality is genetic or now I find amusing. Basically, I couldn't give a toss. To me, it's just life. And a very ordinary life at that. I have heard the arguments about homosexuality as being genetic and they don't ring true in my limited knowledge of biology. Nonetheless, it's interesting that people have such a fascination with homosexuality. Maybe they think if they study it hard enough it'll go away given that physical violence, psycho-therapy and "religion" haven't seemed to have worked.