Sun Tzu

In America; "land of the free" why have equal rights in this area been so late to be recognized? On homosexuality itself I admit to not understanding it, but am the first NOT to say "its wrong", because I comprehend Im not any kind of entity to make such a judgement. There are IMO, a couple additional considerations that a gay couple may consider in adopting, but the same for a single parent as well.

As far as explaining the choice factor: its admittingly difficult for me to do, because even if Im humble about it; the potential is there that some are going to read it wrong. Im already seeing this conversation titering on setting some people off. So is it possible to give an opinion, or to ask for ways to attempt to understand without it being taken as "gay bashing". I will say this; for this to ever become an accepted reality, conversations like this are going to HAVE to happen; and the reality is that there is probably just as many "ignorant" people in high places that will fight to prevent this as there are "enlightend". There is a philosophy in exsistence that when an indivual becomes inflamed even by what is seen as back asswards mindsets that their power is given away, the point missed, and nothing changed.

Ths is only a guess because I'll attempt not to assume what someone else is thinking: if sexual preference is not choice it is therefore a genetic predispostioned biomarker of life. I've been doing research (internet which is admittingly limited) and most of the work in this area that I found in stating the genetic factor were gathered by Gabriel Rotello. I was unable to find full documented studies; in any can find the link or suggest published sociologic, medical, or anthropologic studies Id be greatful if you could suggest them. Thanks.

Some quotes that stood out on this search were:

To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date. —PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), "Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality," 1995

[Dr. Richard] Isay's goal in endorsing the genetic determination of homosexuality is to ensure that homosexual men are not pathologized simply on the basis of their same-sex desire. It is his hope that acceptance of the "gay gene" will imbue homosexuality with the same "natural" status accorded reproductive heterosexuality. (Perhaps this is why he disregards the abundant literature criticizing the research he cites.) However, this strategy can never work, because what Isay ignores, or believes he can somehow bypass, is that reproductive sexuality (conflated with heterosexuality) is the absolute bedrock of biologically deterministic theory. Without the cornerstone of a biologically inevitable reproductive sexuality, there would be no mechanism to guarantee the transmission of genes, and that is precisely the point of biological determinism. The biological inevitability of reproductive sexuality is the principle without which biological determinism would fall apart. Reproductive heterosexuality is not simply another trait that is genetically transmitted; it is the foundational principle of the entire theory. It must be presumed as the imperative of life itself for the transmission of biological traits to even be possible. Given this fundamental and exalted position, it is difficult to see how reproductive sexuality and homosexuality can ever be presumed "equal" but "different" within a biologically deterministic framework. The logic of biological determinism can only debase homosexuality as deviant—precisely the position Isay is striving to counter. —Ona Nierenberg, "A Hunger for Science: Psychoanalysis and the 'Gay Gene,'" differences, Vol. 10, No. 1

In the early 90's, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality's roots were genetic, traceable to nature rather than nurture. . . . More than five years later the data have never been replicated. [And,] admits biologist Evan Balaban, "I think we're as much in the dark as we ever were." —John Leland and Mark Miller, "Can Gays 'Convert'?" Newsweek, p. 49, August 17, 1998

To my mind, a more parsimonious and unifying evolutionary explanation for human homosexual behavior is that it is a neutral, concomitant by-product of direct selection for a more generalized trait such as sexual pleasure. In line with this reasoning, it will frequently be manifested for no other reason than sexual gratification. In such cases, homosexual behavior will have no evolutionary "function." So long as such interactions do not interfere with the actors' reproductive efforts, they will not be selected against. As part of a pool of neutral behavioral variation homosexual behavior could, however, be co-opted to serve any number of sociosexual roles (e.g. alliance formation, reconciliation) that mght incidentally augment the participants' fitness. In such cases, homosexual behavior could best be described as an "exaptation," that is, a characteristic which was not built by natural selection for the fitness-enhancing role that it currently serves but instead was co-opted for that role. Although exaptations are not the products of direct selection, they may eventually come under positive selection because of their beneficial effects on fitness, at which time secondary adaptive modifications will occur. —Paul L. Vasey, commentary on "The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior" by R. C. Kirkpatrick, from Current Anthropology, Vol. 41 No. 3, June 2000

The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. . . . Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies. —William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson and Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality

One of the central things here [in a discussion of "gay gene" research] is the feeling of love towards other persons. I think that a central "force" in human evolution [has] been the evolution of love. That feeling [has] been the cement in a whole lot of human relationships, man-woman, parent-child, among close kin, among friends etc, etc. In fact, in all those relationships that makes us human, and is the foundation of all that came after in terms of culture, arts, science and you-name-it. I think that the only thing that makes homosexuals different is that they have chosen to include sexual desire and perhaps satisfaction in the love between to persons of the same sex. In short, the only thing setting a pair of homosexuals apart from a pair of same sex friends, is that the homosexuals have sex together. . . . I think it is an extremely reductionist approach, to discuss homosexuality as different and excluded from other forms of sexuality and emotional b[o]nding between humans. If you want me to be honest, then I will even go as far as to say that approach is so reductionist, that it in my eyes is not honest science anymore. If you want to understand homosexuality biologically, then you have to understand in terms of the total[ity] of human sexuality and emotions. —Henrik Ernoe, posted in soc.culture.nordic, March 17, 1997


For me it doesnt truly matter, and I believe that when others read my post they connected dots in what they may have thought I was stating. Whether it is choice or not; agree or disagree; I never said that such a choice was WRONG, only that I believed it to be a choice. In the struggle of what may be the last battle in human rights there certainly will be more frictional points than that and if the slightlest care exsists in contributing to the understanding of this; doesnt the possibly exsist that writing off such beliefs (which very well could be do to a lack of being educated in it) as ignorant or "nonsense" continue to isolate or further delude understanding of what the frustration is about. Then again I didnt hear anyone state that ignorant people are evil. Maybe they should be screened too.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking