Gay Marriage?

[Doan]

I didn't see a post about it so I decided to start a thread.

My Opinion:

As a Buddhist, I am not influenced by the Bible and therefore, believe that gay marriage should be legalized. I do not understand why marriage should be between a man and a woman, especially when two people love each other; it doesn't really matter what gender they are, as long as they want to be together.

So for those non-gay marriage people: What is your reason? They have the same rights as we do; we are all humans and brothers. Religion should not get in between a man and his rights.

Discuss on!

 

[bhupendra2895]

If we want to discuss gay marriage then we should discuss what is marriage first?While I am not married but I understand that concept of marriage was created to bring new human beings on the earth in a genuine way.Birth of child by married couple in a genuine way is only possible if one of them is male and other is female.Two male or two female can't produce a child together without scientific help.I am not an animal experts but I didn't see any gay animal couple in my 22 years of life doing sex in street or in discovery channel.So how we can assume that sexual attraction of two people of same sex is natural .Just analyse the body of male and female and then ask yourself which makes the best couple?

People often say that in a gay couple one partner behaves like a person of other sex because his mental system was like that since birth.So it is natural and it should be allowed.I am sorry to say that but if some body have some disease from birth than we don't try to cure it?How such practices can be permitted by religion and society which are unproductive and unnatural?People say in a democratic country people are free to do anything privately.I think marriage is social act not a private act.Democratic laws have to allow gay marriages or live in relationships because it don't harm anybody's independence but religion and society can't accept it and it was the religion & society together who invented the concept of marriage.Also Religion and society never assumed the marriage between person of same sex when they would have thought about it.One would never love to see his childrens to become gay because if they are gay then he won't be able to see his grandchildrens.Finally I feel that religion and society cannot allow the concept of gay marriage.

 

[innominate]

If we want to discuss gay marriage then we should discuss what is marriage first?While I am not married but I understand that concept of marriage was created to bring new human beings on the earth in a genuine way.

Marriage has been developed in some way by almost all cultures in the past few thousand years, for the most part as a way to ensure that people remain faithful. In tribal cultures, where marriage originated, children were raised by the community regardless of parentage; marriage had nothing to do with children.

Birth of child by married couple in a genuine way is only possible if one of them is male and other is female.

Or if one or both of them are viable intersex.

Two male or two female can't produce a child together without scientific help.

And neither can a man and a woman if at least one of them is infertile. Do you also campaign against "barren marriage"?

And I'm pretty sure that you don't need science to put sperm in your uterus (unless you count a turkey baster as science).

I am not an animal experts but I didn't see any gay animal couple in my 22 years of life doing sex in street or in discovery channel.

You're right, you're not an expert. I'd go so far as to say you're completely naive. Homosexuality is prolific in the animal kingdom, from bonobos (close relatives of humans), who are exclusively bisexual, to penguins (who will raise eggs abandoned by other couples that would otherwise die). By some estimates, 1500 species of animal practice homosexuality regularly.

So how we can assume that sexual attraction of two people of same sex is natural .

Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?

Just analyse the body of male and female and then ask yourself which makes the best couple?

Let's see. Men have one hole and one rod, while women have two holes and no rod, but both sexes have tongues. Given that almost all men have a g-spot in the anus which causes intense sexual arousal when stimulated, I'd go so far as to say we're biologically wired to take it from both sides.

People often say that in a gay couple one partner behaves like a person of other sex because his mental system was like that since birth.So it is natural and it should be allowed.

Which people say that? I'm finding it hard to get a reference to a legitimate source.

I am sorry to say that but if some body have some disease from birth than we don't try to cure it?

Yes we do. But what about homosexuality is a disease exactly? It isn't pathological, it doesn't cause severe interruption of a person's ability to live (though homophobes certainly do that for them, making them more of a disease than homosexuality), and, most importantly, it is completely incurable. In fact, it's easier to change a person's sex than it is to change their sexuality.

How such practices can be permitted by religion and society which are unproductive and unnatural?

You're right. Condoms should be banned, as should the pill. After all, use of contraceptives is both unproductive and unnatural. In fact, if somebody ever has sex and doesn't have a child that person should be branded immoral.

People say in a democratic country people are free to do anything privately.I think marriage is social act not a private act.

So two people who don't know anyone else aren't allowed to get married? Or do you mean "social" as in "regulated by social bodies such as governments", which would of course be a tautology?

Democratic laws have to allow gay marriages or live in relationships because it don't harm anybody's independence but religion and society can't accept it and it was the religion & society together who invented the concept of marriage.

The person who invented a concept doesn't own it. Otherwise all monotheistic religion would still be Sumerian.

Also Religion and society never assumed the marriage between person of same sex when they would have thought about it.

Sorry, which religion is it that owns marriage? Because some of them, say, the ancient Greeks, were all for homosexuality. And marriage is much older than organised religion, so I call bull**** on the whole thing anyway.

One would never love to see his childrens to become gay because if they are gay then he won't be able to see his grandchildrens.

I know two couples, one of two lesbians and the other of two gay men. One of the men donated sperm (multiple times) to the other couple, and since then they've had two children, with a third planned. The four of them are the best parents I know, and the children are growing up with twice as much love as any single couple can provide.

Finally I feel that religion and society cannot allow the concept of gay marriage.

Well it's a good thing that religion doesn't have a ****ing say. Secular countries, remember? As for society, depending on where you live, most people are supportive of same-sex marriage. Even in the US, the most socially backwards of all first-world countries, support is around 44-47% for same-sex marriage

The case against same-sex marriage doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Doan]

^ Wow. That was a really good argument. However, lettme add in some or theories that scientist have:

They believed that homosexuality was always in society, but it was not accepted, and therefore, they stayed dormant. The increase in homosexuals, is not really an increase, but rather a increase in reveling themselves.

Other scientists also believe that if there was an increase, it is because there is an unnatural overpopulation, and nature must find a way to make humans stop breeding; therefore there are homosexuals out there.


There are many other things to worry about that are "unnatural and immoral" than gay marriage. I agree that the case against same-sex marriage doesn't have any proof except for the concept of what "marriage is". It doesn't really matter what the concept of marriage is, because basically all the argument is: they can't be married because marriage means blah blah blah blah.


Technicalities guys... just technicalities.

 

[Sharky]

There's gay, and then there's:

I don't see what the big deal is. My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to try gay sex or a relationship with another man. It's not a "don't knock it until you've tried it" thing. I have never looked at a man with attraction and therefore from personal experience couldn't understand why anyone would.

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it. This isn't the first time homosexuality has been debated. I'd suggest joining IRC, as that's the place for random debates for no reason. Many of which in the past have started with someone (...me) coming out with a controversial comment and waiting for someone else to bite. Great fun, is debating for no reason.

 

[Doan]

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it.

Prove that you are straight... that is basically what you are asking us to do, we can only speculate and use logic to define these loosely used terms.

 

[truthguild]

considering that nearly all the arguments against homosexual marriage are based on religion - and the government is secular - those arguments really don't apply to any legal case against homosexual marriage and i won't even bother to cover them. so let's look out the few secular arguments against it and see how well they hold up.

argument #1 - if we allow gay marriage, then before we know it we will be saying "what's wrong with people marrying chldren/animals/etc?".
response: this is a perfect example of a slippery slope (aka camel's nose) logical fallacy. allowing one does not in any way indicate we will allow the rest.

argument #2 - marriage is for producing children.
response: tell that to all the married couples that are either too old, infertile, or do not want to have children.

argument #3 - if we allow gay marriage, we will have to redefine in society what marriage is.
response: so what? society changes over time. when we allowed interacial marriages, we had to redefine marriage within society and it hasn't caused any major social collapse.

argument #4 - but if everyone was gay, there wouldn't be future generations.
response: are you kidding me? with only about 1% of the population being gay, i'm not too worried about that. the same thing would happen if everyone born was female - and that's a more likely occurance and no one seems to worry about it.

argument #5 - but i think it's gross/disgusting/offensive/etc
response: so what? the price to living in a free society is you risk being exposed to things you don't like or are offended by. if everything that someone thought was disgusting or offensive was illegal, we would all be in prison. fortunately, no one has the right to not be offended.

If anyone is aware of any other secular arguments against it, feel free to post them for me.

 

[innominate]

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it.

I admit it is very difficult to prove, as there is no direct evidence for any sexuality during that period; all we have are shaped stones and notches on bones. I'll try however.

Homosexual behaviour is expressed in 33 species of primates (13 of them only under conditions of captivity; 7 of them express it only when not under captivity) including our closest living relative, the Bonobo (which is exclusively bisexual). Unfortunately I can't seem to find any papers which detail genetic proximity of other primate species to humans, but I do recall reading one which explained that there is a statistically significant correlation between proximity and frequency of homosexual interactions; in other words, the more "human" a primate is, the more it has homosexual sex. Even if we disregard this link (because I can't find the paper again, that seems fair), it is still apparent that our close genetic relatives share our tendency for homosexuality, which strongly implies that it is natural.

Homosexuality at the very least predates the ancient Greek city-states; a rite of passage in tribal communities involved being taught about life by an older man (the older man kidnaps the younger, as it happens), with sex being involved. Finding a date for this is proving difficult as well, but it appears that the tradition was well-established by 1650-1500 BCE. A piece of Mesolithic art suggests that homo-eroticism was present somewhere between 10000 and 8000 BC. In 600 BC, Sappho of Lesbos was writing love poems to young women (hence the term "Lesbian"). There's much more as well. Homosexuality has been present in some form for most of written history. This, again, suggests that it is a recurrent feature of human nature.

Lastly, from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality is an adaptive trait stemming from the potential for population imbalance. When there is an over-abundance of males, sexual competition is intense, but the number of children who survive is not increased. Homosexuality provides additional people to raise the children of their kin, which in turn greatly increases the survival of their genes. Further, twin-studies suggest that genes account for 50% of instances of homosexuality, with some of the remainder being explained by the tendency for extra male children to be homosexual. In other words, we have strong evidence which suggests that homosexuality is entirely natural, and no evidence to suggest that it was not present at the dawn of man.

 

[conzone]

Thought it was proved "gay-ness" was down to a gene "defect".
Another point is "marriage" or contracts going back to tradesmen and soldiers.
Spartans and their no women training system also poke holes in the marriage/contract idea was for just between men and woman.

 

[Doan]

I'm glad most people here on x10 hosting are open minded.

Some scientist say that "Gayness" is a gene. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter does it.

 

[descalzo]

At least in the United States...

Marriage is a government supported contract between two people. It conveys rights and responsibilities upon the two parties.

It has nothing to do with religion. You can say your vows in front of your pastor, priest, monk, rabbi, etc and you are not married in the eyes of the government until the government issued license is signed. You can get married in a civil ceremony that your religion does not recognize, but you are married in the eyes of the government.

Divorce is handled by government courts, not religious bodies. You cannot say 'I divorce thee' three times and get rid of your wife.

Married couples get tax benefits, visitation rights, etc that are not always given to 'civil unions'.

They are not asking you to become gay or to try gay sex. They are not asking your church to perform a ceremony. They are asking for the right to enter the same agreement that opposite sex couples are allowed to.

 

[Doan]

They are asking for the right to enter the same agreement that opposite sex couples are allowed to.

And why aren't they allowed to? I see that you have not stated specifically what your opinions are about this topic... so I don't know if I should analyze this statement or not.

 

[leafypiggy]

Basically, as a Catholic Christian, I essentially say exactly what bhu had to say at the beginning of the thread. Let me also say this:

In no way is marriage a inalienable right, at least not in the US or any other country I know of. Therefore the argument of anti-SSM (same sex marriage) denying people their basic rights is false. The civil rights movement/14th amendment was for African Americans to be allowed citizenship, how that pertains to SSM, I'm not exactly sure.

Secondly, absolutely no one is saying that a woman or man that is infertile (whether due to age, physical condition, disease, or otherwise) should be denied marriage. Yes, marriage was made for one man and one woman, for the purpose of procreation, just because physical, uncontrollable/natural conditions exist that make this not possible for some are present, doesn't mean that they are not doing what marriage was made for. Contraception/abortion is a whole other discussion, of which there are existing threads, however contraception such as condoms and birth control are, in my opinion, just ways of avoiding what marriage is for. I do however, think that birth control for women who experience intense, painful menstruation is fine, since it does in fact help with that.

There is no way that two men, or two women engaging in sexual intercourse can create new life. An egg has to be fertilized by sperm. Sperm can't fertilize sperm, and egg can't fertilize and egg. In vitro (sp?) is again, another topic for a later date, but again, things like ssm and in vitro are brought up time and time again in pop culture (eg. "The Kids are all right"). Has our countr.. World deteriorated to the point that a same sex couple who both have children with another man's sperm can be acclaimed to be a "perfect example of a modern family?"

This is the real problem that most have with same sex marriage. It cannot produce life without external interference. It is NOT homophobia, in fact i have friends that are openly homosexual, and I treat them no differently than others. It is NOT a matter of being prejudiced, or denying people "rights." as I said before, marriage isn't a right. (It's not "Life, liberty, and marriage" or "life, liberty, marriage, and free health care for all" p) is it?)

That's just my two cents. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have to ask, or clear anything up if it doesn't make sense, it's late as I'm typing this.

 

[Doan]

I don't understand, what is your exact reason for you not to approve of gay marriage?
Is it because they can't in, any possible way, reproduce? Or is it because it doesn't seem right?

No family in the modern world is "perfect". Societies can accept abortions, drugs, alcohol, genocide, but they cannot accept homosexuals? Just because something seems strange or different doesn't mean it is not right. This is what led to slavery in the United States; the African Americans looked different than the Caucasians so they believed that the African Americans were inferior.

To make a homosexual not get married is the same as banning the marriage between an African American and a Caucasian; the concept is the same.

If marriage isnt a right, then what is it? Freedom isnt a right either? Define.

 

[innominate]

Basically, as a Catholic Christian, I essentially say exactly what bhu had to say at the beginning of the thread. Let me also say this:

In no way is marriage a inalienable right, at least not in the US or any other country I know of. Therefore the argument of anti-SSM (same sex marriage) denying people their basic rights is false.

I don't know anybody who claims it is an inalienable right. It's just a right that is extended to most consenting adults, but not those of the same sex. That means roughly 10% of the population can't get married to the person they love. On the other hand, two people who don't love each other at all, can't have children, abuse drugs, kick kittens, and whatever else can. As it happens, two homosexual people of the opposite sex can have a marriage of convenience any time they like. Even people who have had sex changes can get married.

So if we let people who don't love each other, will never have children, and will probably be divorced within the year get married, why not people who love each other, want children and, through IVF, surrogacy or sperm donation, may even have them, and just happen to be of the same sex?

The civil rights movement/14th amendment was for African Americans to be allowed citizenship, how that pertains to SSM, I'm not exactly sure.

In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned all state laws banning interracial marriage on the grounds that it was unconstitutional (the 14th Amendment to the US constitution has an "Equal Protection Clause"**). The Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his decision "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man[.]".

Secondly, absolutely no one is saying that a woman or man that is infertile (whether due to age, physical condition, disease, or otherwise) should be denied marriage.

No, because that would be ridiculous. Yet by claiming that marriage is about reproduction it is an inescapable conclusion. Opponents of same-sex marriage manage to maintain the doublethink that says "Gays can't get married because marriage is about reproduction" and "The infertile can get married because I was just joking you guys". Either marriage is not about reproduction, or the infertile should not be allowed to marry.

Yes, marriage was made for one man and one woman, for the purpose of procreation,

I had to prove earlier that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that marriage was made for one man and one woman. Remember, marriage as a ritual is much older than any current religion. You'd have to go back tens of thousands of years, and I don't think you'll have much success proving your assertion.

just because physical, uncontrollable/natural conditions exist that make this not possible for some are present, doesn't mean that they are not doing what marriage was made for.

What? If marriage "was made ... for the purpose of procreation" then infertile couples most certainly are "not doing what marriage was made for", by the bloody definition you just provided.

Contraception/abortion is a whole other discussion, of which there are existing threads, however contraception such as condoms and birth control are, in my opinion, just ways of avoiding what marriage is for.

So even though these couples are "avoiding what marriage is for", and some couples will never stop this avoidance, them getting married is okay, but for homosexual couples who would have children it isn't?

I do however, think that birth control for women who experience intense, painful menstruation is fine, since it does in fact help with that.

There's more than one way to stop menstruation; one is certain birth control, another is very low body fat, and the last is getting pregnant. If you're opposing contraception, there are still two alternatives. But suggesting that women in pain "lose weight or get pregnant" would be insensitive, so you steer clear of that. On the other hand, telling homosexuals that they can't marry is the epitome of sensitivity.

There is no way that two men, or two women engaging in sexual intercourse can create new life.

Unless one or both of them are trans- or inter-sex.

An egg has to be fertilized by sperm. Sperm can't fertilize sperm, and egg can't fertilize and egg. In vitro (sp?) is again, another topic for a later date, but again, things like ssm and in vitro are brought up time and time again in pop culture (eg. "The Kids are all right").

Humans can't fly, but we still use aeroplanes. We can't communicate over thousands of miles, but we still ring each other up and send emails. Humans can't do very little of what we do every day in the modern world. But technology has already made it possible.

Has our countr.. World deteriorated to the point that a same sex couple who both have children with another man's sperm can be acclaimed to be a "perfect example of a modern family?"

Deteriorated? No. Improved, yes. The two couples I know are wonderful parents, and they love their children so very much. Then again, a perfect example of a modern family is most likely a divorced couple with one absentee alcoholic and one struggling to raise multiple children and keep a job at the same time. Or is it the couple where one sleeps around and the other wishes they were dead?

This is the real problem that most have with same sex marriage. It cannot produce life without external interference.

This is the real problem that most have with infertile marriage. It cannot produce life without external interference.

It is NOT homophobia, in fact i have friends that are openly homosexual, and I treat them no differently than others.

Ah, the classic "I have homosexual friends" line. If you're telling some people that they can't get married and others that they can, then you are treating them differently. Once again, that's the definition of "differently".

It is NOT a matter of being prejudiced, or denying people "rights." as I said before, marriage isn't a right. (It's not "Life, liberty, and marriage" or "life, liberty, marriage, and free health care for all" p) is it?)

The US Supreme Court has three times overturned laws prohibiting or restrcting marriage in a group (interracial couples, people paying child support, and convicts) in different states (or nationally) - often calling marriage a right in their rulings. Other state supreme courts (at least three) have struck down bans on same-sex marriage. It may not be a right, but it still shouldn't be denied without a very good reason.

**"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[misson]

I don't see what the big deal is.

The debate is really centered around the legality of same-sex marriage, since we can decide public policy but not people's attitudes or the stance of religions, with two different actions to decide upon: recognizing gay marriage and disallowing gay marriage. Each exists within a different arena. As descalzo says, the former is a matter of the rights and duties conferred upon married couples, thus a matter of a couple's status within a governmental bureaucracy. The latter is more a matter of dictating social behavior. "Marriage" is a different thing in each context; we just happen to use the same term since the two are so highly correlated.

One of the first things that must be settled before any real progress can be made is to establish why marriage incurs special legal treatment. It stems from the legal recognition that people may join to form a single household which acts as a unit; it's akin to incorporation, but more personal in nature and doesn't create an entity separate from its members. What are other's thoughts on this?

I have never looked at a man with attraction and therefore from personal experience couldn't understand why anyone would.

That's fine for you, but personal taste is not what determines public policy. I (and many others) don't understand why people can watch any movie by Friedberg and Seltzer, but that doesn't mean I should be able to infringe on their ability to make them. Apparently some people like their movies, since the two keep producing them.

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it.

Some more:

• Wikipedia: Timeline of LGBT history
• Reallexikon der Assyriologie, "Homosexualität"; v4, pp. 459-68. This often referenced article cites graphical examples from as far back as 3000 BC as evidence homosexuality in Mesopotamia. The article concludes:
  

  Homosexuality in itself is thus nowhere condemned as licentiousness, as immorality, as social disorder, or as transgressing any human or divine law. Anyone could practise it freely, just as anyone could visit a prostitute, provided it was done without violence and without compulsion, and preferably as far as taking the passive role was concerned, with specialists. That there was nothing religiously amiss with homosexual love between men is seen by the fact that they prayed for divine blessing on it. It seems clear that the Mesopotamians saw nothing wrong in homosexual acts between consenting adults.

• Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality, ch. 3 (Ancient China)
• History of Chinese homosexuality

In no way is marriage a inalienable right, at least not in the US or any other country I know of. Therefore the argument of anti-SSM (same sex marriage) denying people their basic rights is false.

As descalzo stated, marriage confers other rights. By being denied legal recognition of marriage, it's the denial of these other rights that is inequitable, which makes it a civil rights violation.

As for the main point of marriage being procreation, that's an entirely Christian-centric view. I don't know as though we could establish the original purpose of marriage, as it was invented in prehistory. In the past, the point of some marriage has been to creating kinship and other alliances for political and social purposes, and this wasn't only for noble families. It's been about property, both in the sense that marriage may transfer ownership of a woman's property to her new husband or that spouses acquire and share the property of each other, and in the sense that (in some cultures) marriage was a transfer of ownership from the father to the husband. Marriage probably predates the concept of property, though not territory; thus alliances may have been a part of the original purpose for marriage, but property is a newer one. These days, it's also about love. Tradition is important, but so is the present.

Secondly, absolutely no one is saying that a woman or man that is infertile (whether due to age, physical condition, disease, or otherwise) should be denied marriage.

No one is saying that anyone is saying that marriage should be denied to barren couples. The example is pointing out the logical contradiction of the position that procreation shouldn't be the basis for marriage. Similarly, contraception is inconsistent with procreation.

The civil rights movement/14th amendment was for African Americans to be allowed citizenship

That might have provided the impetus to create the amendment, but that doesn't mean that was the sole purpose its enactors had in mind, nor that it hasn't legally been applied to other cases. The 14th amendment has also been used to justify equal treatment for women, for example. There's also nothing in the language of the equal protection clause (section 1) that limits it to any particular group of American citizens. (The only section that limits rights based on anything other than citizenship is section 2, which grants the right to vote only to men.)

(It's not "Life, liberty, and marriage" or "life, liberty, marriage, and free health care for all" p) is it?)

If we're basing what to do on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, shouldn't marriage be outlawed for everyone? It's a serious threat to all three.


It seems a major cause of division is use of the overloaded term "marriage", which is why civil unions were created in the first place. For those that oppose gay marriage, would civil unions conferring the same legal rights as marriage (so the two differed only in name) be acceptable, even if social unions weren't?

 

[Sharky]

Prove that you are straight... that is basically what you are asking us to do, we can only speculate and use logic to define these loosely used terms.

Exactly!!! Well, kinda. No actually not at all. Homosexual reproduction just does not work without technology. In the wild, one can speculate that one has no shame about getting it on with one of the same gender. So one can deduce that if it's genetic from many many moons ago, it'd be a 'condition' affecting such a minority nobody would notice it.

Btw this is going at the argument that homosexuality is genetic but those with the gene live in shame, get married have children etc.

I still don't see how it can be proven to be genetic considering we no so little about genes, the brain, and the physical element of psychology, if that makes sense.

 

[misson]

Homosexual reproduction just does not work without technology.

How does this matter? It's only important if procreation is the foundation of marriage, which has not been proved in general and is, in truth, an opinion (unless taken as an historical statement, in which case it remains unproven and not necessarily significant for modern times, given that culture evolves). The statement could be amended to create an objective one: "in Christianity, procreation is the foundation of marriage", but that still isn't germane to the issue of public policy regarding same-sex marriage.

In the wild, one can speculate that one has no shame about getting it on with one of the same gender. So one can deduce that if it's genetic from many many moons ago, it'd be a 'condition' affecting such a minority nobody would notice it.

Elaborate, please, on the reasoning and import.

I still don't see how it can be proven to be genetic considering we no so little about genes, the brain, and the physical element of psychology, if that makes sense.

Some studies examine the sexuality of twins, which found a higher positive correlation between the orientation of identical twins (which was compared to sexuality of fraternal twins) than one would expect if homosexuality were solely a matter of environment, indicating a possible genetic component.

Potential genes contributing to homosexuality are isolated by comparing the genomes of homosexual siblings. Once isolated, scientists then examine the frequency of those genes in heterosexuals. Those present in both can't be ruled out entirely, as they might be necessary but not sufficient to affect sexual orientation. After that, scientists attempt to determine whether any of the genes have any affect on sexual orientation by examine the affects of knocking out those genes (or their analog) in lab animals. Scientists are also examining genes that affect the sexual behavior of lab animals, then looking for analogs in humans. In either case, further studies would have to be done to determine what (if any) affects the genes actually have on human sexuality.

As for neurology, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (a structure in the brain that controls circadian rhythms) is generally about twice as big in many homosexual men as in heterosexual men (though in some gay men, it's the same size). There are also differences in what regions the amygdala has strong connections to. Straight men and lesbians tend to have strong connections between the amygdala and sensorimotor cortex & striatum, while in straight women and gay men the amygdala stimulates regions of the brain that manifest fear as intense anxiety.

Note that all the evidence I'm aware of (especially the neurological) shows correlation rather than causation. At this point, experiments are still focusing on the "whether" than the "how". There's still a large amount of research to be done, but evidence strongly suggests that genes play some role in determining sexuality, but aren't the only factor. Note that even environmental factors, such as hormone and nutrient levels, present during gestation have a permanent affect on neurological structures; in these cases, the results aren't learned behaviors but intrinsic to the individual.

For a comprehensive if fairly old introduction, read "Homosexuality and Biology", by Chandler Burr and originally printed in the Atlantic in 1993.

 

[school2soccer56]

I'm glad most people here on x10 hosting are open minded.

Some scientist say that "Gayness" is a gene. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter does it.

I was just thinking this too. Personally, I cannot believe that is even an issue. I think that people should do whatever they want with their lives; especially if it make them happy. I really hope that one day, people with stop making an issues out of this.

 

[GtoXic]

I don't think gay marriage should be legal for one reason, I really don't like gay people, I find it really abnormal.

NOTE: If this has offended any gay person then I am happy to have it deleted at request.