I've seen no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is anything other than either lifestyle choice or psychological breakdown. There's been theories floated about genetics, but the way they seem to describe it, it's a developmental defect in utero.

That said, you wanna live that life, go ahead. Just stop asking me to subsidize it through federal recognition of your relationships.

Although I don't think the government ought to be involved in marriage at all, the only reason they got into the civil marriage business in the first place was to encourage breeding.

Homosexuals are a genetic and evolutionary dead-end; they don't breed. At best, any offspring in their union has the genes of only one partner.

Brian, naturally you're the first in there to say that. No, we have no study proving there's a gene behind it, but here's a question for you: Let's say you're sexually attracted to a certain type of person. Like women, for example. Can you be persuaded to be sexually attracted to men? Do kids, in seventh grade, say, one of the more painful times to be a person, pick a sexuality that will sometimes have them shunned or hurt?

Again, it's the religious nutters that cause all the hatred against gays. As an atheist, I don't see homosexuality as wrong (and there are plenty of examples of it in nature); for me, it's people liking something different than I do. Some girls go for light-haired men, some girls go for girls. Whatever floats your boat. I just hope people find some love in their life and are maybe even happy.

Amy - I don't hate gays any more or less than I hate everyone else. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I'm also not a "religious nutter", given I don't believe in religion.

I believe that with the appropriate psychological trauma that such a change is possible. Psychological trauma can make people do some seriously fucked up things (see: VA Tech shooter, et. al.)

I also believe that a not insignificant number of people make self-destructive choices for the sole purpose of martyring themselves before society. "Look at me, I'm oppressed", and all that.

If there is a "gene" behind it (and that is only theoretical, at least as of 2006 when it first made the news) it's likely the same kind of genetic artifact as other birth defects.

If you truly believe in evolution, then how can you say homosexuality is anything other than wrong? The only thing of evolutionary importance a human does is reproduce. Homosexuals have voluntarily (IMO) taken themselves out of the gene pool. They are no better off evolutionarily than the infertile.

Your speculation that people are traumatized into being gay...one of the lesbians I know is from a background that's, well, other kids would petition to be in her family if they could.

What kid at 13 wants life to be any harder than it is. It's hard to be gay -- thanks to the religious nutters.

If you know anyone gay, and hear how they were surprised to find that they were attracted to the same sex, you'll understand that it isn't "a lifestyle choice" or any of that other bullshit use by the people who believe, without evidence, in god, to be against them.

The idea that I would care how other people fuck...that's what would be weird, primitive, and barbaric.

And wrong on "the only thing of evolutionary importance." It's possible that gays were alloparents -- helped care for the kids. Group selection, blah blah blah.

Amy - how else do you explain a guy who has a three-year relationship with a woman (who by all accounts was not sane) suddenly "goes gay", complete with the change in voice and walk?

Or is he a fake?

How about the woman who just (in her words) "decided I didn't like dicks any more". Sounds like a choice to me. Maybe I've had the luck to only meet the outliers.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care what you do with your genitalia. I draw the line at what I am ordered under penalty of law to accept as normal and beyond criticism. I also object to being compelled to support someone's lifestyle choices through the tax code. Which is why I favor the complete elimination of civil marriage. It was a religious ceremony before the government took it over for their own nefarious ends. It's time they gave it back.

As far as the "alloparents" thing, someone else floated that to me once, and it made as much sense then as it does now - none. Why would nature go to the trouble of creating a being optimized for hunting and fighting, and give him a brain that makes him want to pick berries and wash babies? The universe may tend toward maximum oddity, but it usually doesn't tolerate inefficiency for long. And lets face it, giving a guy a dick he will never use for its intended purpose is a waste of resources, at least 100,000 years ago. And you've made a point of how we're still wired the same way were were when we were living in caves.

But for the religious fanatics denying gayness and punishing gays, do you think there'd be gay denial?

I always wished I was bisexual (more choice in mating). I think girls are pretty and I love looking at breasts, but from an aesthetic point of view. I don't see them and want to fuck the owner. A tall guy with a big frame walks into the room...hubba hubba.

I don't know why gays exist evolutionarily, but it's unimportant to me. They exist in my life, and it's clear from studies I have read that they have different brains than those of their sex who have opposite sex attractions (take gay men and their similarity to women in attention to detail in a small landscape -- ie, the home, versus straight men's better distance vision). From Silverman & Eals...and somebody I spoke to or e-mailed with recently just did a new study on that...can't remember who. Oh yeah...Gad Saad, I think, who has a book coming out.

But for the religious fanatics denying gayness and punishing gays, do you think there'd be gay denial?

Yes. If we lived in a perfectly rational society, homosexuals would STILL be a biological and evolutionary dead-end. Their usefulness to society would cease at the moment they could no longer be productive.

Cold hard fact, if you don't have children (with terribly few exceptions), you aren't contributing to the future of the society. Without a new generation of productive citizens, society simply stops.

In that vein, you and I are of no more value to this society than any homosexual. We've all chosen not to reproduce for whatever reason. And whether self-selected or selected by nature, the end result is the same. The universe has said "I don't want your genes any more".

"I don't know why gays exist evolutionarily, but it's unimportant to me."

Same here, Amy.

Although it's fun to speculate that it would be useful to have some safe but fabulous guys back home in the cave with the breeder girls while the other guys went off hunting...maybe like RuPaul?

RuPaul? What's he supposed to do when the sabre-toothed tiger rolls up, whack it with his heels?

Sorry, that was just way too funny a mental image to not share.

"RuPaul? What's he supposed to do when the sabre-toothed tiger rolls up, whack it with his heels?"

Nah, that's what the lesbians do, brian.

RuPaul just doles out really, really scary, withering looks to sneaky guys from other tribes who call round when the hunters are out hunting.

I've known too many gay people to think for a second there can ever be some kind of sweeping legal mandate to address the social and economic implications of who puts their hooha in somebody else's winkle. It's an area where I am VERY libertarian.
But I can't help but observe (and remember) that high school aged kids are essentially bundles of raging hormones being told not to have sex lest they ruin their lives. Modern educational philosophies add: unless you are gay, then go nuts. Of course more kids are going to experiment as the social stigma decreases and there will be a social impact to that trend. I think the sexual impulse can be tuned and refined to find expression in a wide range of outlets and I also think people are born with their own unique sexuality with bell curve distribution around what we call the norm. The size and diversity of the sex toys industry bears me out.

It's a place where the law has no business but it should be understood that people still feel strongly. Even if there were no religion, few parents picture their children coming home with a same-sex partner. It is an acceptance that must be learned.

And BTW, the evolutionary angle is irrelevant; gay people have been squirting out children for millennia.

Heh heh...exactly right, Martin...the former governor of NJ being one of them.

Even if there were no religion, few parents picture their children coming home with a same-sex partner.

Bonobos don't know there's something wrong with same sex fucking. It's because of religion, I'd venture, that people here do. Any atheist parents of gay kids out there? As for not picturing the kid coming home with a same sex partner, yes, the expectation is that most people will be heterosexual. But, as for whether the picture poses any problems, I'd trace that back to religion.

As for me, I know, I'm just speculating, since I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd want my kid to be happy. What the sex of the person they're happy with is seems irrelevant -- except, of course, for the fact that gays and lesbians have a hard time thanks to the religious nutters.

Brian,

The process of natural selection is a dead end for ALL SPECIES. Whether they are capable of procreating or not. Every species on the planet is scheduled for extinction. So, please drop the evolutionary biology sophistry.

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. It's the way the biosphere self-regulates the population besides the other well known methods.

The current political situation towards gays and lesbians is a direct result of a conflicting sex negative society that appeals to individual rights. (USA) Natural selection does not care about sex negative, sex positive, opened or closed societies. What is important the inapplicable Judeo-Christian morality or individual rights for all its citizens?

Real reform should be implemented without passing laws that protect gays and lesbians, but laws that will leave them alone.

My step-bro is gay but hasnt come out yet. The immediate family will meet his gayness with indiffrence. My step-father, an old school, hard-boiled, no formal education, heterosexual male, just wishes his son would come out already and confide in him. He doesnt believe in a personal god that gives a shit about the individual. The religious extended family will try to change his sexuality.

Well, I would recommend any parent who has a gay son to get them involved in self defense classes asap.

I always feel bad about the need to "come out" as gay -- I didn't need to come out as heterosexual. Adolescence was hard enough already, thanks.

a guy who has a three-year relationship with a woman (who by all accounts was not sane) suddenly "goes gay",

I believe that intolerance towards homosexuality can cause people to repress or consciously hide their true preference. Some event always triggers us to make a big life decision. Sure there was a decision and/or an event, but it wasn't deciding to be gay, it was deciding to be honest about it.

My gay boss has to avoid mentioning his relationship at work to avoid complications. Always dealing with questions about why he isn't married, if he's seeing anyone, etc. Always having to watch that he says "I" instead of "we" in case someone wants to meet his partner. And those are the minor inconveniences! I can assure you that "choosing to be a martyr" is not part of his personality.

If the government is going to assign any privilege or responsibility based on interdependent relationships, then it should be across the board. Or get out entirely (my preference).

Amy, as an atheist with a son, I still envision him coming home with a woman some day. I wouldn't have a problem with it being a man, but its not the mental image I get. I'd agree its the pressures of our religious-based societal "norms" that create the vision.

I've always felt, the only reason people do not find the weird things I do creepy but amusing is because im a young thin heterosexual female. If I was anything else, like a homo dude, but exactly the same (its not that big of a strech since my personality already passes off as a dude online), I would have had the shit beat out of me a long time ago. Especially by other dudes. I wonder if other people consider aspects of their personality that wouldnt be accepted if they were the opposite sex.

Just stop asking me to subsidize it through federal recognition of your relationships.

Although I don't think the government ought to be involved in marriage at all, the only reason they got into the civil marriage business in the first place was to encourage breeding.

Yeesh. If I'm going to subsidize anyone's marriage through federal recognition, I'd rather it be gays. At least with gays, I'm less likely to wind up subsidizing the spawn.

I'm against marriage privileging, but if we subsidize it for heteros, we should subsidize it for the entire GLBT universe as well.

You're missing the point.

People that don't reproduce don't create the next generation of taxpayers. Why, therefore, is it in the government's interest to offer any kind of benefit to a non-reproducing relationship?

It isn't. Follow the money. The answer is always there.

Gay people sometimes pay somebody to reproduce or they adopt kids that might otherwise end up carjacking your ass.

The government should stop giving payoffs to anybody in a relationship.

"People that don't reproduce don't create the next generation of taxpayers."

There are plenty of married people who don't reproduce, and plenty of unmarried people who do. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Personally I agree with some of the others here - the gov't should get out of the business altogether.

Hey brian, given you think being gay is a evolutionary dead end. Ever stop to consider the reason there are so many gay people is because there are too many people on the earth?

Nature has a balance for every species - given e have no predetors anymore did you ever stop to think that there is a built in kill switch in our genes to ensure we dont have to many of us running around?

Personally I dont buy that but you apperntly do, so did you ever consider that option?

I considered it, and it has merit. It could also be used to explain the growth of autoimmune disorders and new forms of cancer.

However, it would also require the assumption that there are, in fact, too many people. I'm not so sure I buy that.

Although its certainly a more plausible explanation than any standard recessive genetic trait, as there appears to be tremendous growth in the numbers of people who identify as homosexual, whereas we would expect (absent inbreeding) the population of a recessive-trait group to go to steady-state or decline over time.

And if homosexuality were a population-related function, wouldn't it be far more prevalent in higher density societies? Is there any reliable data that shows a percentage of population that is homosexual relative to population density?

Could be an interesting correlation to look for.

Where the hell is Crid in this thread? This is his favorite topic.

Although its certainly a more plausible explanation than any standard recessive genetic trait, as there appears to be tremendous growth in the numbers of people who identify as homosexual, ...

I don't know that this is due to growth in the actual numbers, or simply a society more accepting of homosexuality that allows more people to express themselves. Not only would you have to find the correlation of populations vs. their homosexuals for each society, but you have to factor in how repressive that society is of its homosexuals. Somehow I don't see "Gay Pride" happening in Saudi Arabia.

Heterosexuals indulge in homosexual acts when nothing else is available. Prison inmates, for instance. If a society such as Saudi Arabia (which executes homosexuals) can create the impression that homosexuality is simply not an option, chances are there are a few who would find a way to simply force themselves into heterosexual relationships (considering the alternative is death).

So, I don't believe there is a reliable way to get the kind of data you seek. You're only apt to find that the most oppressive societies have the fewest number to admit their homosexuality.

Hi, Patrick!

Gay liberation has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but I'd bet you'll still find profound disproportions of troubled and hurtful childhood in people who are gay (and maybe even more often in people who are bi). Nowadays many people can live happy, gentle, less-threatened lives out of the closet, so if there wasn't anything abusive in childhood, then there's nothing to admit or deny... Everybody can get on with living their lives.

If we're not talking about the childhoods of troubled children, then fussing over the balance of nature and nurture that makes somebody gay seems academic, ie, more than a little boring. Imagining that their individual sex lives are of cosmic importance to total strangers is one of reason noisy gays seem like such undercooked personalities anyway... (Same with noisy straights, but you see what I mean.)

How was that, Patrick?