Thane, that's a valid submission indeed. However, if you really read and understood it, you would know that it fails to support your case and that it actually supports the possibility of homosexuality being genetically dependent.

The key to phenotypic differences in otherwise identical genotypes lies in the wonders of gene expression. Here's a short introduction to epigenetic drift. You can find the study it mentions here. It's an interesting read (at least if you, like me, have grown up with MZ twins and wondered about the quite large differences that people who never had any contact with MZ twins assume doesn't exist).

Now, after you've read this study, please notice the part in the conclusion where it says:
Then take your quote by Goldberg and expand it to the true context of Goldberg's argument:
What is the similarity between Fraga et al's study and Goldberg? I'll tell you: A lack of finding a descriptive determinative physiological causal factor without any kind of disposal but in fact a sturdy conclusion of predispositional factors. Does that sound like support for your case that a genetical predisposition of homosexuality is nowhere to be found? To me it sure sounds like the complete opposite of what you're trying to say.

I just don't see them having a legal leg to stand on. On the first point, marriage does not necessarily preclude sex. Secondly, if one person knows the other person has an STD, I think it within their rights to choose what to do with their own body and go ahead and sleep with them. Someone who has no idea of the other persons condition, could be grounds however.


By U.S. law, the benefits, rights, and priviledges ARE marriage. It cannot be viewed as a religious institution or it will violate the seperation of church and state.


Let me guess, all christian group studies? They can 'change' by two means:
1) they are bisexual, and not really a change at all.
2) they turn to christianity and 'change', which is really just them pretending not to be gay to recieve the benefits.


Surely you do not claim that we have found the gene for every immutable characteristic or that all of those must have genes.

Yes, I do claim it because heterosexuality is immutable to me. How about you?

So, to you it sounds like the complete opposite of what I'm trying to say.

Fair enough.

It doesn't "sound that way" to me.

Now, you can go the lazy route (like a few others here) and say I need "remedial work" in reading comprehension etc etc.

Or, we can let it be and admit a difference of OPINION.

"Christian group studies" ? Hmmmm... If you say so.

I must remember, that just because YOU say it doesn't mean it's TRUE

You can "claim" a lot of things. That doesn't make them true. Since we're now in the business of making off the wall claims, I say the center of moon is made of pizza sauce

I'm not in that habit unless it's warranted. It seemed as if you didn't understand that the quote by Byne and Parson doesn't work against physiological evidence of homosexuality and thus I questioned your understanding of the text.

I will always settle for an agreement on disagreement when it comes to opinion.

The only thing I don't settle for is the use of non-opinionated works to support an opinion when the works don't actually support such an opinion. Or worse yet, a value judgment.

Not for Thane, he made a choice to be hetero.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Just noticed this was a reply to a quote by me and wanted to mention that I didn't bring up religion, only governments role as a contractual party in marriage.

Yes, those are the commitments government undertakes when issuing a marriage license. I agree that church and religion has no place being part of those commitments.