The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Clownboat]

I will accept that some people with same-sex orientation have managed their feelings so that they do not act on those feelings. In fact, the article posted by sailing notes this.

So for those who DO want to change their orientation, why not furnish them with resources to do so? Sexual orientation is about as changeable as other things people get counseling for.

However, the same-sex feelings do not go away. They are simply managed. The overwhelming evidence is that orientation is not changeable for nearly everyone.

I agree, but speaking from a Christian position it is always possible to do the will of God and refrain from immorality. A celibate person with same-sex feelings is in the same position as a single heterosexual who chooses to remail celibate for the sake of his Christian beliefs. It isn't a whole lot different than married heterosexuals trapped in a bad marriage who feel tempted towards adultery. Those feelings may never go away either.

Exodus International is not a reliable source of information.

Nonsense. That is a baseless ad hominem.

They simply deny any evidence that runs counter to their views.

As I see those advancing the pro-gay agenda doing all the time here. See the previous discussion on the mortality rates of gay men.

I will point out that Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, co-founders of Exodus, now repudiate the whole premise and enterprise and held a life commitment ceremony with each other some 22 years ago now.

And if you had an alcoholic who fell off the wagon, so what? Here's an article on a former member of the gay rights movement who renounced it all and became a Christian. Does that prove anything?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=49

There are numerous examples of people having gone through "conversion therapies" and at first claiming they were "cured" only to admit later that was not the case.

Again, true of alcoholics and pedophiles.

I am not going to dignify your continual association of gays with pedophiles with any further responses until you go back through the thread and address the responses on this issue, in detail, that have already been made. I view your continued raising of this issue as a blatant smear tactic, nothing more.

Nonsense, I am not equating gays with pedophiles. People who sexually prey on children need to be flogged, or worse. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say pedophiles can change their sexual orientation but gays never can. If someone wants to continue in their gay lifestyle, that's their business, but if someone wants to change, they should be supported, not told that it is impossible and that they are bad for wanting to do so.

EoE. Could you go to a gay bar, watch a man dance on the stage, and choose to get an erection? I'm talking about you personally.

[micatala]

I will accept that some people with same-sex orientation have managed their feelings so that they do not act on those feelings. In fact, the article posted by sailing notes this.

So for those who DO want to change their orientation, why not furnish them with resources to do so? Sexual orientation is about as changeable as other things people get counseling for.

Not true. Sames-sex feelings are not as changeable as depression and a lot of other things people seek counciling for.

Still, if people want to attempt the change, they are free to do so, but instead of listening to the unsubstantiated propaganda of organizations like Exodus, they should be told the truth that their quest is almost surely a vain one, and that they could easily end up doing themselves more harm than good.

However, the same-sex feelings do not go away. They are simply managed. The overwhelming evidence is that orientation is not changeable for nearly everyone.

I agree, but speaking from a Christian position it is always possible to do the will of God and refrain from immorality. A celibate person with same-sex feelings is in the same position as a single heterosexual who chooses to remail celibate for the sake of his Christian beliefs. It isn't a whole lot different than married heterosexuals trapped in a bad marriage who feel tempted towards adultery. Those feelings may never go away either.

I'll accept that you accept that same-sex feelings cannot change. However, this is not what Exodus and others tell people. At least for many years, they said you could get rid of the orientation and that is what they attempted to do, and that is what they claimed they did.

It is only now that more and more data is coming out that they have failed that they are now backing away to the "managing behavior" goal.

Exodus International is not a reliable source of information.

Nonsense. That is a baseless ad hominem.

I'll accept I have not as yet documented that in this thread, but it is a fact and not nonsense.

I will challenge them or anyone else to provide objective, verifiable data that their claims actually hold water.

They simply deny any evidence that runs counter to their views.

As I see those advancing the pro-gay agenda doing all the time here. See the previous discussion on the mortality rates of gay men.

Already debunked. As I recall, the source you provided on this was from ONE CANADIAN CITY. Sorry, your claim here is empty.

Not only that, it is irrelevant to what rights gays should enjoy.

Can you name me one other group that has a higher mortality rate where we consider that rate to be relevant with respect to marriage, employment, housing, etc. etc.

I will point out that Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, co-founders of Exodus, now repudiate the whole premise and enterprise and held a life commitment ceremony with each other some 22 years ago now.

And if you had an alcoholic who fell off the wagon, so what? Here's an article on a former member of the gay rights movement who renounced it all and became a Christian. Does that prove anything?

I will look it over and we'll see.

Also, your comparison suffers from the fact that alcoholism is harmful and classified as a disease.

Homosexuality is neither.

There are numerous examples of people having gone through "conversion therapies" and at first claiming they were "cured" only to admit later that was not the case.

Again, true of alcoholics and pedophiles.

I again call this for what it is. An insulting and fallacious comparison.

You owe gay people an aplogy for the continual association of being gay with pedophilia.

I am not going to dignify your continual association of gays with pedophiles with any further responses until you go back through the thread and address the responses on this issue, in detail, that have already been made. I view your continued raising of this issue as a blatant smear tactic, nothing more.

Nonsense, I am not equating gays with pedophiles. People who sexually prey on children need to be flogged, or worse. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say pedophiles can change their sexual orientation but gays never can. If someone wants to continue in their gay lifestyle, that's their business, but if someone wants to change, they should be supported, not told that it is impossible and that they are bad for wanting to do so.

You are the only one bringing up pedophilia. It is clearly an inflammatory comparison.



Has anyone else but you brought this comparison up in this thread? Have I or anyone else put forward the position you say you are responding to with the comparison?



The data show that changing orientation is nigh on impossible. People should be told that because it is the truth, not sold a bill of goods by people with an ideological agenda who do not have the well-being of their "clients" at heart.

[East of Eden]

Still, if people want to attempt the change, they are free to do so, but instead of listening to the unsubstantiated propaganda of organizations like Exodus, they should be told the truth that their quest is almost surely a vain one, and that they could easily end up doing themselves more harm than good.

There isn't any harm coming form the attempt to curb a lifestyle that shortens gay men's lives by 20 years.

I'll accept that you accept that same-sex feelings cannot change.

I didn't say that.

I'll accept I have not as yet documented that in this thread, but it is a fact and not nonsense.

My guess is it's nothing but your opinion.

Already debunked. As I recall, the source you provided on this was from ONE CANADIAN CITY. Sorry, your claim here is empty.

You recall wrong. The article I posted had 86 footnotes, many from mainstream medical journals.

Not only that, it is irrelevant to what rights gays should enjoy.

Can you name me one other group that has a higher mortality rate where we consider that rate to be relevant with respect to marriage, employment, housing, etc. etc.

I've already said it is a separate issue.

I will look it over and we'll see.

Also, your comparison suffers from the fact that alcoholism is harmful and classified as a disease.

Homosexuality is neither.

It used to be classified as a disorder, and was changed not because of any new science but purely due to to pressure from the gay lobby. Also, see my past article, the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, especially to men.

I again call this for what it is. An insulting and fallacious comparison.

You owe gay people an aplogy for the continual association of being gay with pedophilia.

Don't hold your breath. Reread my post, I'm not equating pedophilia with homosexuality, although I consider both to be a disorder.

You are the only one bringing up pedophilia. It is clearly an inflammatory comparison.

No it isn't. And while we're on the topic, you never answered my question. How can pedophiles change their sexual orientation but not those with same-sex feelings?

Has anyone else but you brought this comparison up in this thread? Have I or anyone else put forward the position you say you are responding to with the comparison?

I didn't know there was anyone else who agreed with me here.

The data show that changing orientation is nigh on impossible.

I would have to see more data on that, but is completely possible for people to control their behavior. We expect it of alcoholics.

People should be told that because it is the truth, not sold a bill of goods by people with an ideological agenda who do not have the well-being of their "clients" at heart.

That sounds like those pushing the gay agenda.

[Clownboat]

No it isn't. And while we're on the topic, you never answered my question. How can pedophiles change their sexual orientation but not those with same-sex feelings?

Are you suggesting that people with opposite sex feelings can change their orientation?

[East of Eden]

No it isn't. And while we're on the topic, you never answered my question. How can pedophiles change their sexual orientation but not those with same-sex feelings?

Are you suggesting that people with opposite sex feelings can change their orientation?

Possibly, and they can defineatly change their chosen behavior.

[Clownboat]

No it isn't. And while we're on the topic, you never answered my question. How can pedophiles change their sexual orientation but not those with same-sex feelings?

Are you suggesting that people with opposite sex feelings can change their orientation?

Possibly, and they can defineatly change their chosen behavior.

EoE says: "I'm possibly suggesting that people with opposite sex feelings can change their orientation". It was a yes or no question.
(Correct?)

EoE. Could you go into a gay bar, watch a man dance on the stage, and choose to get an erection? Try to avoid "possibly" if you can. I know my answer.

I'm talking about feelings here and you bring up behavior. I could change my behavior and stop having sex with my wife, but that does not address the feelings I cannot help but have for her. I hope you understand the difference.

[micatala]

Still, if people want to attempt the change, they are free to do so, but instead of listening to the unsubstantiated propaganda of organizations like Exodus, they should be told the truth that their quest is almost surely a vain one, and that they could easily end up doing themselves more harm than good.

There isn't any harm coming form the attempt to curb a lifestyle that shortens gay men's lives by 20 years.

Already debunked. As I recall, the source you provided on this was from ONE CANADIAN CITY. Sorry, your claim here is empty.

You recall wrong. The article I posted had 86 footnotes, many from mainstream medical journals.

I suspect East of Eden has not really read the article he alludes to or considered in detail the footnotes.

I went through the article and the only allusion to the diminution in life span in gay people was from one study done in Vancouver. As far as I could determine, all the other allusions to this phenomenon went back to this single study.


So no, I do not recall wrong. I challenge you to show otherwise. Tell us which of these 86 footnotes actually substantiate your claim.

Throwing out text that may or may not be relevant to your claim and then taking me to task after I actually wade through the text to see if there is actually any evidence for the claim there is not particularly good debate technique.


So, step up to the plate and back your claim. Give us studies that are actually broadly based and show that gay men, in general and not from selected or isolated sub-populations have life spans decades shorter than average. I am not going on a further wild goose chase to do your homework for you.




And keep in mind, to be fair, you should take into account promiscuity or other causal factors for any documented shortening in life span. If you are going to pick a promiscuous group of gays, that group should get compared to a similarly promiscuous group from the general population. A scientific study that did otherwise and then made claims about gays in general, ignoring the behaviors in play, would be considered either dishonest or hugely incompetent.

Not only that, it is irrelevant to what rights gays should enjoy.

Can you name me one other group that has a higher mortality rate where we consider that rate to be relevant with respect to marriage, employment, housing, etc. etc.

I've already said it is a separate issue.

Well, you brought it up. Now you seem to be dodging the implications of your own claims. Can I now expect that you will refrain from ever again bringing up this issue with respect to gay marriage?

I will look it over and we'll see.

Also, your comparison suffers from the fact that alcoholism is harmful and classified as a disease.

Homosexuality is neither.

It used to be classified as a disorder,

Do you think we should ignore that last 50 years of progress in medicine and psychology? We also used to think blacks were mentally inferior, and treated various mental ailments with shock therapy and lobotomies. Are you saying we should prefer the conclusions of medicine from 1960 to the conclusions of 2010?



And since you dodged the question, do you consider homosexuality a disease and can you show that homosexuality in and of itself is harmful? If not, then the fallaciousness of your comparison stands.

and was changed not because of any new science but purely due to to pressure from the gay lobby.

Do you have any evidence to support this broad assertion?

Also, see my past article, the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, especially to men.

Which article was this? It's not the one that goes back to the Vancouver study is it? We've dealt with that one.


We know high promiscuity rates have consequences. If that is what you mean by "the homosexual lifestyle" then you are practicing the fallacy of equivocation. Homosexuality is not the same as being promiscuous.

However, if you remind me which article this is, even if it IS the one I think it is, I will reconsider. But I am not going to wade through a huge amount of text to do your homework for you. Identify the actual evidence within the article that you claims supports your assertion.

I again call this for what it is. An insulting and fallacious comparison.

You owe gay people an aplogy for the continual association of being gay with pedophilia.

Don't hold your breath. Reread my post, I'm not equating pedophilia with homosexuality, although I consider both to be a disorder.

You are the only one bringing up pedophilia. It is clearly an inflammatory comparison.

No it isn't. And while we're on the topic, you never answered my question. How can pedophiles change their sexual orientation but not those with same-sex feelings?

Has anyone else but you brought this comparison up in this thread? Have I or anyone else put forward the position you say you are responding to with the comparison?

I didn't know there was anyone else who agreed with me here.

You are dodging again. Who else in this thread brought up pedophilia, except in response to you bringing it up?

I'll stand by my opinion that you are making an insulting and inflammatory comparison. One does not need to consider the immutability or non-immutability of pedophilia in order to consider the same for same-sex feelings. Each assertion stands on its own evidence.

The data show that changing orientation is nigh on impossible.

I would have to see more data on that, but is completely possible for people to control their behavior. We expect it of alcoholics.

More diversion. I have already repeatedly agreed that one can manage behavior. One can do this for alchohol consumption and one can be gay and celibate, or be gay and engage in heterosexual sex. Why do you keep bringing up an irrelevant issue we both agree on?

The issue is your claim that same-sex feelings are changeable.

People should be told that because it is the truth, not sold a bill of goods by people with an ideological agenda who do not have the well-being of their "clients" at heart.

That sounds like those pushing the gay agenda.

This is nothing more than a pointless ad hominem. Rather than respond substantively, you simply attempt to deny the truth by making a claim that the person stating the truth has some kind of agenda. This is yet another fallacy.

I'll accept that you accept that same-sex feelings cannot change.

I didn't say that.

Well, you'll have to pardon my confusion given the number of times you have switched back and forth between discusing same-sex feelings and same-sex behavior.

Just to clarify, do you believe a person who has identified his or her own sexuality as preferring the same-sex say at the age of 18 can change those feelings or not?

I'll accept I have not as yet documented that in this thread, but it is a fact and not nonsense.

My guess is it's nothing but your opinion.

I will see if I can find substantiation for this.

[micatala]

Here are some sources addressing whether same-sex orientation is changeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation

http://staff.um.edu.mt/mbor7/orientation.htm

From a course on the Psychology of Sexuality.

Here is an excerpt.

Sexual Orientation
Gay men and lesbians often recall childhood play preferences like those of the other sex (Bailey & Zucker, 1995). Childhood gender conformity or nonconformity was not only the strongest but the only significant childhood predictor of later sexual orientation for both men and women (Bell et al., 1981a).
But most homosexual people report not becoming aware of same-sex attraction until during or shortly after puberty, and not thinking of themselves as gay or lesbian until around age 20 (Garnets & Kimmel, 1990).

Sexual orientation
Little is known about female-female sexual activity in non-western cultures. Evidence for female-to-female sexual behaviour was found by Ford and Beachinn in only 17 out of the 76 societies they studied. This cross-cultural evidence is consistent with data from our own culture. Here too, males are more likely to develop sexual interest in, or romantic relationships with, members of their own sex. (Katz, 1995; Laumann et al., 1994).


Erotic Plasticity
Baumeister R. (2000)- The degree to which a person's sex drive can be shaped and altered by cultural, social, and situational pressures.
Lack of plasticity: A person's sexuality is more rigidly pattered early in life, as a result of biological and/or childhood influences.

Women's sexuality
Study hints at a finding reported recently by other researchers-that women's sexual orientation tends to be less strongly felt and potentially more fluid and changeable than men's (Diamond, 2000; Peplau & Garnets, 2000). Little evidence that biological factors are a major determinant of women's sexual orientation: "It remains more subject to personal choice and social influence" (Baumeister 2000, p.356).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus8.htm

This page summarizes a number of studies related to homosexuality.

Here are some excerpts.

Studies on monozygotic twins: These are twins that resulted from the splitting of a single fertilized egg -- the zygote -- into two separate zygotes with identical genetic structure. They are commonly called "identical twins." Studies have been made which involve identical twins who were separated at birth and have not been in contact since. Studies consistently show that male homosexual orientation is mainly (perhaps entirely) determined at conception by a person's genes. This is such an important and definitive study that we describe it in more detail in another essay.

The more detail alluded to here is available below.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm



My reading of the data is that genetics has a significant influence on sexual orientation, but that their are other causes, including in utero development. Remember, "non-changeable" is not the same as genetic. Chemical, especially hormonal, influences can be at play that are not genetically based but can induce permanent changes in an individual.

Note the following comments on "reparative therapy."

One logical result from this belief is that sexual orientation should be changeable through adult therapy for at least some gays and lesbians. Thus, we see many conservative Christian groups promoting reparative therapy and/or transformational therapy, which attempt to convert persons with a homosexual orientation into heterosexuals through prayer and counseling.

Unfortunately, although there are tens of millions of dollars available to prevent equality for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, no group has ever bothered to evaluate these forms of therapy for their safety and long-term success rate. From what little evidence of the success rate that we have been able to uncover, it is much less than 1%.

Thus, the claim that same-sex feelings are generally changeable seems to actually be the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.

Another excerpt:

Assume that 5% of males have a homosexual orientation as adults. Consider two identical newborn twin boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male -- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay.

So, this is consistent with the notion that there is a significant genetic component, while also strongly suggesting there are other causes.



Another excerpt:

Introspection: Most sexually active adults are aware that their sexual orientation is not chosen and not changeable. Assuming that you are a heterosexual: Consider how you would change yourself so that you were sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. You will realize that it is quite impossible to create feelings of sexual attraction if they do not currently exist.
Consider at what age you chose your sexual orientation? You will realize that, as far back as you can remember, you were either asexual or heterosexual.

And really, this is common sense. Who, in the face of the tradition of bigotry, discrimination, bullying, even violence against gays would "volunteer" to be gay?

I'll accept the possibility that a small number of people are "in between" on the sexual orientation spectrum and these individuals may find themselves attracted to either sex. However, these are not individuals I would classify as gay, and they typically do not identify themselves as gay.





Conversely, how many people who claim same-sex feelings are changeable do not do so on the basis of very strongly held religious views?





Here are more points.

Brain Structure: Simon LeVay, a Neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute in California published a study in 1991 which examined the brains of men who had died of AIDS. He found that the INAH 3 (a structure within the hypothalamus) differed in size between heterosexual and homosexual men. This suggested to the researcher that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate". 2 This study has been criticized on a number of grounds. Many of his subjects died of AIDS; perhaps the difference in structure size was caused by the disease, or the medications that they took, not the sexual orientation. Others have suggested that homosexual or heterosexual activity may have determined the size of the structure, rather than vice-versa.
Hearing: A group of researchers at the University of Texas found structural differences in the inner ears between lesbians and heterosexual women. On average, women have more sensitive cochlea amplifiers than men; they are able to detect softer sounds in a very quiet room. The researchers found that lesbians had inner ear characteristics that were more like those of men. The structure of the inner ear forms before birth and is affected during pregnancy by androgens. 7 These findings indicate that sexual orientation is at least partly decided before birth -- perhaps at conception.
Incidence: Gays and lesbians do not appear to be any less common in societies which condemn and suppress homosexuals; they do not seem to be any more common in accepting societies. This would argue against sexual orientation being learned from the environment.
Parenting: Almost all children raised in families headed by two gays or two lesbians grow up heterosexual. The sexual orientation of one's parents appear to have little or no influence over the orientation of their children.
Infection: A new theory has been proposed that homosexuality is caused by a bacteria or virus.

The data seems to overwhelming support the notion that same-sex orientation is not a choice, and is not genreally changeable, even if we do not know all the causes or the relationship between these causes.




Is there any evidence, especially any verifiable peer-reviewed evidence, that says sexual orientation is generally changeable?

[micatala]

A detailed critique of the claims of effectiveness for reparative therapies.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod2.htm




And I have to ask yet again, how is the immutability issue relevant?



Is East of Eden or anyone else in favor of differentiations or discrimination on the basis of non-immutable characteristics?

Would differences in marriage law based on income, age, ability to produce children, former marital status, etc. be allowable under the constitution or not?

[Scotracer]

I'll accept the possibility that a small number of people are "in between" on the sexual orientation spectrum and these individuals may find themselves attracted to either sex. However, these are not individuals I would classify as gay, and they typically do not identify themselves as gay.

And you'd be correct. I do not consider myself 'gay' as that has connotations to only liking members of the same sex. Since my 'tastes' varies from person to person (i.e. the sex of the person isn't really a factor) I just say I am myself as I do not like labels. I do like the word 'Queer' though - it implies a sort of eccentricity that I know I have.