Posted on 06/08/2002 8:51:45 AM PDT by scripter
You’re confused, as usual, gender and behavior are mutually exclusive elements.
This comes as a surprise to you?
"Banish" them to where? Your reply makes no sense. Are you saying that if this data is correct then all males should be segragated from all children? No, I believe that cure would be worse than the disease. IF this data and the underlying assumptions are correct then it tells us that we should be very hesitant to put our male children in situations where they could be alone in the company of male homosexuals. Understand, however, that I offer no opinion on whether the data and assumptions in this study are sound as I have no idea whether these underlying variables have been subject to peer review or professional scrutiny. I merely comment on the correlation your original post failed to pick up on.
One Freeper put the question to him 9 times. He will shift the subject in a hurry.
Let's be honest: homos can't reproduce, they can only RECRUIT from among the young and vulnerable.
The homo "chickenhawks" who target boys, (and I count many pervert priests among them), are a critical part of the formation of each new generation pulled into the homosexual death style.
Just examine the phenomenon of many Catholic seminaries in recent decades, where new generations of homosexuals are MADE, not born, in a pervasive environment of homosexual culture, persuasion and seduction. One of the only good things to come from the "outing" of the pervert priests has been the discovery of this homosexual recruiting process.
(How old was the gentle person who "helped" you to "discover" your "true sexual orientation"? Or is that question a bit too honest for you?)
I don't know why he is here on free republic, but he is here and he always appears on the Sodmite threads to try to defend the indefenseable.
The fact is, in every civilized culture, Homosexuality has been regarded as a crime. It is a violation of natural law.
Homosexuals traditionally were prosecuted if their lifestyle were made known, until the 1960's their agenda was not tolerated, but the drugged up hippies with their "Free love" agenda embraced sodomites and we have had it pushed on us ever since.
According to settled law, Homosexual conduct is a protected right.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186.
Every single colony had an anti-sodomy law in 1791 when our nation was first beginning. Later in 1868, every single state, and territory had a criminal sodomy law.
Homosexuality was simply not tolerated by our nation.
This principle goes back far beyond American History. The foundations of Civilization have always forbid this activity because it is known to be damaging to society and morality, without morality, no civilized nation can exist.
Below are the texts of two early english laws on homosexuality, one that was passed in 1553, and one that preceded it dating back to 1300AD.
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
Even earlier was a law dating back to the times of the Roman Empire.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)." (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris:
"'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
To this day Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia STILL HAVE CRIMINAL SODOMY STATUTES.
Here are links to some research that has been done is this area. It is very interesting.
The American Psychiatric Association ("APA") has for years debated the harmful effects of homosexuality. Apparently, the answer rests upon who makes the most noise and has the most supporters at the APA's annual meetings. For many years, the APA regarded homosexuality as a pathological mental disorder. However, in 1973, the APA voted to declassify homosexuality as a disorder.
"In 1970, ... gay activists confronted their tormenters at the [APA's] annual convention in San Francisco. They wanted to remove the characterization of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder .... Irving Bieber, then the leading antigay psychiatrist, was laughed off the stage by gay protesters.... The crowd ... erupted in pandemonium at the conclusion of the [presentation]. While some psychiatrists clamored for air fare refunds, others called on the police to shoot the protestors.
"Dr. Kent Robinson, a psychiatrist, ... negotiated a panel at the 1971 APA convention, which would include gay representatives. Robinson contacted gay activist Frank Kameny to organize the panel. Despite securing an official panel at the 1971 convention in Washington, D.C., the activists ... continued to organize street protests. On May 3, 1971, gay activists stormed the stately Convocation of Fellows at the APA Convention, and Kameny seized the microphone to deliver a diatribe against the profession: 'Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.' Gay activists later went on to conduct their panel. At the end of the convention, Kameny and his fellow panelists demanded that the APA revise its diagnostic manual to delete references to homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.
"Two years later, after continued pressure from gay activists, ... the APA's Nomenclature Committee was poised to accept the change."
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 817, 934-35 (1997).
Apparently, there is widespread bias among those researching the very area we are dealing with in this opinion -- the effects upon children of parents who practice homosexuality:
"This reticence [of the researchers] is most evident in analyses of sexual behavior and identity -- the most politically sensitive issue in the debate. Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sexuality of children reared by lesbigay parents and those raised by nongay parents -- but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."
Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Official Journal of the American Sociological Association 159, 163 (April 2001). Stacey & Biblarz are quite candid in their belief that homosexuality is a healthy and moral lifestyle.
"It is quite a different thing, however, to consider this issue a legitimate matter for social science research. Planned lesbigay parenthood offers a veritable 'social laboratory' of family diversity in which scholars could fruitfully examine not only the acquisition of sexual and gender identity, but the relative effects on children of the gender and number of their parents as well as of the implications of diverse biosocial routes to parenthood. ... To exploit this opportunity, however, researchers must overcome the hetero-normative presumption that interprets sexual differences as deficits, thereby inflicting some of the very disadvantages it claims to discover."
Stacey & Biblarz, supra, at 179. One prominent psychiatrist analyzed the APA's decision as follows:
"The APA could only take the action it did by disregarding and dismissing hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports that had been done on homosexuality over the previous two decades .... The APA ignored the science, and, for reasons that were nothing but political, 'cured' homosexuality by fiat."
Charles W. Socarides, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far 74 (Adam Margrave Books 1995). Thus began the "scientific" endorsement of homosexuality. There have even been attempts to prove that homosexuality is genetically determined. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard's famous study of twins is one such attempt. J. Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard, A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation, 48 Archives of General Psychiatry 1089, 1090 (1991). Commenting on Michael Bailey's study, Anne Fausto Stirling, a developmental biologist at Brown University, criticized: "It's such badly interpreted genetics." D. Gelman et al., Homosexuality: Genetic Aspects, Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, at 46.
See, e.g., Theo G. M. Sandfort et al., Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, 58 Archives of General Psychiatry 85, 88 (table) (Jan. 2001) (homosexuals are three times more likely than heterosexuals to suffer from mood disorders); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (homosexuals are five times more likely to have suffered from bipolar disorder); J. Michael Bailey, Homosexuality and Mental Illness, 56 Archives of General Psychiatry 883, 884 (Oct. 1999); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (homosexuals are twice as likely to have suffered from major depression, neuroses, eating disorders, and phobias within their lifetime). Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States, 275 JAMA 1357 (1996); Joanne M. Hall, Lesbians Recovering from Alcohol Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Experiences, 43 Nursing Research 238 (1994); Anne H. Faulkner et al., Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students, 88 Am. J. of Pub. Health 262 (Feb. 1998) (homosexuals run a significantly greater risk for substance abuse); Curtis D. Proctor et al., Risk Factors for Suicide Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth, 39 Social Work 504 (Sept. 1994) (homosexuals run a much greater risk for suicide); Journal Watch, 31 Nation's Health 18 (July 2001) (reporting that homosexual youth were more than twice as likely to commit a violent crime and were at a higher risk of being attacked by others); and Gary Remafedi, Adolescent Homosexuality: Psychosocial and Medical Implications, 79 Pediatrics 331, 334 (March 1987) (noting that nearly one-half of all young homosexuals have been arrested, placed in juvenile detention or arraigned in juvenile court on at least one occasion).
Homosexual activists have proffered that many, if not all, of the mental problems associated with homosexuals are not due to homosexuality; rather, they argue, these problems are due to a "homophobic" and "intolerant" society. Eskridge, supra, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1378. However, recent studies appear to contradict this proposal. See 18 Harvard Mental Health Letter 4 (Aug. 2001) (reporting that in the Netherlands, "a country that is especially tolerant of homosexuality," homosexuals continue to exhibit a much higher incidence of mental health problems).
Certain sociologists seem to have no compunction encouraging such experiments or "natural laboratories":
"When researchers downplay the significance of any findings of differences [between heterosexual and homosexual parents], they forfeit a unique opportunity to take full advantage of the 'natural laboratory' that the advent of lesbigay-parent families provides for exploring the effects and acquisition of gender and sexual identity, ideology, and behavior."
Stacey & Biblarz, supra, at 162-63.
It appears perversion is a multifaceted issue with jlogajam.
I suspect much has been forced down his throat.
Semper Fi
And you, sir, are a liar. Oh, I forgot, it is okay to lie if you are doing the work of Jesus.
The fact is, in every civilized culture, Homosexuality has been regarded as a crime. It is a violation of natural law.
Fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem. Societies throughout history have also engaged in slavery, claiming it to be a natural right.
More illogical nonsense. Millions of men and women are naturally infertile -- therefore they can't "reproduce" either. The fact that they continue to exist has nothing to do with "recruitment."
Can't you homophobes string two logical sentences together?
I'm trying to hold homophobes to their own arguments. Logic is consistent. Illogic is inconsisent.
If it is right to hate all homosexuals because some are molesters of children, then it is right to hate all males because some are molesters of children.
As the author says, the vast majority of child molesters are males, and 2/3 of those molested are females. That's hetero (for those who are confused about it.)
So clearly the vast majority of child molesations are male heterosexuals molesting young girls. We've identified the major source of the problem!!!! Yep, 2/3rds (that's more than half, for those who are confused about it.) So where is the hate for heterosexual males?
Are the femnazis right? Should males be hated by default? According to the homophobe logic, the answer is yes! Femnazis and homophobes read from the same logic book.
Hmm, and just how would you know that? ha ha ha -- Busted!
Like This one?
Neither do they want or need to recruit youngsters into a pathological sick filthy death style the way homos do.
Or do you want to tell me that forcing one's male organ up another male's fecal orifice is "normal"?
And please answer me, if you are not to ashamed too be honest:
How old was the adult male who "helped" you to "discover" your "true sexual identity" when you were a boy?
You consistantly push Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Abortion, Anti-Christian, Pro-Pornography, Ect... on this forum.
Each one of those things are also things that liberals push.
Are you saying that you are not socially liberal?????
As for you slavery comment. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. We did not have slavery in 1868, yet every single state and territory still forbid homosexuality. We do not have slavery today, yet states still ban homosexuality.
Homosexuality has been found not to be a protected right by the supreme court. That is a fact, it is settled law. No matter how much sodomite activists try to claim otherwise, the Caselaw is clear.
I was pointing out that this case law extends back to Roman times.
Answer me this, Why were our Founders Wrong???? Why was EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY from the TIME OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WRONG???? Where did this new enlightment come from in the 1960's??? What proof is there that all these civilizations, the civilizations from which ours came, are wrong, and that these homosexual activists are right?????
Our nation was founded upon Christian Principles. Without General Christian morality, no civilized nation can exist. All of the problems that people of this forum complain about, come about when a nation trys to remove morality from a nation.
Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:
The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.
The Prosecuting Attorney argued:
While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:
Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .
We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].
The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:
Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:
Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398- 399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:
Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.
The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.
The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.
To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles. No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .
Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.
While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.
The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day."
The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE BOLD and UNDERLINED PARTS. Is this thinking beyond your atheist brain? Can you explain Why the reasoning in these cases were wrong? Can you explain for us please? We are all waiting to hear.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Liberals are characterized by SOCIALISM and COMMUNITARIANISM. Cultural conservatives are characterized by their advocacy of COMMUNITARIAN standards of behavior -- right wing socialism.
As a Libertarian I am an individualist -- and therefore I consistently oppose socialists of both the left and the right, whether they are Atheist Communistists like Stalin, or Christian Inquisitors.
Libertarian individualism means that people should be free of government interference so as to be able to go about their own lives as they see fit. Communitarians and Socialists are very much into running everyone's lives according to their do-gooder agenda -- whether it is based upon Mao's little red book, or the Bible.
Well, not everybody believes in Communism or Christianity -- and therefore neither of those agendas should be the force of "community" law.
Sigh. I was illustrating the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem -- appeal to the past. Rather than realize your error, you tried to extend the length of the past. That's pretty sad.
Of course if you claim it is justified because it is more modern as well, then that is the fallacy of argumentum ad novitatem.
Are you getting the picture? It doesn't matter how many times it happened in the past, or whether it is happening now, or whether it will happen in the future. That cannot and has never been able to logically justify a single thing.
If you don't agree with that, look it up in a book on logic. I'm just trying to help you out here.
Doesn't matter. They can't "reproduce", yet they continue to come into existance. You were hinting at a genetic dead end for homosexuals -- therefore since they keep appearing, you imply it can't be genetic. But clearly individuals who can't reproduce even if they wanted to keep being born all the time. Either it too must be a choice for them, or it is possible to be born with some characteristic the prevents reproducing -- without those genes or characteristics giving rise to the tendency from dead-ending in the gene pool.
In short, your attempt to smuggle the "it's a choice" argument through misapplied genetic theory is shown to be false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.