Replies

I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality.

Speaking for myself only -arguing either way would necessarily require "proof". My position is that it is possible; however, UNLIKE a belief in God -such possibility requires proof...

I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary...

You wrote: "I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary..." I agree, my only caveat being that even if someone comes up with a scientific study that is not "junk" that concludes homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't make homosexuality normal or homosexual behavior appropriate. There are thousands of handicaps people grapple with and there's no pretending those handicaps, such as Down Syndrome, are neutral, incidental variations in human beings. The NYTimes et al would like people to believe that being straight or being gay is like having blue eyes or brown eyes. My argument is that being gay is akin to being handicapped: whether the cause was biological or enviornmental or both, something went WRONG and the world should not have to change its rules to accomodate deviant behavior, even if the person didn't choose to want to engage in said behavior.