[OWK]

Homosexuality (abnormal though it may be), does not violate the rights of anyone, provided it is practiced privately among consenting adults.

I think this obsession with controlling the private sexuality of consenting adults in their own bedrooms, is pathological.

[Xenalyte]

Camille Paglia is one of the few academics I admire. She's insightful, smart as anything, and rather sharp with the wit (kinda like Molly Ivins thinks she is). Better yet, she refuses to recognize liberals' dogma as valid, and she calls 'em on it. And you just gotta like that.

Besides, she's a hilarious read, especially if you have a liberal-arts background. Makes you think, too.

[BikerNYC]

"...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

An adaptation to what?

[Paradox]

One of those is Dean Hamer who tried to find a genetic cause for homosexuality by examining the DNA code at the end of the X chromosome. According to Hamer: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay . . . . I don’t think we will be able to predict who will be gay."

I haven't really heard many people argue that homosexuality has a genetic component to it, after all, if that were the case, it probably would have bred itself out of existence. I _have_ read that there may be a physiological basis for it, and there has been some evidence of that. Personally, I think there are people who are born "tweeners", who could probably go either way, and who then decide or are influenced later.

I dont mind homosexuals really, I just dont like the left-wing politics that tends to come with the group.

[Savage Beast]

From what I have observed, I think that homosexuality is inherent in a certain percentage of a given population and cannot be changed.

It seems to me that same-sex attraction, like other biological characteristics, probably forms a bell-curve. The 2 1/2 to 5 % of the population at one end of the curve are obligate heterosexuals, the 2 1/2 to 5 % at the other end obligate homosexuals. The remaining 90-95% are in the middle. However, behavior and conditioning are strongly skewed toward heterosexuality by other factors, including cultural pressures, desire to procreate, etc., et al.

There are other causes of homosexuality as well.

Negative conditioning, for example: A victim of heterosexual childhood abuse, for one example, may find it impossible to relate sexually and emotionally to members of the opposite sex in a healthy way, and may be driven to homosexuality.

Isolation from normal heterosexual access is another--prisons, for example.

Evidently, cultural structuring and conditioning can be a cause. We see this in the reports from Afghanistan and other Islamic countries, and this probably also played a role in ancient Greece.

I believe homosexuals when they say that they have always been this way and cannot change.

This is by no means an endorsement of homosexuality or any homosexual agenda! I particularly do not advocate the public flaunting of homosexuality, and I think that whether or not homosexuals should serve in the military is a decision that should be made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to what is best for the defense of the country, in their judgment, and that their decision should be final.

[FormerLib]

Nature exists whether academics or pro-homo cheerleaders like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous . . . homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

[gunnedah]

The only people that should accept homosexual behavior should be atheist.There is not a religion of any kind on the face of the earth that has be around for 300 years are longer that does not condem this behavior.I know today some religions accept it but if there is a God,Allah or Supreme being it will be handled in due time and so will those who allow it!

[Seruzawa]

The plan was—and still is—to present the controversy surrounding homosexuality as a civil rights issue—not about dangerous and unnatural homosexual behaviors.

Well, why not? It worked for the soft-porn industry. Noe Americans accept near-porno on network TV during children's viewing hours. If they'll tolerate that, why not try it for perverts? Hell, soon we'll see liberals demanding civil rights for pedophiles...... oops. Too late!

[Steve0113]

bump for later

[SpookBrat]

Bump

[jejones]

Ms. Paglia, wonderful as her columns are to read, is missing the point, and in the same way as many anti-homosexual posters I've seen here. Species survival isn't necessarily the same as survival of all the individuals. The canonical example is sickle-cell anemia. There are far more heterozygotes than homozygous recessives, so that in a land where malaria is prevalent, the protection against malaria that being heterozygous provides more than compensates, if one is solely concerned with propagating the species, for the nasty fate that befalls the homozygous recessives--which is why the gene hung around in Africa, much to the sorrow of people of African ancestry today.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is necessarily like that; I'm just saying that the "fool's mate" that people often try for, "homosexuality must be due to the environment because homosexuals don't reproduce," is a non sequitur.

[Mustang]

If one dips his stick into a shit hole...bad things will happen.

Next truism...!!