Gay by Choice?
 

Interesting article, especially for those who think it's unmistakably biological. I'd be willing to bet there are lot more gay people out there that have chosen that lifestyle as a result of past abuse than we realize. (No, that's not to say all cases are that way, so don't jump all over me.) The very fact that people can move between "being straight" and "being gay" kinda disputes strong biological causality.

Thanks, Indy.

Interesting article.

One thing I think it points out that makes for interesting dinner talk is the idea that nurture vs. nature doesn't matter and that homosexual rights should be protected regardless of the origin of the attraction.

Another thing I thought was particularly insightful was the idea that if people hang their hat on the biology justification for rights it may ultimately come around to bite them in the butt if somebody can prove that it isn't all biological.

Maybe if I bark long enough I'll become a dog.

Isn't that what they teach in "The Secret?"

I think there's more women who do that than men.

It's a good thing you are a programmer and not a scientist, Tex. With your faulty logic and selective interpretation of data, you wouldn't stand a chance at getting anything published. Even in a political publication like this one where pseudo-science is tolerated.

The fact that some people can move between straight and gay does not disprove strong biological causality. Of course sexual attraction covers a broad spectrum. This is not a binary/black & white issue where the occurrence of some exceptions disproves the theory. Not even the article claims that.

I stand by my statement about overwhelming evidence.

A good and thought provoking article. Especially coming from Mother Jones.

I don't disagree with you but I do believe that some take the "overwhelming evidence" too far in arguing that homosexuality is an immutable trait.

What I think this article does a good job of pointing out is that nurture OR nature it doesn't really matter. Either you grant rights or you don't. If the activists hang their hat on the biology then they're eventually going to have problems.

If rights are based on biology then what about those who are gay but don't have the right biological markers? Do they still get rights? Despite what people say, being gay isn't like being black. I can live as a part of black culture all I want. I can be adopted by a black family and I can identify myself however I want... Unfortunately, that's not going to get me any protection or rights (e.g. affirmative action).

I don't think the article is too politically slanted. I think it makes an excellent point.

That may be.

I've never denied that certain folks might have an inborn weakness toward same-sex attraction, much like other folks have a temper problem, or an alcohol weakness.

I do deny that it's an innate trait, akin to skin color or (gasp) gender--something to define rights by and categorize people by. I think as science moves forward we'll discover that behavior and experience has much to do with it as natural inclination, if not more so.

Parenthetically, like global warming, it's very interesting how libs are so anxious to close the books and declare something decided ... especially on the most controversial of topics, when in reality it's nowhere near.