However, the nature/nurture debate is completely irrelevant, because no sensible policy decisions hinge on it. Heaping opprobrium on gays is a daft policy either way. You might as well claim asthma is caused by environmental factors early in life, and therefore we should teach kids about the wickedness of asthma and require asthmatics to sit in the backs of buses.

The difference in the prevelance of homosexual behavior between the upper classes and the poor support the idea of learned behavior. It there was some sort of genetic component, homosexual behavior would be independent of social class or even ethnic class. Also, if being homosexual was genetic it would not be associated so closely with certain behaviors such as fashion with men or sports with women.

That's certainly a theory, just not one borne out by any evidence. Your articles didn't document even a single epidemic of homosexuality among people or animals. Has one ever been recorded, anywhere, at any point in history, among any species?

You're claiming to be speaking facts, but this is simply unsubstantiated fear.

It's there. Science is backing it up. Human behavior is monkey-see monkey do. If you ever took a smidgen of logic in high school or college, you would be able to deduce that if you take a behavior that is proven to be passed on via the findings of the article, that social trends affect choice of sex partners, you'll see that making deviant sexuality mainstream via granting them marriage rights, means you should expect an increase of deviant sexuals in a given population over time…over and above the numbers normally present in a population.

This isn't a worry when applied to most adults. By their tenth sexual experience they're pretty much grounded in their sexuality. It is the young…those who look to adults and society in general who subconsciously pattern their behavior after “norms”. They are the ones we should be concerned about. And as each successive generation influences the next…we should expect deviant sexuality to expand quite a bit.

If you are in favor of deviant sexuality then this is a good thing. If you are not, then it is a bad thing. If you want 1/2 of your great grandkids to be regularly engaging in homosexual contact instead of only 1 in 10 of them, then support gay marriage all the way. But if you want the numbers of homosexuals to stay the same over time, then speak up now or forever wish you did.

It's all a matter of what we as a majority want for our future generations. I think we should have a national vote on the issue and put it to bed. Civil unions were good enough, but no…they wanted to be normalized, mainstreamed…and this is something we must weigh against their potential influence over people who aren't even born yet..

Even conceding the first point, the second is still speculation. Or rather, it might qualify as speculation if it hadn't already been disproved. We've tried keeping gays second-class citizens, we even used to beat them regularly, which should over time have produced more heterosexuals, right? It didn't. Now we've got millions of people who are not only gay but angry.

I'm sorry people are accusing you of hateful intent. Given that you're advocating continuing policies that have failed to meet your stated goals and left a lot of people miserable to boot, what conclusion are you hoping they'll draw?

The thing is that article does conclude that sexuality is malleable. That's the whole hub of my argument and my concerns about gay marriage becoming mainstream in a culture of animals (in this case homo sapiens) who are the apex of social-learners. It flatly supports the social-contagion component of the fears on the right. Now they are a paranoid bunch to be sure but often paranoids sense something at a gut level, don't know how to put it to words and then just “hate” to get their feelings out about it. Those of us who use our minds instead and follow the breadcrumbs, have a moderate grasp of language and how to express ourselves tend to take a more balanced approach.

As I said before, I agree with homosexuals in that once they are fixated, they are pretty much unchangeable. And the AI industry has found similar results in that once bulls are trained via their first few orgasms to release onto steers (castrated male cattle), they tend to ignore the cows from then on and become excited only in the presence (sight morphology, smells) of a steer. Same with dummy mounts, the animals learn to run to the dummy mounts when they are initially excited by the pheremones of an estrus female. They won't even mount the female standing just next to the dummy for stimulation. And they only become erect for the dummy and will lose the erection if forced to mount the female, like “what the hell are you having me mount her for?”.

With my stallion I made sure to have his first few experiences with a live mare. Then he was trained AI just shortly afterwards. So he will mount either a dummy or a mare. So he is bisexual..lol… Wasn't born that way though I can assure you..loved the mare the first time around.. But then another herd invited him over to their weird barn where the mistress there guided him to mount a stuffed dummy on poles and now he “swings both ways”..lol…OK, I'm totally serious about this but having fun with it all the same..

In any event even if you find ways to belittle the substance of the article, the AI industry is already leagues ahead of these guys in that mammals of several different species are already BANKED ON to have demonstrated malleable sexuality at the onset of puberty. So it's a done deal. The link the article was to bridge over to human behavior; which is of course even more suggestable clear up into young adulthood than any species we know of to date…

Finally, what's irritating to me is that “states's rights” advocates that make it sound like there are 50 separate nations, united only in a defensive alliance…shame on you for not understanding the idea of a UNITED States, and one that champions itself as the place where the rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are sacrosanct values.

It's a fine study that concludes with lots of mays and mights about what influences sexual attraction. It stops well short of saying homosexuality is acquired, much less does it suggest social policies that would prevent people from acquiring it. It doesn't attempt to account for the millions of homosexuals who report knowing they were gay well before puberty, who didn't reinforce it by entertaining the “wrong” sexual fantasies, or those who tried and failed to become straight by entertaining the “right” ones.

In short, no one really seems to be disagreeing with you on that part.

In a nutshell it found that sexual preference is malleable and that social influences do seem to play a part in partner selection as well as the environmental cues present during the first few orgasms. It really is a case for classical conditioning.

Gays inviting “bi-curious” [their words not mine] youth to parties and events sponsored by the GLBT community is their admission, also in a nutshell, that homosexuality is not innate, but adopted at some point instead..

Here's the link for “Conditioning And Sexual Behavior: A Review” again http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf…

And of course, any scientific study that reflects that homosexuality is acquired instead of innate is a “bad” review done by “homophobes” and “quack researchers”..lol… Just ask the AI industry. Chances are you are eating a meal today born from a direct result of their knowledge of how to get animals at puberty to graft onto objects or same-sexed animals as mount objects in order to collect semen to impregnate females who bear the offspring that you are putting ketchup on right now…providing you eat meat..or drinking the milk from..whatever..

Superdestroyer's slope slides toward never-ending government entitlements for gays–sort of the socialization of the homo-industrial complex, in a harmonic convergence of conservative nightmares.

The question is whether there are those individuals, plus others who are imitating them as a matter of choice.

Even if they did, there's nothing wrong with that, and it has nothing to do with marriage.

But clearly what is being referred to there is the environmental influence of our first sexual experiences, not being taught to be homosexual by parents or college instructors. I assume that none of us would say that we are taught to assume a sexual identity in that manner, by having a parent or instructor bring us to orgasm (that was the basis for the conditioning argument in the study.)

I think basically the idea that SD's floating is that kids are being told it's cool to experiment with homosexuality during their formative years, and that it then imprints on them. I don't agree with that, although I definitely do feel that there's some glorification of sexual expermentation, including trying out homosexual sex, in the popular culture and among teens. I don't believe at all that this actually creates homosexuals, but it does create more homosexual sex acts and personally I think that the encouragement of that degree of promiscuous experimentation isn't a great thing- from what I pick up from my daughter's friends, it's creating more confusion than anything.

All of that is a separate issue from whether or not actual homosexuals exist who aren't making a 'choice'. The question is whether there are those individuals, plus others who are imitating them as a matter of choice.

If you complied economic data from homosexuals, you would find that a higher percentage a higher precentage of college graduates (but not exactly STE types) than the population as a whole.

As I have said before, if San Francisco or NYC has the same percentage of homosexuals as Omaha Nebraska, then the progressive upper class left would not be pushing so hard for gay marriage, homosexual rights, etc.

I also find it odd that even after a state like California that is very blue voted down gay marriage for the second time, that everyone on the progressive left keep talking like 90% of Americans support gay marriage.

What environment? Can you describe it? I come from a completely heterosexual family (small town raised with no other overtly/obviously gay adults around that we knew about), two straight parents both church-goers, 7 children, 6 of whom are straight. One's gay. All raised the same – nobody treated any differently from the others. How'd that happen you figure? Please expand on what you mean by “environment” 'cause I'm curious.

“Or maybe you lust for more potential partners for your “procreation” rituals to address the global population shortage and fill your lonely, childless lives?”

Well I don't think their lives are childless, so perhaps they are looking for that perfect child- the child who is not a brat and will do everything they are told to do. They sure like to tell other people what to do and if those other people don't do it then by golly they'll get mad and pass some laws.

First I don't know any homosexuals who grew up in a homo households. I also went to a Catholic High School and while we were all taught by priests and nuns, I know zero people from my graduating class of roughly 300 who had any interest in becoming either a priest or a nun or even anyone who wanted to remain celibate. Certainly there were a lot of people who wanted to “save” themselves for marriage, but that's different than remaining celibate.

As to your comment about the difference of practicing homosexuals between high school drop-outs and college graduates…. I don't have any idea of the numbers. Since you're not clear in your comment I assume from the context of other comments you've made that you're saying there are more high school drop outs who are heterosexual than homosexual.

I would imagine that one reason there are more hetero high school drop outs is that they get pregnant. For instance Bristol Palin and Levi. She had the baby in December and last year Levi went to work to accept his responsibility. Though he is continuing his high school education online….

Besides if sexual behavior were based on environment, then how do you explain all those kids who were taught that pre-marital sex was wrong, then went ahead and did it anyway? What about people who get married and had kids because they feel pressured to do so but later realized that they really were gay?

So I am really interested to know why you think gays are a product of their environment.