So I'm up at 1:10 am, unable to sleep but not thinking too clearly either and I think, I'll check in with Anchor Rising. And what greets my already slightly feverish brain is that ghoulish figure, thanks to the Phoenix.

Cripes. As when George Bush is called a Nazi, does the writer not understand that the use of such an inapplicable, exaggerated comparison drains everything s/he says of credibility? While I remain ambivalent about gay marriage, I'm pretty sure no one is proposing to lynch gay people. And that is the sole concept represented by the white hood and sheet.

Wealthy white liberals? C'mon. Support or opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with wealth. This is just a canard opponents are trying to use to sway the working class their way. I know people above me on the socioeconomic scale who vehemently oppose it (and put their money where their mouths are), and those at my level or below me who support it.
Unlike, say, economic issues, class warfare is a dog that simply will not hunt on this prairie.

I had no thought of class warfare, Rhody. I was merely highlighting the inappropriateness of the comparison. Moreover, I consciously used "wealthy" instead of "rich" and emphasized "on average" to concisely convey my impression that, on average, those who support same-sex marriage are wealthier than those who don't — implying that they aren't exactly locked out of the system that will now allow the people of Massachusetts to vote on their own cultural laws.

At any rate, it's certainly true that those hindered by denial of same-sex marriage are much wealthier (on average) than those who suffered under historical racial oppression. Not to mention that they aren't denied the vote and made to use separate water fountains.

Umm. I'm middle-class conservative and I aggressively support gay rights.

Discrimination is discrimination, friend, and bigotry is bigotry.

"Discrimination is discrimination, friend, and bigotry is bigotry."

That's really how I feel on this gay rights issue. When you give me a compelling reason why giving gays the right to marry is bad, I'll reconsider my opinion.

Here we go again on the Justin Katz civil rights merry-go-round...you frame the debate as "fashionable wealthy white liberals" set against an everyman like yourself. What gives with your false polarization? As Greg indicates, this issue is not so black and white, or should I say, blue and red.

The legislature was right to vote on the measure, as it was their constitutional duty. But they were wrong to pass it, as civil rights should never be put up for a referendum. After all, would you like your marriage to be put up for a vote?

Here's to hoping it is defeated the next time around by the new Legislature. If that fails, here's to hoping that the people of Massachusetts have the sense to defeat this discriminatory measure in the face of the hate-filled rhetoric that will sadly come to dominate the election.

I don't get it, Justin. I'm with Greg on this one: what's so horrible about gay people that they should be prevented from partaking in the institutions of a civil society?

I believe that it all comes down to how one views homosexuality.

If one believes that it is a normal variation – such as hair, eye or skin color / race – then the conclusion that prohibiting homosexual marriage is a form of “discrimination” is rational.

If on the other hand one believes that homosexuality is an abnormality – something unfortunate occurs during the development process, a kind of “sexual orientation birth defect” (and I DON’T mean that to be an insult, merely an analogy) – then opposition to homosexual marriage is rational.

One thing I find interesting in this whole debate is how – YET AGAIN – the left has managed to frame the debate without conservatives even realizing it. Consider the liberals’ mantra about taxes – “the rich should pay their ‘fair share’” – the whole debate is then shifted away from how much government is spending, indeed it lays a foundation to a premise that government spending must and should keep rising, the only debate being a fight among the citizenry about “whose going to pay what tax rates.”

This same tactic has been used with the debate over homosexual marriage. The premise upon which it has been presented and argued presupposes that homosexuality is a normal human variation, not an abnormality. Inevitably the debate is then already slanted toward the pro-homosexual marriage advocates, and conservatives are unwittingly debating under the preferred terms of the “other side.”

Thank you for honing the argument, Ragin'.

Yes, for me, the line is heterosexuals and homosexuals on this side, everything else is deviancy. My hesitation about the expansion of the definition of marriage is out of deference to the opinions of several people whom I respect.

As to Ragin's point, it is my expectation that if marriage were redefined thusly, homosexuals would preserve and guard the line as fiercely as heterosexuals.

I'm middle-class conservative and I aggressively support gay rights.

Yes, but none of your activity on Anchor Rising has given me the impression that you're average.

Discrimination is discrimination, friend, and bigotry is bigotry.

So are there degrees, buddy, or is it a blanket judgment? Is disallowing homosexuals from changing the definition of marriage to better suit their preferences equivalent to lynching blacks?

I don't get it, Justin. I'm with Greg on this one: what's so horrible about gay people that they should be prevented from partaking in the institutions of a civil society?

Talk about framing the debate! When did I say that there's anything "horrible about gay people"? As to the substance of your question, considering that you open your comment indicating a familiarity with my work, I'm not sure what answer I can provide that you haven't already rejected.

I believe that it all comes down to how one views homosexuality.

As it happens, I do not agree. I think it all comes down to how one views marriage, and I believe that marriage — in its history, in its central purpose, and with respect to public interest in the government's recognizing it at all — is a relationship between people of opposite sex.

Granted, there are aspects of and (public and private) benefits to marriage that overlap committed homosexual relationships, but why must we discard crucial parts of the definition in order to make it amenable to the relationships that a relatively very small group pursues? If there are, however, public benefits to committed same-sex relationships — as there most certainly would be — then let's put those on the table and let our system of government work it through. Nobody wants to do that, though, because one side is afraid of diluting opposite-sex marriage and the other side realizes that there's ultimately no government interest in promoting gay sex (as opposed to, say, mutual care, which doesn't depend on sexual orientation).

Yes, for me, the line is heterosexuals and homosexuals on this side, everything else is deviancy.

On what grounds?

it is my expectation that if marriage were redefined thusly, homosexuals would preserve and guard the line as fiercely as heterosexuals.

Again, on what grounds? If it's a civil rights issue — which means that society has no right to define marriage in a way that excludes people — then at the very least those desiring the same rights for groups and relatives have a very strong case.

I don't get it, Justin. I'm with Greg on this one: what's so horrible about gay people that they should be prevented from partaking in the institutions of a civil society?

The only thing preventing them from partaking is their own misogynistic or misandristic preferences. Better you should be asking them what's so horrible about the opposite sex that prevents them from developing a marital relationship.

It just seems ironic that conservatives used gay marriage as a wedge to drive into the Democratic Party for considerable political gain over the last 15 years.
Now, that wedge has been driven into conservatives, between sensible ones who realize the merits of committed relationships and the yahoos who are still waving the bloody shirt.

>>It just seems ironic that conservatives used gay marriage as a wedge to drive into the Democratic Party for considerable political gain over the last 15 years. Now, that wedge has been driven into conservatives, between sensible ones who realize the merits of committed relationships and the yahoos who are still waving the bloody shirt.

Homosexuals can have a "committed relationship" without being married, so stop with the red herrings.

And subscribing to what have been universally accepted norms for some 2000+ years now, i.e., that marriage is an institution between 1 man and 1 woman, hardly marks one as a "yahoo."

So there is a small subset of the population that, for whatever reason, prefers to engage in sexual activity with the same sex.

It's unfortunate that some people are born this way, they weren't given a choice. They're not bad or evil people; if anything they're victims.

Perhaps someday science will find a preventative treatment that will ensure normal "sexual orientation" development.

I can understand why homosexuals are so anxious to be included in the realm of "marriage eligibles" - for this would imply an societal acknowledgment of their being "normal."

But that would be a facade; a social pretense. By definition homosexuality is abnormal; allowing homosexual marriage won't alter that.

"Better you should be asking them what's so horrible about the opposite sex that prevents them from developing a marital relationship."

So, if I understand this, your solution is "Don't be gay."?

So, if I understand this, your solution is "Don't be gay."?

Bingo!

[Comment deleted.]

Nice try, smmtheory. The depth and insight of your other posts make it clear that you are too smart to think that gays are any more capable of being attracted to members of the opposite gender than straight people are to be attracted to members of their own.

Setting aside the “testimony” to this by any gay person, it is not possible that any rational human being would choose an orientation that would subject him/herself to the ignorance and negative reaction that you attempted to feign. And if they could, most would quickly "choose" to switch back to being a less vilified orientation.

greg et al,

i am opposed to gay marriage, but support equal rights for gay couples.

it seems to me that the since equal access to marital privileges is the crux of the argument for gay marriage, then it might be wise to change the laws rather than change the institution of marriage. that is, if spousal privileges are only currently afforded to "married" couples, then change the law to read "civilly recognized unions." You can apply this technique on a wide array of state and federal laws, and would be much simpler than uprooting the foundation of traditional marriage.

what we need to remember is that traditional marriage is a rooted in religion. the problem with creating blanket laws to allow gay "marriage" is the threat it poses to religious institutions by opening up church doctrine to secular anti-discrimination laws.

>>i am opposed to gay marriage, but support equal rights for gay couples. it seems to me that the since equal access to marital privileges is the crux of the argument for gay marriage, then it might be wise to change the laws rather than change the institution of marriage. that is, if spousal privileges are only currently afforded to "married" couples, then change the law to read "civilly recognized unions." You can apply this technique on a wide array of state and federal laws, and would be much simpler than uprooting the foundation of traditional marriage. what we need to remember is that traditional marriage is a rooted in religion. the problem with creating blanket laws to allow gay "marriage" is the threat it poses to religious institutions by opening up church doctrine to secular anti-discrimination laws.

From what I understand the "gay activists" OPPOSE civil unions - they've certainly said so in MA and NJ.

They don't want "equal rights," they want MARRIAGE. And if religious beliefs will be attached via discrimination laws, all the better as far as they're concerned (see, e.g., the "Gay rights" lobby - which in affiliation with the ACLU - has been engaged in a jihad against the Boy Scouts).

As part of the effort to "normalize" homosexuality the "gay rights" lobby intends to trample, and eliminate from the public square, anyone or any group that questions (much less opposes) their agenda.

Hence my conclusion that they're really after some sort of social fiction that homosexuality is "normal."

Certain individuals are born, e.g., with autism, or Downs Syndrome. They are abnormal.

Certain individuals are born to be homosexual. Fortunately, unlike autism etc., it doesn't affect their mental capacity in any way, just their "sexual orientation."

It doesn't make them bad people, but neither does it render homosexuality to be "normal." Basic biology tells us that.

Thank God my heterosexual marriage was not subject to the whims of politicians, voters and pressure groups.
I think extending the same courtesy to gays is a moral, and "normal" (that seems to be the buzzword mon this thread), thing to do.

Sorry Greg. I'm not going to allow that last comment.

-----

Susan:

you are too smart to think that gays are any more capable of being attracted to members of the opposite gender than straight people are to be attracted to members of their own.

You don't think some straight people manage to become attracted to others of the same sex? Among women or among men?

it is not possible that any rational human being would choose an orientation that would subject him/herself to the ignorance and negative reaction that you attempted to feign.

First of all, your premise is simply erroneous. Have you never encountered people who thrive on others' negative reactions to them? Seen folks like that on TV? Second of all, a large segment of our culture, particularly mainstream, Hollywooden culture, celebrates homosexuality. We can't keep conducting our social discourse according to a reality that became outdated thirty to forty years ago.

-----

johnb:

it might be wise to change the laws rather than change the institution of marriage. that is, if spousal privileges are only currently afforded to "married" couples, then change the law to read "civilly recognized unions."

Okay. Who would be eligible to enter into "civilly recognized unions," and on what grounds? (Although, I think Ragin' is right on this one.)

-----

Rhody:

Thank God my heterosexual marriage was not subject to the whims of politicians, voters and pressure groups.

Personally, I thank God for my confidence that my relationship with my wife would be the same with or without a license from the government. At any rate, I'm wondering what you think the meaning and purpose of marriage is.

Justin, please explain to me just why our relationships with our wives should be threatened by gay marriage.
Or do you know a gay person who's objected to your marriage? I haven't had that experience yet - I guess I'm just naive like that.

It could just be me, Rhody, but I simply don't see how your response follows logically from my prior reply. I'll answer anyway, but with the feeling that you're not interested in give and take.

I think it to be inferable from my statement that my marriage is not contingent upon government recognition that it is also not contingent upon an absence of marriages among homosexuals. But I've written time and again that it misses the point to argue that same-sex marriage would not affect any marriage given already extant. I'll acknowledge that point as likely true.

Reformulating the institution of marriage, however, will affect marriages that have yet to happen — opening the way for people who shouldn't be married and failing to capture the interest of people who should.

"Have you never encountered people who thrive on others' negative reactions to them?"

Of course. But your conclusion that the consistent 5% (or choose a percentage) of the population that is and has been gay over thousands of years and across all races are simply people who thrive on negative reactions is patently wrong. The anxiety, to put it no stronger, many if not all gay people go through as they come to understand their orientation is well documented. Not to mention the notably higher suicide rate amoung gay teens.

"Second of all, a large segment of our culture, particularly mainstream, Hollywooden culture, celebrates homosexuality."

This is by no means the uniform reaction to homosexuality. And it is a fairly recent phenomenon. Whether violence or just a wrinkled nose and a head shake, the far more common reaction to homosexuality has been negative. Disapproving. Unwelcoming.

"You don't think some straight people manage to become attracted to others of the same sex?"

Once maybe? As a fleeting thought about one individual? Maybe. To be able to follow through physically and emotionally, in a relationship or even for one night? No.

I really thought we were past the discussion that gay people are born that way. Ragin' is saying they are, though there is something not quite right about his classification of gays as "abnormal". (Stipulating for a moment that they are abnormal, why should that affect their hypothetical right to be married?)

I will resist the temptation to ask you if this means that if I find the right guy and put him in front of you, you could go the other way. Speaking for myself, there is not a woman on the planet that would interest me "comme ca", as David Brudnoy used to say.

Oh, hey. What about him? What about all the Republicans who are gay? Doesn't their existance convince you that this is not just a mass masochistic movement?

Again, to return to the main topic, none of this is to say that I necessarily support gay marriage, Justin. And I agree that the issue is not how heterosexual marriages would be impacted. But the demand for gay marriage is not being made by negative-reaction-seekers wanting to bring down Western Civilization. It is being made by a small group of people who genuinely feel left out. (I understand your contention that if, out of good intention, we allow this to happen, we will be starting down a road towards an undesireable destination.)

Susan,

Let's start with this:

It is being made by a small group of people who genuinely feel left out.

This is absolutely not true. It — the push for same-sex marriage — is being made by a broad social movement consisting of groups with various motivations. Some are, yes, simply people who feel left out, and I've spent many hours discussing the issue with them. Frankly, I think they're a minority within the movement. Many are also radicals who wish primarily to undermine our traditional culture. Others have other motivations. Some (including, apparently, some Anchor Rising readers) want to be on the "right side of history" while making the uncomfortable debate go away.

your conclusion that the consistent 5% (or choose a percentage) of the population that is and has been gay over thousands of years and across all races are simply people who thrive on negative reactions is patently wrong.

Where are you getting your numbers from? I'm genuinely interested, because I've been participating in this debate for a long time, now, and I've yet to hear anybody whose rhetoric I've trusted declare any "consistent" percentage "over thousands of years and across all races." Sounds like raw propaganda to me.

To skip a bit of pussyfooting, here's my view, of which I've written several times before: homosexuals represent a spectrum of development tracks. Some are indeed "born that way," although I'm skeptical that it's directly genetic. Others are socialized that way based on traits ranging from the barely perceptible to the obvious. Others are driven to the orientation by trauma. And others simply fall into it as an expression of their personalities (e.g., as an assertion of outsiderdom).

Talk about the anxiety of coming out, therefore, is vague and not very useful. For some homosexuals, it surely caries a tint of exhilaration. For some, the "coming out" aspect is the central allure.

We're not, in other words, "past the discussion that gay people are born that way." Gay activists would like to push us past it, to be sure, and a host of heterosexuals would like nothing better than to move on from the uncomfortable question. But among those interesting in the actual hows and wherefores, the discussion is still very relevant.

In response to other parts of your comment, I can only say that we've apparently had very different experiences of modern society. Take this:

Whether violence or just a wrinkled nose and a head shake, the far more common reaction to homosexuality has been negative.

You're going to have to substantiate that, because I haven't seen any real violence against homosexuals (although I do recall after-school specials about it on television when I was a kid). I've also never seen the homosexuals with whom I've been acquainted be treated negatively — markedly in contrast to the treatment that I've observed of acquaintances of mine who are black.

Regarding the capacity for same-sex attraction among heterosexuals, I think you've no choice but to cede that you speak only for a limited segment of society who share your experiences, because it surely doesn't match reality as I've perceived it. Don't forget that, whatever the actual percentage, we're talking about a substantial minority.

SusanD,
Are you sure you want to say that I could not possibly know from personal experience that I can choose how I orient my sexuality? How can we be past discussing whether or not people are born with a sexual orientation when the whole "need" for redefining marriage by sexual orientation hinges upon whether or not sexual orientation is a choice. I know for a fact that it is a choice. Societal disapproval is not as strong an influence with everybody as it might be with you, otherwise, there might never have been another prostitute (or gambler, or smoker...) once a society disapproved of it. This is why I am told I am either stupid or a liar for saying orientation is a choice.

"Many [same-sex marriage proponents]are also radicals who wish primarily to undermine our traditional culture."

If this type of argument is what we have to look forward to in Massachusetts over the next two years, maybe the Taliban have conquered us without ever having to fire a shot (after all, the difference between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity on social issues is virtually nil).
God save us if this question ever hits the General Assembly floor - it'll make the casino debate sound like a Tupperware party.

As to the issue of whether orientation is chosen or dictated, smmtheory is correct in one respect: first person testimony on a blog is useless.

Below is an article that describes four separate biological markers for homosexuality. This is easily researched by googling "biological basis for homosexuality". Your turn, smmtheory - we look forward to reviewing the research behind the "fact" you referenced whereby orientation is a choice.

As to percentage, Justin, the 5% I cited is high. Below is another article which aggregates several surveys, conducted in the US and five other countries. It appears the figure is 1%-2% of the population.

So. Going with the higher figure for a moment, 2% of the population is homosexual. And if gay marriage is approved, a whopping 2% of the married population would be gay. (The real figure might be even smaller.) I'm starting to wonder how this would be a problem.

---------------------

BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR HOMOSEXUALITY:

In 1994 at the University of Western Ontario, J. A. Y. Hall and D. Kimura studied the fingerprint ridges of self-proclaimed and Kinsey scale-ranked1 heterosexuals and homosexuals. After the sixteenth week of pregnancy, fingerprints are known to be unchangeable, so if there were any significant fingerprint differences in the two groups, one could argue that sexual orientation may be determined before birth. In fact, Hall and Kimura did find that the difference between the number of ridges on the left hands of homosexual men was greater than that of heterosexuals (1204). Citing that individuals with higher left-hand ridge counts perform differently on sexually dimorphic2 cognitive tasks than do those with higher right-hand ridge counts (1203), the researchers concluded that there must be an “early biological contribution to adult sexual orientation” (1205).

Around the same time, researchers also wondered if there are any structural differences in the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. In 1990, in one of the first studies to determine if the brain is dimorphic with respect to sexual orientation, D. F. Swaab found that in homosexual males, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus, in general, was twice as large as the SCN in heterosexual males (Burr, Separate 26). Although the hypothalamus indirectly governs a person’s sexual drive, the SCN is known not to have any part in regulating it. Perhaps, though, the hypothalamus was the key. Under this premise, Laura S. Allen probed further into the hypothalamus and reported that the anterior commissure (AC) in the hypothalamus was the largest in homosexuals (LeVay 123). Yet the AC does not control sexual drive either. Nevertheless, Swaab’s and Allen’s findings are quite significant, for “the very fact that the anterior commissure [and, in turn, the SCN] is not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences result from differences in sexual behavior. Much more probably, the size differences came about during the original sexual differentiation” of each structure (LeVay 123).

In a separate experiment, Allen found that of the four interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, the second and third interstitial nuclei (INAH 2 and INAH 3, respectively) were significantly larger in men than in women (Burr, Separate 26; LeVay 120). Knowing that the hypothalamus controls sexual drive, people began to wonder, if there is hypothalamic dimorphism between men and women, is there any hypothalamic dimorphism between heterosexuals and homosexuals? In 1991, Simon LeVay tried to answer this question by studying the brains of heterosexual and homosexual subjects that had died of AIDS. LeVay, however, first examined the hypothalamus of each subject without knowing the subject’s sexual orientation. Upon comparison between sexual orientation and hypothalamus size, he found that, on average, INAH 3 was two to three times smaller in homosexual men; this suggested “that gay and straight men may differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that regulate sexual behavior. ... It is very likely that there are fewer neurons in INAH 3 of gay men (and women) than in straight men. To put an absurdly facile spin on it, gay men simply don’t have the brain cells to be attracted to women” (120). Critics of LeVay’s study claim the detrimental effects of AIDS explain the difference in brain structure. But as LeVay points out, there was no evidence of AIDS having an effect on the subjects’ hypothalami. Both groups were AIDS-infected; had the disease had an effect on the hypothalamus, the INAH 3 should have been the same size in both groups, yet they were not. Furthermore, only INAH 3 showed any significant size difference; why wouldn’t the disease have deformed the other three interstitial nuclei? There were also no signs of pathological damage, such as inflammation or dying cells, which normally accompany the deterioration of brain cells due to disease. Finally, when the brains of gay men who died of other diseases were examined, LeVay obtained the same results (121). Those advocating the idea that there is a high probability that sexual orientation has a biological component had just gained yet another pillar of proof to support them.

Yet perhaps the most compelling evidence that sexual orientation has a biological basis came in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; as a result, he hypothesized that homosexuality may be an X-linked trait since men inherit their X chromosome from their mother. To test this theory, Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000 (138). Hamer also found that no other region of the X chromosome is linked to sexual orientation, for none of the sixteen markers outside Xq28 showed any statistically significant concordance (139). Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Thus, it makes sense that Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives because homosexuality is X-linked.

----------------------

PREVALENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

In the latest, only 2.3% of U.S. men ages 20 to 39 say they’ve had a same-sex experience in the past decade. Only 1.1% say they have been exclusively gay.

The survey of 3,321 men is published today in the Alan Guttmacher Institute journal... the findings are similar to other recent studies:

A 1989 U.S. survey estimated no more than 6% of adults had any same-sex experiences and less than 1% were exclusively homosexual.

A 1992 French study found 4% of men and 3% of women reported same-sex contacts; 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said any occurred in the previous five years.

The Wall Street Journal for March 31, 1993 revealed:

Surveys with large samples from the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Denmark and other nations give a picture of homosexuality experience rates of 6% or less, with an exclusive homosexuality prevalence of 1% or less.

The most comprehensive example is the continuing survey conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau since 1988 for the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control.... the data strongly suggest that the prevalence of even incidental homosexual behavior is less than 2% for men.... a general population estimate for homosexuality would fall below 1.5%....

The Wall Street Journal points out that Paul and Kirk Cameron have written a study,
“The Prevalence of Homosexuality,” (Psychological Reports, in press). It summarizes over 30 surveys around the world with large, plausibly unbiased samples.

· France: A government survey of 20,055 adults (1991-92) revealed 1.4% of men and
0.4% of women had had homosexual intercourse in the five years preceding the survey.

Exclusive lifetime homosexual rates were 0.7% for men and 0.6% for women while
lifetime homosexuality experience was 4.1% for men and 2.6% for women.

· Britain: only 1.4% of men had had homosexual contact in the previous five years....

· United States: A nationwide household sample of 1,537 adults conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago (1989) indicated that of sexually active adults 19 years of age and older, 1.2% of males and 1.2% of females claimed homosexual activity in the preceding year. Only 0.5% to 0.7% had exclusively homosexual partners.

· United States: A stratified cluster sample from the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-87) of 36,741 public school students (grades 7-12) showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual”; 0.7% of the boys and 0.8% of the girls identified themselves as “bisexual”; and 10.1% of males and 11.3% of females were “unsure.”
· Canada: 5,514 first-year college students under age 25 were part of nationwide cluster random sample. This revealed 98% were heterosexual, 1% bisexual, 1% homosexual.

· Norway: A nationwide random mail sample of 6,155 adults age 18-60 (1987) found that 0.9% of males and 0.9% of females had homosexual experiences within three years of the survey.

Firstly, Susan, what are we reading, here? Where are these articles from? I ask, for one thing, because among the first articles to come up when I took your Google suggestion states:

But that point is still open to political and scientific debate, and our understanding of how biology may drive sexual orientation is still fuzzy.

I don't offer this as proof of anything, but it does suggest that pasting an unsourced article into the comments leaves more questions than it answers. The above quotation also highlights an important point: I allowed that some portion of self-identifying homosexuals are effectively, perhaps actually, "born that way." Talk about the anxiety of coming out remains vague and not very useful.

Regarding the percentage, I note that you've changed your claim. Before, it was (emphasis added):

the consistent 5% (or choose a percentage) of the population that is and has been gay over thousands of years and across all races

Which of the surveys that you cite was conducted over thousands of years ago? That the percentage of homosexuals may actually be smaller than I would have ceded hardly serves to change my opinions regarding the importance of culture and socialization.

Now to this:

if gay marriage is approved, a whopping 2% of the married population would be gay. (The real figure might be even smaller.) I'm starting to wonder how this would be a problem.

The same-sex marriage debate is about changing the definition of marriage. It is about denying that there is something unique and worthy of recognition in the sexual, usually procreative, relationship between a husband and a wife. Why would doing such a thing make more sense the fewer the people who would become included?

Your turn, smmtheory - we look forward to reviewing the research behind the "fact" you referenced whereby orientation is a choice.

Why should I bother when you've as much as predetermined that what I say is useless. Of course, that pretty much relegates your recitation of useless biological statistics to the same category. But that is what happens when researchers start with a premise they want to prove... conveniently discrete evidence from a non-random population sampling.

I am, I suppose, pretty much ambivalent about Gay Marriage. I am however tired of "in your face".

I am tired of unsupportable claims that 10% of America is gay. I am moderately accepting that some portion of the gay population were "born that way". For many, and I think most, it is a choice. Whether they conciously "made that choice" may be another question.

I do take umbrage with the arguments that the marriage law must be changed because of issues with Social Security, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. If these provisions are burdensome, that is reason to change Social Security regulations, hospital regulations, inheritance laws and the others. It is at best a "back door" argument for changing marriage laws. I take these arguments as simply "make weight".

Justin, below is the link to the article that refers to the various studies, inclusive of their authors, that discovered biological "markers" of homosexuality:

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

That article also refers to a study done in 1957 that attempted to find a psychological link (similarity) between homosexuals. None was found in that or any subsquent similar studies. This combined with the above referenced "markers" makes a strong case that there is a physical basis for homosexuality, thereby reducing the possibility that there is choice involved.

smmtheory, unlike sexual orientation, nothing in this discussion is "pre-determined". If you wish to continue believing that homosexuality is a choice, fine, it ends there. But you used the word "fact". That invites a request for proof, research, evidence.

The studies I referenced were, indeed, conducted on the basis of random population sampling; in the case of the percentage survey, subjects in six countries. If you wish to reference other studies on this subject, they will be reviewed without pre-determination and as diligently as Justin reviewed mine.

SusanD,
In order for those studies to have been based on non-random samples, there should have been a greater proportion of people not considered "gay". Do you have evidence that Hamer tested the blood of nearly 4000 brothers not considered gay to prove the same concordance did not exist? Probably not. Has anybody else since then duplicated the results of Hamer's test? Probably not.

Yes, you did pre-determine that any first person testimony is useless. You've lead me to believe that you would only believe research evidence published by supposed scientists, and you appear to have decided to discount experiental evidence.

Now you tell me. Why should I feel compelled to believe any evidence that you produce?