They also played very loose with the opinion of Focus on the Family. There is a range of positions between people chose their sexual identity and sexual identity is genetically determined.

Just to key off on this article, I agree with the general sentiment that something is inborn. My theory is that our inborn hormonal combination, as dictated by gene, effect our temperament formation, (i.e. more feminine or musculine),which in turn, create unique nurturing environments, (micro environment)that further enhance our predispostion and shape who we think we are.

So, for example, a boy who is more feminine will choose to play with dolls and other girls, (and create his own micro-environment unique to him). This UME (Unique Micro Environment) causes other boys to label him names, as well as his own doubts, “why am I so different?” It is under these two forces of hetero-suggestion and auto-suggestion working strongly together that his little mind is conditioned to the point that he believes he is “different” from the other boys. Sooner or later, through social forces, (i.e. incidence of sexual abuse, rejection by girl friends, admiration for the talent of other boys, media hype, sexual encounter with another gay, etc), he becomes convinced that this difference “is” homosexuality.

Therefore, I believe that while termperment, personality shaping-hormone, predisposition are inborn, choosing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT. That is why, as a habit goes, it is possible to “unlearn” it.

Thanks again, Warren, for a resourceful site and your conviction for this important matter.

Until very recent times, you could fire a Catholic for being a Catholic (or nominate any other religion). Discrimination based n religion by one citizen to another was legal, and the Constitution was silent on the matter (if you are a Scaliaite). To clear this up, I guess you could ask a Grove City administrator if their hiring/firing practices based on religion are unconstitutional…

Religion has been more recently covered by Civil Rights codes that legislate the behaviour between private citizens — with noted let out clauses such as that around GCC.

As to the question: I don’t think the two are related in any practical sense.

Nobody denies race being biological. Despite that, racism continues to exist even though race-based protection was an early reason for Civil Rights codes.

Religion and marital status are both behavioural choices. They are covered.

Ultimately, issues of “hard wired-ness” are irrelevant in the final analysis, since people of different religions are fully protected with civil rights and all, and religion certainly isn’t hard wired, but acquired through social training.

So even if same sex attractions weren’t hardwired, would gays deserve civil rights? Should gay marriage be legal?

Though I’m an “ex-gay” in the literal sense of the word, my answer to the above two questions would be a resounding “yes.”

Nathan

Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.

I am wondering what the impact on civil rights arguments might be if we learn that sexual orientation is hard wired for some men and not others almost never for women.