I think you are on target about the issue of whether right and wrong vs. a genetic link should be further examined. It has been my observation and experience that if one can prove there is a genetic link then that will validate the “rightness” to have same gender sex. While that is one way to look at it, it certainly isn’t the only way. For many a genetic link will be valuable as far as understanding themselves but it will not be used as a component to determine personal values or validate any behavior that is not in alignment with those values. I also agree that science studies commonalities and differences instead of right vs. wrong – we see that a lot in expert testimonies in legal cases too. Just the facts.

If something isn’t right what is it? The question misses the point. I believe Alan’s statement simply said that genetics, while they may fill in the picture and increase our understanding, don’t answer ‘rightness’. They would simply say that it is–and that there’s a genetic link.

The issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong won’t necessarily be decided on the discovery of a genetic link. That link (those links?) would have to be further evaluated.

It seems to me that science studies commonality and difference not right or wrong.

Thanks again for your response – I am glad you don’t think it is wrong for someone to have a different opinion than you. I was unsure how you felt about it because you indicated that Alan was wrong in making the statement he did and that you didn’t agree with him. In referring specifically to the issue of endorsing homosexuality as a natural variation of sexuality, there are some who do not agree with your opinion of that and I appreciate your fairness in understanding that it is not wrong of them to have a different opinion from you about it.

we still need to hold it up to the light.

I believe you mean, you still need to hold it up to the “light” as you define it! 🙂