I don’t quite follow.

I know of some who would argue that the subservience of the woman (or women) to the man is the strongest component.

= – 0

It’s a shame that Ann and Debbie are so encumbered by the religious baggage because they otherwise have the most astute thoughts on the matter.

The man/woman component of the historical definition of marriage is by far the strongest since marriage is rooted in a familial construct with rearing offspring the primary importance. Age, lineage, marital status, etc seem like far weaker limitations.

I’m a San francisco atheist and I definitely think gay marriage and the intrusion of the gay lifestyle in public life is bad for society. I’m sure there are exceptions.

Finally, how Warren could find that transcript to support a contention that Reagan rejected homosexual discrimination is beyond comprehension. Regan’s non-response speaks volumes.

“Jayhuck, that’s ridiculous. Heterosexuality is required by evolution. That’s at least some proof of it’s innateness.”

While reproduction is certainly necessary for the continuation of a species, it has never been required that ALL members of a species reproduce.

Further, it seems disingenious to claim heterosexuality is innate but not homosexuality. Either orientation is innate or it isn’t (which I believe is the point Jayhuck was making with his comment).

“The man/woman component of the historical definition of marriage is by far the strongest since marriage is rooted in a familial construct with rearing offspring the primary importance. ”

I know of some who would argue that the subservience of the woman (or women) to the man is the strongest component.

“the intrusion of the gay lifestyle in public life is bad for society.”

How?

“Regan’s non-response speaks volumes.”

Yes, it says he was a politician who knew how to avoid political landmines.

That except for the gender of the people they are attracted to, gays are just like straights. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are christian, jewish, or muslim. some are caring and compassionate, others are selfish assholes.

Ken,

Yes, this has been, for the most part, my experience, however, don’t most gay people want to be distinguised by an identity? Is this (who they are attracted to) the only component to that identity?

We’ve been through the distinctions about orientation, identity and behaviour several times. I have been talking about orientation.

Unless I am incorrect, I don’t remember talking with you about the distinctions. Anyway, it is my understanding that some, if not most, gay people consideration their orientation their identity. They say “this is who I am”. Is this right?

It is different from the individuals who still might experience same gender attractions, but have made the decision not to engage in same gender sex. They also no longer want to be identified as gay. They say something like “that was part of my life then, but not now.”

I was reading the article Cynthia Nixon gave the Advocate and she said something completely different – she was caught completely by surprised that she was attracted to a woman because she had never been before.

My earlier question to you was based on orientation and identity, not behavior.

You are certainly correct about the innateness of sexuality.

Dr. Throckmorton,

I have asked several times, just in general comments, if sexuality had anything to do with intuition. No one ever responded. Do you think it is possible or factual that innateness is the same thing as intuition regarding our sexuality?

“Ok – how is this resolved? What do people need to know about sexual orientation and what it means to be gay?”

That except for the gender of the people they are attracted to, gays are just like straights. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are christian, jewish, or muslim. some are caring and compassionate, others are selfish assholes.

People who personally know someone who is gay are more likely to support gay rights. Because they see first hand how gays are just like them except in who they find attractive.

Well, this is a good point and one I had not thought about. Are the people you are referring to lawmakers? It seems to me that there would really be nothing left to argue, on the secular and legal side of the issue, should these indisputable facts become available to lawmakers and are factored into the debates when laws are made or altered. Religion is another issue and I don’t think one that is factored into laws. I could be wrong about all this – it is just an idea I have had for awhile.

Actually, yes this reaction would apply for politicians. The same kinds of politicians who spout off bogus social scientific data about gay people right now regarding our parenting skills and our mental health and our collective life expectancy. The same kinds of politicians who use religious belief to legislate how children are to be taught the sciences and history.