The "gay Gene"

[Hugo]

I've heard from a few people now (Lost in Manitoba, Blackdog, Pellaken), in various threads, that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore inviolate. Therefore, I would just like to bring these facts to everybody's attention.

Dr. Dean Hamer, a homosexual male geneticist, conducted a very comprehensive search for a gay gene back in 1993. He was specifically looking for a genetic link to prove his hypothesis that homosexuality was genetic.

However, he failed. He was able to show some evidence that homosexuality ran in families, for instance, if one of identical twins was gay, the other had about a 47% chance of also being gay.

The problem was that he could not find a single genetic reason for this, which left only the argument that it was environmental. This would explain the family connections, after all, twins have near-identical genes but also near-identical upbringings. This was confirmed by two other researchers, one head of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other at Harvard, saying, "we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

Dr. Hamer himself concluded that homosexuality was heritable but not inherited. This is a crucial distinction.

Here's how it works. A heritable characteristic is one that tends to run in families but has no grounding in genetics. For example, if your father, your uncles and older brothers all served in the submarine service, odds are you will too. However, there's no "submarine service" gene. You might also find that, upon dissection of the corpses of submariners, that they all had growth in a certain area of the brain. This, too, proves nothing but the already-known fact that parts of the brain grow with use and atrophy with disuse, like muscles.

An inherited characteristic is one that only has genetic determinants, such as eye or hair colour. This cannot be environmental, and if both your parents have blue eyes, you absolutely must have blue eyes also.

Dr. Hamer, when asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted in genetics, replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

Unfortunately, the lay press was not nearly so precise. National Public Radio, followed by Newsweek, Ann Landers, and the Wall Street Journal all ran stories that confused the terms "heritable" and "inherited" and, exactly counter to what Dr. Hamer had said in Scientific American, announced that homosexuality was genetic and inherited.

Just goes to show that you should always check your sources. After these fallacious stories, gay advocacy groups jumped on the "gay gene" myth and, backed by the Wall Street Journal and other "creditable" sources, proceeded to spread it around. Hence the wrongful belief of many today that homosexuality is genetic and a natural variation - it is not.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Interesting point, Hugo. Not sure if I've ever actually said so, but I have no idea or deeply held opinion on wether 'gayness' is genetic or learned. Really I've always just kinda thought of it as choice just as me being athletic was a choice, even though my father was athletic as well.

[Craig Read]

Good post. Further on that score, why then do judges, politicians and advocacy groups demand equal marriage rights for Gays. I believe that from Ancient Greece onwards homosexuality was a societal disorder and either a psychological derangement or a forced social activity [men's clubs in Ancient Greece qualify here].

I find it disreputable and socially enervating to grant homosexuality the same attractiveness that heterosexual families enjoy.

It is a deeply perverted concept.

[Prince Metternich]

People too often get caught up in binary arguments about the biological or behavioral determinants of homosexuality. Of course, the issue is much more nuanced than that. Some people may feel more inclinced to be homosexual than are others, but there is always an element of choice involved in being gay, even if just a choice to give in to those biological inclinations.

To treat homosexuality as just another ascriptive characteristic is to deny the mysterious qualities of attraction and sexuality. To legislate on this basis is moronic.

[Neal.F.]

And the public seems to be souring on gay unions too. These guys pushed to far, and the backlash, at least in the USA , is underway. I would like to see that a similar backlash is occurring in Canada.

This artricle below shows the poll results and also backs up what I've said that gays will not leave the churches alone. At least Americans see through it all now... But do Canadians?

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

Poll: Public Souring on Gay Unions

By Terry Phillips, correspondent

Slide continues in public support for homosexual agenda.

A new poll from the Washington Post indicates the decision within the Episcopal Church, USA to allow church blessings of same-sex unions is opposed by six out of 10 Americans. Same-sex unions, in general, got little support in the poll.

While homosexual activists have tried to portray Christians as radicals, a poll of just over 1,000 people done last week for the Post shows that — whether they go to church or not — two out of three Americans don't support gay unions.

Peter LaBarbera, senior analyst at the Culture and Family Institute, believes the opposition would be greater except that the mainstream media have sanitized the particulars of the gay lifestyle.

"Americans are still very opposed to normalizing homosexual behavior, even if they don't know all the sordid facts about these relationships," LaBarbera said. "What it comes down to is there has been an affirmative action campaign by the media in favor of gay rights."

The Washington Post survey shows that support for gay unions has slipped 12 percent since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas law against sodomy earlier this summer. Kelly Shackelford, executive director of the Free Market Foundation near Dallas, said the lack of public support is the reason why homosexual activists go to court to advance their agenda.

"They're not trying to win this battle through the legislatures, where the people get their say," he said. "They trying to win it through activist judges forcing it on the people."

In another survey, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group, only one-third of respondents said gay civil marriage would be OK, even if churches didn't have to be involved. LaBarbera warned that the proposition of asking the question this way is "bogus"; churches will never be exempted if gay activists have a say.

"Gay activists are clearly on record against religion, so why would anybody trust them when they say, 'Oh, we would never force a church to perform so called gay 'marriage,'?" LaBarbera said. "That's preposterous."

The Post article reporting the survey results twice claims a "sharp distinction" in how Americans view gay relationships being blessed by the church versus simple recognition in law. That, however, appears to be spin based on anecdotes.

A telling statistic: One-half of churchgoers said they would find another church if theirs blessed same-sex unions.

[FastNed]

Scotchneat, as someone new you obviously are not aware of the protocols of this Forum. We discuss issues, we do not get into flame wars or personal attacks and the issue of someone's sexual orientation is not a subject of interest or a fit subject for discussion unless and until that person makes disclosure and invites a discussion. Candidly, we try to keep matters somewhat higher than the kindergarden level.

New members are welcomed and are evaluated, as we all are, by the content of their postings. Please take note or our Moderator will be removing the "Welcome" mat rather quickly.

[Hugo]

Scotch, all your points have already been refuted. I invite you to read over the "Beyond Satire" thread where myself and others have posted mountains of evidence and expert testimony to prove what we say.

I also find it laughable that you are drawing different conclusions from the twins study, when the head of genetic research at Harvard and the director of the largest genetic research facility in the US draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Furthermore, I always find it vastly amusing when "enlightened" and "compassionate" leftists start slinging insults and attempting to suppress true freedom of speech... truly priceless. What other oratory gems does Scotch have in store, I wonder? Maybe his dad can beat up Neal's dad?

[Scotchneat]

Is your only come back that the people on this thread have already made up their minds that being gay is a perverted choice that could easily be corrected and that I'm a "leftist" (first gay marriage then nationalizing the banks...they've got an agenda!) ?

First, there's all kinds of crap coming out of Harvard, do you expect me to accept all of it?

Why is it that there a whole lot of people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex but at the same time are repulsed by homosexuality and hate homosexuals? Are they just confused? They don't want to be gay yet they keep having sexual relations with people of the same sex. Answer me that smart guy!

I am not a leftist. If you want to know my political philosophy stop reading pseudo scientific crap about homosexuality and pick up a copy of the Economist.

[Craig Read]

If there is a gene prove it.

If tumours cause sodomy prove it.

If gay marriage further strengthens families and societies prove it.

If gay marriage is a part of the Charter of Rights prove it.

If gay marriage is a part of the Church prove it.

If gay marriage does not destroy the separation of powers between the church and state prove it.

If you can't prove any of the above, shut up, stop weeping and cancel gay marriage.

I am sick of 'positive rights' with 0 proof of their efficacy.

[Hugo]

First, there's all kinds of crap coming out of Harvard, do you expect me to accept all of it?

Here is the situation, Scotch. I quoted the two top geneticists in the US as having said, on record, that there was no evidence that homosexuality was genetic and that the evidence thus far points to an environmental cause. The homosexual geneticist who set out to prove the existence of a gay gene had to conclude that there was none, and that it was environmental.

Against all this, there's you, with no expertise, no research, no corroboration at all. But you expect us to believe you! It's not "pseudo scientific crap", my friend, it's properly researched and corroborated by independent sources. I invite you to do some research and find something that proves your arguments, please, I'd be interested. But your uninformed opinion is worthless in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Why is it that there a whole lot of people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex but at the same time are repulsed by homosexuality and hate homosexuals?

I'm not going to go into this in any depth since I already have. Please go to the "Beyond Satire" thread and read my opinions and my supporting evidence there. That will answer your question.

[Scotchneat]

Instead of reading the thread, I went to the source and read up on Dr. Dean Hamer. Dr. Hamer is right, but your interpretation is way off base. "Heritable" means "genetically influenced" ie your genes will give you a predisposition for some behaviour but the environment will decided if you do it. So genetics is part of homosexuality (according to Dr. Hamer) but not the entire explanation because there are environmental factors (not restricted to psychological factors).

Basically, you are proposing that genetics has no influence on behaviour. Take it out of the homosexuality context, few would agree with you. However, the prejudice against homosexuals is so strong that normally rational logical people are willing to tie themselves into knots to prove that it's wrong.

Moreover, environment does not mean "free will" . There are many environmental factors outside a person's control. For example, if I was scarred in fire as a child, that scar would be not be my choice.

[Hugo]

You said:

Dr. Hamer is right, but your interpretation is way off base. "Heritable" means "genetically influenced"

From "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996:

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

1) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

2) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations

From C. Mann, author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.

As these scientists have stated, virtually every human characteristic is in some measure heritable. But in the case of homosexuality, what they are saying is that genes are not responsible - it takes environmental influence to create a homosexual.

To justify homosexuality on genetic grounds means celebrating child abuse and serial killing, since these characteristics stem from much the same causes - environmental activation of a vulnerable genetic sequence.

Environment does not mean free will, but neither does it mean "good". Because you were scarred as a child outside your control does not mean that scar is beautiful and should be celebrated. It might be downright ugly and require plastic surgery. You understand?

[Scotchneat]

Scars are beautiful. Didn't you see "Crash"? Gay is beautifiul too. I suggest you read the "Miracle of the Rose " by Jean Genet.

[Hugo]

There is more to homosexuality than the wonderful "Will and Grace" facade, you know. I suggest you read documents from the Center for Disease Control and so forth, rather than some head-in-the-clouds fiction. Some snippets for you:

A mere 9% of gay men can expect to live to 65. Their life expectancy today is the same as that of a 13th-Century European peasant. 80% of serious STDs in the US are suffered by homosexuals. A teenage boy who experiments with homosexual relations is 27 times as likely to contract a serious STD than one who remains strictly heterosexual. Half of all gay men aged 20 today can expect to be dead or HIV-positive within ten years. Almost a third of gay men have more than a thousand lifetime sexual partners, and most of those are anonymous. The same number of lesbians will have over five hundred.

But you are right... gay is beautiful. I guess I am just myopic, that I cannot see the beauty in disease, suffering and death.

[Ronda]

Scars are beautiful. Didn't you see "Crash"?

Yeah, and it sucked.

Anyhoo. Point taken, excuse me whilst I go experiment with scarring myself to see if it's really me and so I can feel right at home in the "scarred community". The first thing I'm going to do as soon as my scarring is as shocking and obvious as possible is to hire a good lawyer and sue every magazine and tv show in existance for not helping to celebrate my new gorgeous self through proportional representation and anyone who's ever dared to suggest that my burning or cutting my skin could possibly be dangerous. Science be damned! It's all propaganda, I tells ya! You have more chance of dying from, oh I don't know, being eaten by a humpback whale than dying from excess burning and cutting. According to my sources, anyway... you know, the cool people I go to school with.

[Scotchneat]

Hugo, you are not much of a debater. You have basically admitted that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic (whether environmental or genetic or some mixture of both) and you have switched tacts by saying that Gay is not good citing a lower life expectancy. Natives in Canada have the same kind of lower life expectancy, perhaps we should ban inter-Native marriage afterall letting them marry each other just adds to the acceptance of the "Native lifestyle", which results in so much misery for so many.

Perhaps if there wasn't so much stigma related to being gay, gays might be able to live healthy lifestyles like getting married and have a stable relationship.

[FastNed]

Scotchneat, I suspect your heart is in the right place but you really do have a bit to learn. First, Hugo's posts are among the highest quality on this Forum. If you were not so involved in this discussion you would note that.

Next, if Native Canadians have such a lower life expectancy, I doubt the cause is self-destructive sexual practices. If you believe marital status if going to change a man, either hetero or homo, then your optimism exceeds your intelligence.

Last, if you do wish to find a solution to this issue, cease using the term "marriage". There are six thousand years of religious tradition inherent in the concept of marriage and no-one, government or gay is going to interfere or change our religions. Enable Civil Unions or Civil Partnerships and work to have them passed in each jurisdiction but the term "marriage" belongs to religion, leave our religions alone!

[Hugo]

Thank you, Ned.

Scotch,

I never claimed that homosexuality was a fully conscious choice - I do not believe that anybody wakes up in the morning and says "I think I'll be gay today." It's obviously not genetic either, like eye or hair colour.

What that leaves, then, is the influence of the environment. There may be genetic factors, but as I have cited, such factors exist for practically every measurable human trait and their existence proves nothing about a gay gene or genetic causes.

An analogy: I may be heritably predisposed to alcoholism since that runs in my family, however, that does not mean I will be an alcoholic. However, if both my parents have blue eyes, I have blue eyes - no ifs, buts or maybes. Furthermore, if I do become alcoholic, the fact that I was predisposed does not make my alcoholism beautiful and worthy of celebration.

And that leads us to what you truly have to get your head around, that "innate" is not "good". I'm sure Jeffery Dahmer did not consciously choose to act the way he did, however, what he did was terribly wrong. In the same way, the causes of a very self-destructive behaviour such as homosexuality do not negate the nature of the beast itself.

[Scotchneat]

Gay love is beautiful. Why do you equate it with alcoholism, torture and murder? It's just love between two people.

It is gay marriage or nothing. This is about equality. It has nothing to do the churches, if they don't want to marry gays that fine, but don't try to give gay marriage an inferior status. A marriage between two gays has all the dignity of a marriage between two straights.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I think its interesting to note that when gay marriage is being debated, or even when homosexuallity is discussed, it all seems to be focussing on gay men. There are posts on here with references to the dangers of anal sex, the creeps from NAMBLA, how gay men raise gay babies, etc. Is it homophobia? I mean, does a man resent or find more repulsive the intrusive act of two men having anal sex, as compared to two women touching each other?

[Hugo]

Scotch,

I don't know what you are used to, but in this forum generally people are pretty intelligent, and simply repeating a point that has already been refuted without citing any further evidence is not a valid argument and won't fly here.

Lost,

I'm sure that you are just being inflammatory to word your post in such an ad-hominem way, but I will try to answer you anyway.

Gay men are more numerous and are generally the more vocal, if only because of that. NAMBLA is all-male in its membership and its intended victims are all male. Furthermore, while homosexuality in any form is a deviancy and a mental problem, it would appear that the male form is just worse. Life expectancies for lesbians are somewhat higher, the incidences of disease somewhat less (although both are still dire compared to heterosexuals). That doesn't mean that lesbians are not suffering, it just means that you focus on the worst cases first.

I would have thought that when I talked about "homosexuality" for instance, it would have been obvious that I meant both genders. Do I need to slather my posts in PC jargon for you, and reword such phrases as "the ascent of man" to "the ascent of male, female, transgender, transsexual and questioning humans?"

In all the examples of the problems homosexuals suffer I also cited figures for lesbians as well as gays, where appropriate.

[FastNed]

Lost, remembering that this is a family site, I am attempting to be delicate but rectal sex kills. Evolution or God designed our bodies so that the anus is an exit, not an entrance. That is hard cold fact, not fiction, not a judgment and most especially, not a condemnation. Yes, both males and females can have an anal climax as distinct from the more usual one but I do find it difficult to have much sympathy for those today who engage in unprotected, suicidal sexual practices. We have known for almost a full generation now that the primary infection vector for AIDS is unprotected anal sex. Male homosexuals continue to engage in this unsafe practice to the point that I now consider it evolution in action. Anyone this stupid and suicidal does not have my sympathy.

Could, would gay marriage, unions or partnerships change this - I doubt it. Promiscuous is promiscuous and human nature is human nature; anyone who believes that marriage is going to change a man is allowing their optimism to exceed their intelligence. I don't think this is true where women are concerned but I'm from Mars, what do I know.

Scotch, all love is beautiful, to be nourished and cherished but there is six thousand years of religious tradition in most religions which do not allow homosexual marriages. That is also cold hard fact. Yes, there are some religions where dogma allows such marriages and no one is saying that they do not have the right to perform such ceremonies. What we are saying is that if the dogma of our faith does not allow such, we will not allow or accept the State or some Human Rights Commission telling us our faith must change and we must perform such services. I spoke with a Priest recently and he confirmed my thought that performance of such a service would de-consecrate a Catholic Church and he added something I had not considered. He stated that if he performed such a service under a Court Order, he would no longer consider himself an "Ordained Priest" of the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe in live and let live, condemn the sin and not the sinner and I retain little of the religion in which I was raised. To say I am only "lapsed" is to be generous but even so, it is my choice as to the importance of religion in my life and that choice is as important to me as the choice of a sexual partner is to someone else! Do what you will but stay out of my church and my religion.

[Hugo]

Quite right, Ned, religious freedom is in danger here. The gay advocacy umbrella has made it pretty clear that the Big Three monotheistic religions have to go down.

Anyway, what we have not touched on so far this thread is that granting marriage to homosexuals is a social, legal and governmental stamp of approval on a mental health problem and a dangerous, self-destructive deviancy.

You can tolerate without accepting, you can accept without endorsing. Our society accepts homosexuals and is rapidly moving towards endorsing them, and this is wrong. We must tolerate the homosexual, for they are as human as we, but we must not accept, because the homosexual needs help as much as an alcoholic does. The key to treating alcoholism is the recognition that a problem exists ("my name is Bob and I am an alcoholic" is the first step in AA), and so far we are in a cultural state of denial that will prevent a real solution from ever being found.

It's debatable whether or not homosexuals can have "love" as heterosexuals do anyway, because homosexuals are psychologically damaged and usually suffering from a great deal of mental anguish and complexes. Furthermore, it's difficult to see how you can attain love in a sexual way when the part of your psyche that determines sexual attraction isn't working properly. Can a car with a malfunctioning engine "drive" in the same way as a serviceable one? Sure, it can rattle and heave it's way down the road - but it is not the same thing at all.

[SirRiff]

I'm sorry I just cant take this level of misinformation. There is only so much that you can cut and paste without understanding before it gets crazy. I mean, we can all debate the chances of aliens existing, because really, there are no 'experts' per se, and any opinion is not exponentially more rooted in insight then another. But this is genetics, and there are actually right and wrong answers for some basic concepts, so I will clear a few things up.

First of all I'm not claiming to know everything. I am obviously not a world ranking scientist by any means. But I know some. I did a 4 year honors Genetics degree. I work in biotech. I actually researched primary publications (not 'Science', I am talking about real peer reviewed experimental genetics journals like Human Mutation and Chromosome). I have actually played with DNA and studied results. I just got offered a job friday morning at a San Diego pharmaceutical company that makes autoimmune disease drugs. its my field.

HUGO you really put forth a 100% inaccurate definition of heritable as far as any functional definition i know

Heritable means capable of being inherited.

nothing more.

inherited (in a biological sense) means genetic information transmitted through ancestors.

What I think you were referring to (at least i hope so) is Heritability.

Heritability as defined by ANY geneticist worth the cost of his lab coat is:

the proportion of total phenotypic (behavioral/physical/biochemical) variance that can be attributed to genetic variance

There is no other functionally accepted definition as far as I know.

Heritability is basically determined as the variation of a genotype Vg over the total variation Vt (genetic and environmental) in the phenotype. Basically the genetic contribution to observed phenotypic variation.

H= Vg / Vt

OR

H= Vg / (Vg+Ve)

Thus if we had a cage of inbreeding rats, that were all nearly genetically identical (Vg=0), and one rat showed a variation in a trait, the heritability would be 0 because only environmental factors (Ve) could influence the trait.

If we take the opposite, and look at a greenhouse where all plants grew in the exact same environment (Ve=0), any variation in traits must be genetic.

Everyone following so far?

Now as for you statement that the 'lay press' was 'not so precise' or that everyone should 'check their sources', I will just say that what I posted above is in fact the true definition of heritability, the only measurable concept (as opposed to being 'heritable' or 'inherited' which both refer to the pathway for transmission and have nothing to do with relative quantitative or qualitative contributions)

Now that I have enlighten a bit on that subject, let me go one step further into more uncharted territories on the complexity of the human genome.

Just because we cant find a 0.9 heritability coefficient for a genetic trait influencing a binary sexual preference doesnt mean anything. The door is wide open and anybody who claims it will ever be 100% or 0% is a quack. a nut. a moron. and idiot.

first of all we can be sure that there would be dozens of independent multifunctional unrelated genetic components influencing sexual identity/preference/gender. why? because most complex human characteristics are encoded like this, the product of our complex modular genome and its replicative expansion during evolution.

in 10 years we could very well pinpoint 13 individual genetic components that show 'gayness' has a 0.9 heritability coefficient. we just dont know genetically yet, however a lot of study and almost ALL circumstantial evidence so far gathered on other complex human behaviors show a significant, if not compelling genetic influence.

the entire human machinery on which the environment works on is genetically encoded. thus its like saying the blueprints for a building will have little effect for how the weather ages it. or the design of a park has little effect on how it wears over time.

any human behavior that is directed by the environment is always primed by genetics, and it would be unreasonable to assume any person is primed neutral.

so i have corrected the misuse of the concepts of heritable and inherited, and replaced them with the correct concept of heritability. if you dont like gays tahts fine, but nothing posted here is correctly interpreted yet at all,.

any posts reading "ha this proves they cant find a gay gene" should cause some self evaluation by the poster considering there is nothing of substance cited yet.

Additionally, the several times copied and pasted text have been repeatedly misinterpreted and misstated is a lesson for us all.

If anybody wants to challenge my scientific claims I invite scrutiny, but i assure you I did not overstate anything and truly do know what i am talking about on genetics. i put down some facts and some opinions and i think i seperated them well enough for the readers.

if you disagree with gayness, well its just two equal opinions i suppose.

One last thing, I am astonished at the arrogent tones on this thread. I'm not saying Scotchneat is right or anything, but considering how completely misstated and misinterpreted the most basic theories of genetics have been on this thread, I dont think anybody should be proud of thier interpretation/use of the original "scientific'' statement. seems like a case of a tidbit of a paragraph satisfying some preheld belief. unfortunately in this case, the origainal 'proof' was so isolated and misrepresented the claims of scientific fact went from 0 to ridiculas instantly.

any questions?

SirRiff

[FastNed]

Thank you, SirRiff, for some hard facts.

If I have processed the information you provided correctly, we are at a point where we lack conclusive evidence and while there are indicators that genetics is a factor, there is nothing yet discovered which would allow anyone to assert this is anything but an open question. Is that a fair and accurate recap?

I hope I am still here as more and more of our DNA is decoded simply because there are many questions such as this which interest me and with greater knowledge, who knows how high we can reach. As we learn more, we usually do a better job of living together and that gives me hope, as well.

My focus on this matter may be askew but is rather pragmatic. (1) Somewhere from three to ten percent of our population engage in a practice/lifestyle different from that of the majority. Defining this activity as deviant is part of the problem, not part of the solution. (2) This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results. (3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder.

Assuming for our discussion that percentages have validity, nine to thirty million of us engage in sexual activities different from the majority. Most religions define this activity as immoral but so what; I submit that at least thirty million of us not only covet our neighbor's wife, we engage in sexual activity with her as often as we can. Our population as a whole, engages in immoral activities all the time and I do not remember any scripture which states that the Ten Commandments are listed in order of importance. For the most part, questions and violations of moral laws should be judged as matters of faith and the proper venue for this is our churches and places of worship. But I did say for the most part, didn't I. This raises the question of what I call our Compact of Civilization and Democracy.

To allow ourselves to live in something other than an armed enclosure and with something higher than the law of the jungle, we have among us agreed to a number of public laws applicable to everyone. Because we have chosen to live in a democracy, our laws are not static but constantly evolve to changing circumstances. As our knowledge has grown, we have redefined what is acceptable among us, what can be allowed without destruction of our compact. A very essential part of this compact is that the majority will accommodate minorities, those who are different; indeed, we have discovered that much of the validity of our civilization comes from our differences and that we are stronger for them. Public Laws against private adult homosexual activities no longer have a place in our civilized society. Few if any public laws remain or are enforced concerning (private) fornication by unmarried people or concerning adultery, none should remain concerning homosexual activity. But note this applies to private activities by adults.

I've got to go now but I'll return to this later today.