Actually I did some research on whether Homosexuality is genetic or not. What I did find by looking up at least 5 sources is that both groups are wrong, it is both Enviromental and Genetic. Genetic in that you start with urges, but Environmental in how you choose to use them, or control them.
Even if it is purely Environmental(which I did think before my research for an article on the Newspaper which didn't get published(probably because of my laziness)) I don't care, people do what they want to do and have different lifestyles or different features. Variety is the spice of life. I know of one Homosexual named Andrew who is very intelligent, likes all kinds of stuff, was on It's Academic, Impulse Magazine and The Talon Newspaper. He also had a pamphlet talking about how he was becoming a Republican.
Homosexuality shouldn't have anything to do with Party membership or not or ideas of Social or Fiscal Conservatism. a Homosexual can be very Socially Conservative and Fiscally Conservative yet still be one. What TX is saying, I think, that labelling everything as natural gives one an excuse. It is like there is a gene to murder, a gene to rape or guilty by reason of insanity. What he is saying is that, I think, you judge Human Beings like animals not like complicated living, breathing creatures like Homosexuality is like a mental disease or like downs syndrome because you don't have the right amount of genes.
IMO, Homosexuality is definitely not immoral, it is basically an existing alternative, there are so many roads society or you can take, alone(Conservatism should stand for the true under-dogs(Big Business, Anti-Welfare people) not just the one Society sees). One presence of being a Conservative is to take society on some roads or drive down them, individually. As it is 25% of Homosexuals voted for President Bush in 2004 determining that not all Homosexuals are Liberal, saying that I don't find it funny at all to lump them in with Liberals in an Email which, thankfully, I didn't get.
I think that Steiny had a valid criticism of the writing that Carolyn did at the top, though the theory of Abortion decreasing the rate of Liberals is not new yet is very novel and interesting, but I think that you are over-reacting as many do to Conservatives on the issues of Homosexuality. If Homosexuals die out, there will always be more and more. Of course, one can compare it to poverty but that wouldn't be true.
The truth about Homosexuality is that one must hold out open hands for them to join the magical idea ring of Conservatives, Libertarians, Paleocons, Neocons, and others. Remember that it is Dave Phelps who opposes the Iraq War of God Hates Fags. I, to, have a bitter temper because of hearing words like "gay" and "fag" used so casually, yet many black people, a good amount of times, use a "sanitized" version of the N-word so I digress.
Many people here do not mind Homosexuality, but find it ridiculous to hold Gay Pride Parades when there is very little mention of Straight Pride Parades(I can only think of SF's Love Parade but that is it. Mardi Gras doesn't count because it isn't, essentially, one), some people do believe in it as hypocrisy and rail against it. Also, I think that many have argued against the idea that, as Alan Keyes, put it in Dick Cheney's Lesbian daughter(tm) being a hedonist which can be applied to straight people like me also. As I've said before, I am Pro-Homosexual Marriage(TX did bring up a good point about benefits) but I think that if we waited 25 years, that people will fully accept the idea.
Remember that Civil Unions just started in Vermont in 1998. Homosexuals and the vast platform of Heterosexuals should both compromise on issues. Even if I am speaking as a big-time non-conformist, the only way certain unpopular things can change is through compromise. As I've said in these halls before, I am for Homosexual Marriage to the States, Abortion, and the Death Penalty. If a state bans Homosexual Marriage, well a couple can always move somewhere else. It is a good idea but, as I've said, there is the reasoned argument on it.
In the mid-1800s polygamy appeared in Utah. Democratic President James K. Polk threatened the State of Utah because marriage, at the time, was considered to be between one man and one woman. If this breaks out more, watch as someone legalizes polygamy not that I'll mind as long as it is lawful and between consenting adults and no incest. The problem with spiritual polygamy in Utah is that it involves a man marrying two 14 year old daughters of his and locking a gate so that they cannot flee to anywhere when rape is committed.
It is a terrifying spice of life but, as a sort of supporter of polygamy in my much, much younger days, I wouldn't mind it. It wouldn't be harmful, and might increase the birth rate in our country. It should be limited though, and I would never be involved in it.
Another problem that Conservatives might have with Homosexuality is the almost unbridled fetish that Liberals think of them as animals needing lots of care and treatment, especially a little bit of special treatment. That it is above being a Human being and that only Hate Crime Legislation should happen with them. Now, I really like Homosexuals and Homosexuality but even The Laramie Project was too excessive.
What if I was killed? Being Jewish would people just walk around carrying placards calling me a racist Zionist(I am a Zionist) or will they propose Hate Crime Legislations up and down the streets because of me? They probably wouldn't the latter and that is what makes me mad. Hate Crime Legislation is in the absence of some moral code for the Death Penalty, so I am against Hate Crime Legislation. It also fits the excuses, excuses, excuses bin.
The Laramie Project, in case you didn't know, is a very confused movie/trying to be documentary or docudrama whatever on the murder of Matt Shepherd. If Matt Shepherd was Heterosexual, or if it didn't happen would people care about Laramie? "Intellectuals" like Janeane Garafolo? I don't think so.
So it involves a group of "Homosexual playwrights" from NYC coming down to talk about filming a documentary on the people of Laramie and showing camera clips of what they filmed.....the only glitch is that they interview Professional Actors not even knowing if they just stuck words in the townspeople's mouths.
At the end, of course, it was Hate Crime Legislation time, but I do find it interesting that the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell was passed during the Clinton Administration. Of course, the 90s, was all about being Anti-Gun and Pro-Hate Crime Legislation.
I hated The Laramie Project but loved Brokeback Mountain. It didn't turn Homosexuality into that much of a political thing, and it was rather dramatic. In fact, it was my favorite movie of the year and the soundtrack was excellent. What do I mean? A movie that pushes a certain "Liberal special cause" like the killing of Homosexuals on their sexuality and cares more about the Homosexuality(would Matt care about the exploitation, and all of those marches in "his honor."
You see it wasn't about him as a Human being but that he happened to be killed by two people, who are possibly homophobes and that he is Homosexual. That, in a way, is about as insulting as when Liberals try to broadbrush Conservatives as believing that Homosexuals are inferior to straight people) than the makeup of the people, or the area(notice how many Hollywoodites are obsessed with AIDs, possibly more than lung cancer even if they want to do away with smoking in films) is a lot more ridiculous, pretentious, and preachy than a movie about a very complicated, anything goes sexual relationship(both of the characters were bisexual) which ends up in tragedy at the end because of the endless experimentation of promiscuity endorsed by the dead character.
Of course, some Liberals might turn it into a Homosexual Marriage movie or a Hate Crime movie, but those are both wrongful accounts. It was less about Homosexuality than a sexual urge run wild no matter if it was the man's wife, or the two men where one killed him because of jealousy.
The film didn't exactly promote Homosexual Marriage but rather a Civil Union or a Homosexual partnership. It also seemed natural at how many cowboy buddy movies we've seen, obviously there was going to be a movie to take it deeper(hell, I thought about it while watching the strong companionship in All The Pretty Horses where there was a derivative of the "I can't quit you" line) and to ponder what would happen if two Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid cowboys were in love with each other in a solitary land where there is not a lot of civilization.
I've read the short story by Annie Proloux before watching the movie(my dad, who is against Homosexual Marriage or on the fence really, really liked the movie. He owned the book also and knew about the movie before it came out) and I felt like the short story in the book was really good.
Maybe I am a little bit "traditional" though I may not be, considering that polygamy has been around for thousands of years. So, Steiny what do you think about prostitution?
BTW, wasn't Reagan the first as the governor of California to have Homosexuals dine with him?
BTW, I discovered a few years ago that Homophobe basically means fear of the same. I wonder if "Progressives" who love using some of the worst words in the English language like Bourgeoius, and Bolshevik, fit into that mold of being a homophobe.
Also, Liberals can be a little bit awry of Homosexuality. A husband of one of my dad's bosses, a guy who believed that trees are better than people and Jimmy Carter was the best President ever, was very awry of Homosexuality.
It all depends on what culture you come from, and what you read and how you decide along with your age is all, like determining on censorship, loud music, violence in movies and TV, sex in movies and TV. Some of the more Liberal people are not into what I just described.
I guess what I am saying is that views on Homosexuality are less of a religious, or a political thing though politics does have a little to do with it. It is more of our make-up and who we are as individuals.
Small Government: An overflowing melting pot without boundaries. A government can resist the melting pot\'s overflow but a big government is too big and restricts the needs of its citizens. <br /><br />I can be about as bleak as the North Pole when it rains