Thursday, May 07, 2009

Gay marriage

The gay community is slowing growing impatient with President Obama, who opposes gay marriage, and is now starting to apply the pressure to have their agenda addressed. So it’s time WEP re-addressed the issue.

When I discuss gay marriage in these forums I like to leave religion out of it. My personal beliefs are set aside and I’m still able to argue my points. This drives the other side nuts because the basis of their counter-argument is the whole “separation of church and state” myth. So, religion won’t apply here.

First, homosexuality is not the issue. So do I support civil rights for gay people? Absolutely. I support civil rights for all law-abiding citizens and that certainly includes those who engage in atypical sexual acts. People are free to have sex with whomever they choose, so long as their partner is an unwed consenting adult. The caveat is that I don’t want to be held financially responsible when someone who engages in such behavior contracts a disease as a result of that behavior. So I will support someone’s right to have sex with any unwed consenting adult of their choosing if they in turn support my right to NOT pay for medical care that is necessary for diseases they contract when engaging in such behavior. I think that’s fair and reasonable. For that matter, I don’t want to pay for healthcare for those who drink too much, eat too much, smoke too much, or don’t exercise enough. Their behavior has consequences and they should not expect others to shoulder the load of those consequences.

Is homosexuality a natural act? Gay advocates will say that homosexuality is genetic, that people are essentially born straight or born gay. As a man of science, I don’t see any evidence of that. Humans are the only animals that engage in recreational – rather than procreational – sex. And since homosexuality is not procreational, what else can it be but recreational? We have mapped the human genome and have yet to discover the “gay” gene. And if someone believes in Darwinian evolution as I do, then how could such a gene survive the survival-of-the-fittest test? It would certainly not be passed from generation to generation. So in order to believe that such a gene exists, you would have to also believe that every homosexual is due to the exact same spontaneous DNA mutation that occurs randomly at the same moment in each homosexual individual. You don’t have to be a geneticist to realize that the chances of that are slim…very slim. Plus, such a claim would essentially label homosexuality as a genetic disease, or maybe a birth defect if you will. This opens a whole new can of worms.

Instead, I see homosexuality as a product of one’s environment. It is atypical sexual behavior likely the result of a pathological psychiatric process related to sexual abuse in one’s past. We know that women who were sexually abused tend to be much more promiscuous, a misguided expression of sex that developed from their traumatic past. I think something similar is going on with homosexuality. Does this mean that everyone who is abused becomes gay or promiscuous? No. But it does mean that sexual abuse increases the risk of such behavior in the future because the victims view sex much differently than someone who was not abused. But that’s just a theory.

Now, on to the marriage issue. There are two schools of thought here. I believe that marriage is defined by a particular culture. Our idea of marriage is much different than in Asian cultures, or Middle Eastern cultures. There is also a wide variation among different religious groups. The point is that marriage is a product of culture and therefore is defined by the society within that culture. Which means the people decide how they want to define marriage.

Some contend that marriage is a right. I have a problem here. When I here “right” I think of voting, peaceful assembly, free speech, no illegal search and seizure and so on. Those are rights. I am apprehensive about elevating marriage (or healthcare for that matter) to such a high level because rights are things that can’t be infringed upon by others. If we were to say that marriage is a Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment, then we will be dealing with many other problems because immediately there will be claims of civil rights violations. Suppose a man wants to marry his daughter. Or wants to marry 8 different women. Or wants to marry his pet goat. If we try to make laws against this we will then be flirting with civil rights violations. And what about divorce? Suppose one spouse wants a divorce and the other wants to stay married. Will we deny the divorce in order to protect the other’s right to marriage? The point is that calling marriage a right gets very slippery. It’s a cultural tradition defined by the society within that culture. It is not a Constitutional right.

So I support civil rights for all, including homosexuals. But when it comes time to define marriage that must be done by the people, NOT the court system. I agree with President Obama’s position against same-sex marriage, but that’s not the relevant point. Obama should instead articulate that the definition of marriage should be decided by the people and not the court system. This would keep his personal feelings out of it and would possibly keep the homosexual special interests from hassling him too much.

30 comments:

Robert M. said...

Wouldn't a better solution be to keep the government out of marriage of any kind? There's no reason for this issue to be complicated. If the government had nothing to do with marriage, and there's no reason it should, people would be free to be together under any title they wished, as long as no one infringes on anyone else's natural rights (life, liberty, property).

Auntyem said...

John,

I too don't believe in gay marriage for a couple of reasons:

One, it would open up the Pandora's box that you mentioned where the fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims would want to legalize polygamy in this country. Polygamy takes humanity back to the time before people evolved out of tribalism and women were considered property like thier cattle or camels. And I don't even want to think of the other evils it would unleash.

Second, if marriage for gays was legalized, then they would want to adopt more children. I know that some gay couples already have adopted children, and I am against that especially if they adopt children of the opposite sex. Children need a same sex adult in the home to relate to, although daughters who lose their mothers and are raised by their fathers do OK in most cases..but a mother and father is best. I think gays should only adopt puppies and kittens to satisfy their paternal/maternal instincts.

I heard the young adopted daughter of a gay male couple in Los Angeles say that she loved Anna Nicole Smith, a friend of her two "fathers", because, "I don't have a mother, I have two fathers, and Anna was like a mother to me". In the same way, a boy being raised by two lesbians is robbed of a male role model in the home.

You said that homosexuality was not genetic, and of course it can't be since gays are born from heterosexual couples and fine decent people. VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter, and Newt Gingrich has a sister who is also gay. Then there was the Senator or Congressman that cried on TV saying that he had changed his mind about gays, since his daughter had come to him and told him that his proposed anti-gay legislation would be harmful to her--he never dreamed a child of his could come out gay. Several of the male doctors and nurses and some females at the hospital where I worked were known gays, but they behaved properly. You never know how your kids will come out despite all your efforts and admonishments.

When I was working in the hospital, homosexuality and transvestism (sp?) were classified in the International Classification of Diseases as "mental disorders". I think that has changed, but I'm not sure. So homosexuality to me is an aberration where a person eroticizes their own sex, no? So then it is like a mental disorder in that it affects the behavior of the person like paranoia, or other such disorders.

Yes, I too think that being abused sexually in the formative years affects a person's sexual behavior later on, but not always. Some people have stronger characters than others.

I do want gays to be protected in certain ways, because there are some, especially boys that can't help but act too feminine despite ridicule, and for some reason it angers some men into doing them severe harm. I also feel that if a couple has been devoted to each other for a long time, they should be able to legally leave an inheritance to their loved one and not have the family take it away, as Elton John, a millionaire entertainer. feels his family would do and leave his partner with nothing.

I believe they should be able to leave their fortunes to whoever they wish. In the same way, I feel that if they work, they should be allowed to add their partner's name to any policies provided others.

I do wish that homosexuals would keep their romaniticizing to themselves in private. It just creeped me out in California when two guys would shmooze at a table in a restaurant, or walk down the street hand in hand. It didn't bother me if they introduced me to their partner, so I would know their living situation. I don't see any of that here where I live now.

Sorry this was so long (nine paragraphs),

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

Anonymous said...

Remarkable improvement, Emilie! A bit more concise, and staying on the subject of the post. reb
__________________________________

Dan Trabue said...

Instead, I see homosexuality as a product of one’s environment. It is atypical sexual behavior likely the result of a pathological psychiatric process related to sexual abuse in one’s past. We know that women who were sexually abused tend to be much more promiscuous, a misguided expression of sex that developed from their traumatic past. I think something similar is going on with homosexuality.

As a self-defined "man of science," do you have any evidence to support this "theory" or is it more a hunch? That is, do you have any evidence that gay folk were just regular folk who were all abused or sexually traumatized in some way?

I would suggest you don't, since I don't believe there is any such evidence. I know plenty of gay folk and so far as I know, none of them were abused. I'm not even sure that there is much logical evidence of such a thing happening.

It might make sense that folk who were sexually abused growing up might grow up to think that's normal or who continue to act out sexually. But why would someone who is sexually abused "turn gay"? If you were abused or assaulted, do you think you could be "turned gay"?

That seems to be a theory that is not supported logically or anecdotally.

According to the APA (American Psychiatric Association):

"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

sourceSo, being a man of science, I'm sure you'll want to at least reconsider your theory.

Dan Trabue said...

As to Robert's suggestion (gov't might ought to get out of marriage business altogether), I'd support that sort of solution. That way, churches (like mine) or other entities that are okay with gay marriage can perform gay and straight weddings and those who are opposed to gay marriage don't have to and no harm/no foul.

But, if we're going to have the state endorse and give special rights to straight married folk, then they ought to do the same for gay married folk. Just as a matter of justice.

I'm okay with either solution, but not the "separate but not equal" solution.

John Washburn said...

Dan, let's just say that I have about as much evidence for my theory as those who believe homosexuality is inborn. It's all theory my friend.

I know what the APA says. I also know that retrospective studies have shown a possible connection between homosexuality and the lack of proper influence from an opposite-sex parent. In other words, there is evidence of an environmental link. But the evidence is greatly lacking in both areas.

The APA changed the DSM-IV, which is essentially the bible of psychiatry, in the late 70s. Before then, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder. Under political pressure, they reversed this idea. But ask a psychiatrist off the record (as I have done) and many of them will say that they question the notion that homosexuality is not a product of one's environment.

The simple fact is that we don't know what causes it, but saying that it is genetic is a far stretch and something that is difficult to accept in light of Darwinian evolution.

Theories are things that aren't proven. That's why they're called theories. If it were proven it would be fact. Most of science is theory. If I had facts I wouldn't say that my opinion is theory. So, no, I won't rethink my theory just because you say there is no evidence behind it. My theory is based on observation and over a decade of medical practice.

Such a theory can never be proven because that would require people to give honest answers regarding their childhood. In my own practice, I have found that this is very difficult. Sexual abuse has a profound impact on people, and a common defense mechanism is avoidance. Most people will not admit to it and certainly aren't willing to discuss it. So, we really have no idea just how prevalent it is. And since we don't know how prevalent it is we certainly can't know for sure if it is more prevalent in homosexuals.

So when the APA says that sexual abuse does not "appear" to be linked to homosexuality, that's what they mean. Simply put, the study can't be done because we can't say who is being truthful and who isn't. If I polled 1,000 homosexuals and asked the question "have you ever been sexually abused" my research would be tossed because it is completely subjective.

The only way to do a legitimate study would be to subject a group of children to sexual abuse and then follow them closely to determine how many displayed homosexual behavior. Obviously unethical and criminal.

And I'm not a "self-defined" man of science. I have the degrees and the licenses that prove it.

Dan Trabue said...

The simple fact is that we don't know what causes it, but saying that it is genetic is a far stretch and something that is difficult to accept in light of Darwinian evolution.

Yes, you are right, we DON'T know why people are gay or straight. But by all evidence, it appears generally to be innate. Something one is born with.

I can't MAKE you "turn gay," no one could make me "turn gay." By all evidence, it is innate. Have you ever ran across the first person who says, "I chose to be gay," or "I chose to be straight"?

I know it happens that people say that, but it truly is rare, it seems to me.

And I understand what a theory is, John. I was merely differentiating between a hunch and a theory because too often, people treat their pet hunches (oftentimes not much more than prejudices and preconceived notions) as if they were more scientific-based theories. That may not be the case in your circumstance, but it happens.

Dan Trabue said...

The APA changed the DSM-IV, which is essentially the bible of psychiatry, in the late 70s. Before then, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder.

Yes, that is true, of course. I'm familiar with the history there. But are you familiar with WHY homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder? Well, because it was obvious, wasn't it??

In other words, it wasn't considered a disorder based on much other than prejudice. Homosexuality was not the norm in sexuality, so therefore, it must be a disorder.

That's not science, that's just cultural prejudice. As more and more studies came in (along with political pressure to pay attention to the studies), the APA had to reconsider its position, and rightfully so.

Lacking any evidence whatsoever that homosexuality was a disorder, they removed it from their Big Book of Nuttiness.

Robert M. said...

I aced the AP Psyche test, and from what I remember from the class, Dan is correct. Homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder primarily because it does not meet the requirements for one. For one thing, it is not disruptive or harmful to either the gay person or anyone else, and therefore does not qualify as a disorder in DSM-IV. Its classification as a disorder was more the result of homophobia than any actual scientific rationale.

John Washburn said...

"I can't MAKE you "turn gay," no one could make me "turn gay." By all evidence, it is innate. Have you ever ran across the first person who says, "I chose to be gay," or "I chose to be straight"?"

My response to that would be that no one chooses to be schizophrenic, or bipolar, or sociopathic, or depressed. And what evidence do you refer to when you say "by all evidence it is innate". There is no evidence of that.

My point is that it is possible that homosexual behavior is a symptom of a psychiatric condition. That opinion is theoretical and supported by just as much evidence as the "innate" theory, despite what people generally accept as true.

And Robert, I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexual behavior is not harmful. It very much is. Just like promiscuous behavior, nicotine dependence and over-eating. There is a reason why the medical community considers homosexual intercourse to be "high risk" sex.

This question can never be answered. Anyone who claims truth on one side or the other is speculating. Like I said, the actual studies can't be done, which is why the APA had to reclassify things.

allison said...

All sex is high risk. All sex comes with consequences if protection and responsibility is not used. More so for heterosexual sex, as pregnancy is not possible for homosexual couples.

I do not understand why allowing homosexual couples to get married is a slippery slope or opens a "Pandora's box." If it is defined as a union between two consensual adults who are unrelated, where is the question?

Dan Trabue said...

Not all gay folk (by a long shot) are promiscuous, John. That's some people think that your line of reasoning is more based upon prejudice than science.

The APA changed things because by definition, gay folk aren't mentally disordered. They changed things because the evidence on hand did not support the case that gay folk are mentally ill.

yes, you're right. We can't do studies to "measure" to see if gay folk are mentally disordered. Nor can we do tests to measure if straight folk are disordered.

Nonetheless, there is no evidence (beyond prejudiced opinions, which of course, is not evidence) that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is a mental disorder.

When you say:

My point is that it is possible that homosexual behavior is a symptom of a psychiatric condition. That opinion is theoretical and supported by just as much evidence as the "innate" theory, despite what people generally accept as true.

Your point is incorrect. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is, itself, a symptom of a problem. You don't theorize that heterosexuality is possibly a symptom of a disorder, what possible reason would you have for making that theory about gay folk, beyond prejudiced cultural opinion?

John Washburn said...

I never said all gay folk are promiscuous.

"what possible reason would you have for making that theory about gay folk" - Because there is no biological reason for homosexual sex.

Allison, if society chooses to define marriage in the way you mentioned, then I would be FINE with it. So long as it was the people doing so and not unelected judges, which was the point of the post. And defining marriage in such a way is a far cry from saying that marriage is a RIGHT. Let the folks decide, and I will go along with the decision.

Dan Trabue said...

Because there is no biological reason for homosexuality, therefore you conclude that it must be a mental disorder? I don't think that holds water, especially since, as noted, homosexuality doesn't meet the definition of mental disorder.

Failing that, why in the world ought we consider it a disorder? I hope you can understand how ridiculous it sounds to those of us not in your camp (and, for what it's worth, I WAS once in your camp, albeit for religious reasons, since I was raised with traditional baptist beliefs)?

IF homosexuality does not meet the definition of "mental disorder," then WHY would anyone consider it a mental disorder? It's a reverse tautology - a logical impossibility, by definition.

Dan Trabue said...

John said:

I never said all gay folk are promiscuous.

No, you didn't. You said that...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexual behavior is not harmful. It very much is. Just like promiscuous behavior, nicotine dependence and over-eating.

The implication is that there is something inherently harmful about homosexuality, rather than specific homosexual behaviors.

Promiscuity can be harmful. Faithful, committed marriages less so. But you're not saying that heterosexuality is harmful because some are promiscuous.

That some homosexuals (or heterosexuals) misbehave and bring harm upon themselves is not a logical, scientific support for the conclusion that homosexuality is harmful.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

IF Dan's assumptions warrant a closer scutiny concerning the health risks involved in the misbehavior of both homo & heterosexual behavior patterns, we must also factor in the Bi-Sexual Relationships.

When the "Man-on-Man Partnership" ignores the risks involved when bringing back to his home a 'sexually transmitted disease' to an innocent wife and family, that instantly doubles an already unacceptable problem.

Now the lady also carries that nasty little bug! reb
________________________________

Robert M. said...

That argument doesn't hold water John. A lot of straight people are promiscuous too. Since the two behaviors (homosexuality and promiscuous behavior) are independent, homosexuality cannot be classified as a disorder.

allison said...

If you think it would be ok defined like that, then why must you make such ridiculous assumptions or create your own HUNCHES (Thanks Dan), not theories, about the origin of homosexuality?

It would be very upsetting to me if you believe these things and also have friends or patients who are gay. I'd hate to feel something that was totally innate and natural for me and have my physician looking at me and thinking I have a psychiatric disorder.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Dr John,

Quite obviously, an interesting and open discussion here, on a sensitive subject. Well done.

A very influencial man has made an incredible impact throughout Europe (and lately here in the U.S.)
with his own unique version of "the truth", and he backs it up with big money influence in a dozen countries.

See S/H "Postmodern Villain" Post (on May 1st) for the rather shocking details. reb
_________________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

John Washburn said...

Dan, you quoted my words and then extrapolated something completely different. I drew a similarity between homosexual BEHAVIOR and promiscuous sex. They are both bad for your health.

And it is no longer considered a mental disorder because it is politically incorrect to consider it so. There is no evidence supporting the “innate” theory of homosexuality. You seem to think that I am making conclusions based on cultural prejudice. Well, if you have no evidence supporting the notion that homosexuality is inborn, aren’t you giving in to prejudice as well?

Allison, I understand that your “hunch” tells you that homosexuality is “natural”. I say again, you have no scientific basis for this. So you have as much scientific proof as I do and yet you hint that I am somehow insensitive, and conclude outright that I am wrong. How does that work? In other words, how do you know that I am wrong?

I make a point that innate homosexuality does not fit with Darwinian evolution. You guys say you know people who are gay and they tell you that it’s innate, and that I’m prejudiced. I’m making a scientific argument, you are making an emotional one.

We all know people who are gay and we all treat them with respect, as we would anyone else who is deserving of respectful treatment. So let’s get that out of the way and return to actual debate.

So I’d like to know how you guys reconcile Darwinian natural selection with innate homosexuality. If this is something genetic, how does it survive generation to generation? If you can’t answer that question then you don’t have much basis to outright conclude that I am wrong, that I am prejudiced, or that I have no basis for theorizing that it is environmentally influenced, except of course for your own prejudices.

And if you think you can draw a medical equivalent between homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior, then I would assume none of you have actually spoken to your doctor about it. Simple question, doc. What’s riskier, anal intercourse or vaginal intercourse?

Allison, all of my patients are treated with utmost respect and dignity. I disagree with alcohol abuse, smoking, binge eating, and illegal drug use. But my personal thoughts never interfere with helping these people with their medical conditions. I am a professional.

But let’s flip the coin. Considering the scientific evidence, there is nothing that indicates I am right or wrong, or that you all are right or wrong. Because of that, I feel we should approach with caution and not be hasty in conclusions. It’s all based on personal opinion. What if I’m right? What if gay people DO have a psychiatric condition that should be treated? Are we not doing them a disservice by concluding – without reason or evidence – that no such condition exists? That treatment of any kind is not warranted because their psychiatry is “natural”? Be careful before you criticize me, because I don’t think I’m the one being insensitive here.

Dan Trabue said...

And it is no longer considered a mental disorder because it is politically incorrect to consider it so.

And I will note once again that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder because it simply does not fit the definition of a mental disorder. There is NO disorder in homosexuality and for that reason, they ended years of considering it a disorder based upon biases and emotions, since scientifically and definitionally, it is not a disorder.

I make a point that innate homosexuality does not fit with Darwinian evolution.

There are many human behaviors that aren't explained by Darwinian evolution. That does not mean that homosexuality is not innate. This is not a logical argument you're making.

Let's look at actual evidence: We have an orientation (homosexual or heterosexual). That orientation for most of us is innate. There is not anything that anyone can do to me to "turn me" gay. That is legitimate, first hand evidence. Ask a million people that question and you will get something near 100% consistent answers: NO, I can't change my orientation. Do you doubt this evidence to be true?

allison said...

My argument is not emotional, it is logical. I make the exact point and pose the same question as Dan. Could YOU make the choice to start living a homosexual lifestyle? Would you put yourself in a position to be discriminated against and possibly be put in danger just for the fun of it?

John Washburn said...

And there is nothing that someone can do to me to make me deathly afraid of spiders, yet there are many people with this specific phobia. Were they born that way? Or was there an environmental influence along the way that preconditioned them with this fear?

Our particular environment has a major influence on our personal psyche. Whether you’re talking about mood, fears, joys, personality and cognition, the way we think is influenced by what he have experienced, particularly while our brains are developing early in childhood. How can we possibly say that sexual orientation can’t also be influenced by our environment?

Your argument is that you are innately attracted to the opposite sex, therefore someone who is not must have the same innate programming with an attraction to the same sex; and you discount any possibility that we are not born with a specific sexual orientation and some people endure some atypical environmental influences that can lead to homosexual orientation. The only evidence shaping your opinion is first-hand. Of course you can’t change your sexual orientation because, chances are, you haven’t endured the environmental influences that could lead to such a change. And if you endured them now your brain and personality is mature and resilient enough to overcome such difficulties. An immature, developing brain is much different. You can’t change your sexual orientation no more than I can change my perception of spiders. But it would be foolish of me to say that I am not deathly afraid of spiders, therefore anyone who is must have been born that way and it should be considered a normal human behavior, unworthy of treatment.

Yes there are many human behaviors that can’t be explained by Darwinian evolution, but we’re not talking about behavior. We’re talking about what you consider an inborn mechanism – sexual orientation. By definition, inborn implies something genetic, something found in our genetic code. If there is a portion of the genetic code that translates into homosexual orientation then how can such a gene or group of genes survive millions of years of evolution if it can’t survive even one generation?

And what about people who underwent psychiatric counseling and changed their sexual orientation, essentially “becoming” heterosexual? I know what the gay community says…that those people weren’t really gay to begin with. How does that work? If we’re talking about an inborn process that can’t be changed, then how can we say some people are really gay and some are only somewhat gay with the potential to not be gay anymore, while others have sex with both men and women, and still others have sex with animals?

Dan Trabue said...

John said:

changed their sexual orientation, essentially “becoming” heterosexual? I know what the gay community says…that those people weren’t really gay to begin with.

Actually, I have never heard anyone make that argument. Rather, the argument I hear is that they are rigidly forcing themselves to "be straight" when they aren't really, which simply isn't healthy (any healthier than it would be for me to try to force myself to "be gay"). People sometimes do this when there is significant cultural pressure (typically religious) pressure to NOT be gay, but it's not an especially healthy approach, it seems to many of us.

At any rate, that is the argument that "our" side tends to offer in response to these cross-overs. That, and the acknowledgment that there is an even smaller minority of folk who are bisexual and that could explain why some people can report happiness in switching teams.

John Washburn said...

So is bisexuality inborn as well? And if so, shouldn't the percentage of bisexuals be significantly higher than strict homosexuals, given the higher likelihood of genetic survival?

John Washburn said...

So those people who “switch teams” for religious or other reasons are simply denying their inner desires. And you feel this is unhealthy?

This would no doubt take the discussion to a completely new level.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, self-loathing is unhealthy. Spiritually, societally, physically.

You disagree?

allison said...

If it is all then environmental, why do you then assume that being of heterosexual orientation is the "normal" way to be, and that being homosexual is so horribly wrong? If we are all influenced to be one way or the other, you must then have some outside reason for why you disagree with homosexuality. Religion, maybe?

John Washburn said...

Horribly wrong? Your words, not mine.

And I suppose I could assume that homosexuality is "normal" and heterosexuals are the aberrant ones. Then again, I'd have to toss Darwin's ideas out. If homosexuality were the norm, the species simply wouldn't exist.

And I never said that I "disagree with homosexuality". Good grief! My point was that I opposed gay marriage because marriage is not a right, it is a cultural tradition to be defined by the people. I believe homosexual behavior is bad for your health, so as a doctor I would recommend against it.

Anonymous said...

John et al.

I tried to post a comment about midway but it never made it.

So far as marriage is concerned, I think veryone misssed the boat. Although I am no legal scholar, the evolution of law in Anglo-American Jurisprudence can be tied to property rights. From the Magna Carta to teh tax code.

The issue is simply whether certain property rights and government entitlements should vest in same sex couples.

TLGK