I don't know if "taking responsibility" requires one to change his behavior. But that's exactly what Christian repentance is about. Not always achieved - I confess some of the same sins nearly every week. If a person doesn't believe his behavior is wrong (whatever moral code he's using) then he needn't change. But the stress between people's actions and their beliefs is a strong engine for change.

It's called "guilt." A lot of people seem to me to believe strongly that they should overcome guilt without changing their behavior. Fine for them, but what they're actually doing is modifying their moral code instead.

I'd like to open up the comments by saying that I am in a monogamous relationship, and for the twenty years that I've been in relationships, I've always been faithful. I've had plenty of extremely enjoyable, safe, consensual casual sex, and I've never had an STD more serious than pubic lice (which, for those of you who are easily grossed out, do not restrict themselves to the pubic area when you're hairy and it's hot outside). I am HIV-negative, though at least three of my former boyfriends are now dead from AIDS-related complications. Whenever I've committed myself to someone, I've been committed to them, fully and without reservation.

I would like to get married. To a man. I realize that this is an impossibility in the minds of many people, but it is a distinct possibility in my mind, in the minds of my friends and acquaintences, and in the minds of my family. I would be an excellent husband, if I were able to choose who I would be a husband to.

Having read Nathan's article, you would think there would be a lot of common ground, many areas where he and I agree. Superficially, I'd say that's more or less true.

However, there is a single idea -- an assumption, really -- inherent in his article that I feel undermines all of his good intentions. His assumption is that homosexuals will, by default, behave in an immoral fashion without scrutiny from the heterosexual world. To wit:

"If 50% of [100,000 homosexual partners] could provide reasonable proof that homosexuals are capable of [staying committed] under mild scrutiny for 50 years (and remember, 50% of heterosexual couples achieve it even without being under scrutiny), homosexuals would win the rights to homosexual marriage for all time, without argument."

First of all, I have studied heterosexual behavior for most of my life, being surrounded by them as I am, and while 50% of heterosexual couples may stay committed (i.e., not divorcing), I would not describe the Faithful Fifty's behavior as morally pure. Affairs happen, flirting happens, innuendoes happen, and the only thing stopping these things from happening more often is *scrutiny*, the very thing Nathan claims heterosexuals don't need.

Second of all, there *are* gay organizations that advocate for gay marriage, for fidelity, and for strong relationships. The fact that he isn't aware of them invalidates neither their existence nor the existence of people like myself, who value monogamy, intimacy and family life. In addition, there *are* gay organizations, like Gay Men's Health Crisis and thousands of AIDS organizations nation-wide, that advocate against casual unprotected sex, that help people find counseling to help them break destructive patterns of behavior (sex and drug addiction, et al.), and that warn against the dangers of the "circuit" and other hedonistic gay venues.

Third, I have to wonder how Nathan would implement this "scrutiny" he's speaking of. How do you scrutinize a relationship? How do you prove that fidelity and monogamy are happening, or that the participants in a relationship are adhering to whatever moral code Nathan feels is appropriate? Will we wear ankle bracelets that beep whenever we stray too close to the ankle bracelet of a man/woman who is not our spouse? Will be receive random phone calls? Will he personall come over and look for excessive personal lubricant and sex toys? Will they use DNA-swabbing?

Nathan's actually right: if homosexual couples can prove that their relationships are stable and loving and faithful, we *will* get marriage rights. And if you look at national polls, over 40% of Americans seem to feel that it's been proven to them. Either they believe us, or they've witnessed a stable homosexual relationship firsthand. Matt and I are hardly the only ones. But it seems that it hasn't been proven to Nathan, because we haven't sufficiently demonstrated our adherence to his traditional moral code, which he believes is the right code for all people in all times. I seriously doubt that this will ever be proven to him -- nor should it be, as he has no more moral authority over others than I do or than anyone does.

I am confused when people say that homosexuals must take responsibility for their actions. Last time I checked, nobody but me took the hit for my failed relationships. Nobody but me took the hit for an unwise sexual choice. Last time I checked, taking responsibility for AIDS means *suffering* and *dying* (modern HIV medications are not the walk in the park some people believe they are). I'm not sure what further responsibility Nathan is asking us to take.

Point blank, we already take responsibility for our lives. The fact that some of us may live them in a manner with which Nathan disagrees is unfortunate for Nathan. But before he goes any further into exactly why and how we homosexuals must adhere to and publicly demonstrate our adherence to his moral code, perhaps he would like to explore the heterosexual world of wife-swapping, which boasts more heterosexual participants than the gay circuit parties, bath houses, women's festivals and anonymous cruising parks combined.

I know that Nathan feels that what he is proposing is a good thing -- that his morality is a positive, healing, uplifting thing that all gay and lesbian Americans -- all people of the world, in fact -- would do well to consider and emulate. I understand that as an individual, Nathan's attitudes toward homosexuality are based on his perception of our cultural behaviors, which are complex and rooted in history that I think Nathan misunderstands. Clearly, he's trying to build bridges and to begin a dialogue, yet there is a part of me that hears just another straight person telling me what to do.

I *have* a personal moral code. I'm not in the market for one. It resembles Nathan's in many ways, but it is not Nathan's, and I am not interested in demonstrating my sexual mores to anyone but the one person whose has a stake in them: Matt.

Answering a simple question: there is no such thing as a specifically-homosexual morality. Our moral and religious codes, as well as our political affiliations, very wildly. There are politically-conservative, devoutly Christian gay people, politically liberal, devoutly Wiccan gay people, politically-neuutral atheist gay people, and an infinite array of other beliefs and political affiliations.

And "bug-chasers"? Such a tiny minority that "fringe" isn't even an accurate word for it. Stack up the number of heterosexual herpes sufferers and there isn't even a comparison.

The promiscuity and licentiousness of some gay men is merely part of our culture -- many of us don't participate in it. I'm partially bored by it, partially disgusted by it. There simply is no such thing as "gay" morality.

I'd like to answer a few of Nathan's points:

Homosexuals have "bug-chasers".
Heterosexuals also engage in self-destructive behavior. Would you call wife beating a heterosexual problem? What about anorexia/bulemia, as it's encouraged by the media image of what (straight) men want (straight) women to look like?

Homosexuals demand US society fund a cure for HIV/AIDS.

And people also demand US society fund a cure for cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, West Nile disease and a thousand other ailments. And the reason we do it is both because of compassion and because it's in societies interest to keep people healthy.

Homosexuals demand legal marriage rights. Homosexuals demand full integration into every aspect of society.

Why shouldn't they be integrated into every aspect of society? How is it renouncing responsibility or morality to ask this?

But where is the homosexual version of "Promise Keepers"? Is there any movement within the male homosexual population to swear to do everything in their power to prevent the spread of HIV? Is there any movement within the homosexual population to promote the values of lifetime exclusive monogamy and fidelity?

Why must such a group spring up? My morality is my own, not a product of my sexual orientation, my race, or any organizations I might join.

I reject the concept of group morality. I can join a moral organization and still go home and behave like an utter ass. This isn't to say that such groups don't do good things. But what about all the people out there who are perfectly capable of living moral lives on their own, without organizing or joining with others? Maybe given the choice between spending the day at a "Be a Good Gay" rally, they'd rather spend time with their family. You know, living morality.

Isn't it wrong to punish all gays for the immoral behavior of a few?

John Kusch,

Thing is, to a believer there is no such thing as a personal moral code; there is a moral code, and a person either obeys it, or doesn't. While arguments may be made around the edges of this moral code, the core of it remains unchanged - fidelity to one's vows being something that all moral codes enjoin.

People fail to live up to the moral code even when they are specifically trying to do so. I have, on many occasions. When I fail, I pick myself up, dust myself off, and try again; I don't try to rationalise my failure - I don't, in short, create a personal moral code which psychologically gets me off the hook for my failure to adhere to the actual moral code.

Is it possible for a homosexual, engaged in a homosexual relationship, to adhere to the moral code? Not according to my Catholic theology - this being because homosexual sex is cut off from what is called the gift of life - ie, no children can even possibly issue from homosexual sex. Sterile men and women are ok to marry because it does not negate the very concept of what sexual activity is for - ie, the joining of men and women open to the gift of life so that we may continue to exist as a species.

Of course, Catholic theology is not to be the law of the land and so we turn to the question of can homosexuals, engaged in homosexual relationships, be fitted into the more secular version of this moral code? Translated into secular terms, the moral code vis a vis sexual activity recognises that stable families are necessary for the raising of children and the transmission of property. While making no claim to enjoin or prohibit any particular type of sexual activity, it does presume that while part of a marriage relationship, sexual activity will only be engaged in with the other partner to the marriage. Given this, there is no inherent bar in the secular part of the overall moral code to the permanent joining in marriage of two homosexuals. The only thing left to argue about is intent and likely result.

What is the intent of the people who advocate gay marriage? What is the likely result of legalised gay marriage? If the intent is to strengthen marriage and if the result is to actually have stronger marriages and families, then lets legalise gay marriage last week. If the intent and result is otherwise, then it would be in violation of even the most secular reading of the moral code and thus must be disallowed.

What Nathan seems to be saying is that unless and until the homosexual community adheres to the moral code, then gay marriage is nothing but nonsense - a granting of a patina of moral legitimacy to that which is illegitimate and, indeed, ultimately destructive of that to be partaken in. It'd be like admitting an athiest's club into the Church...points for being broad-minded, but not really in the best interests of the Church, right?

John:

Nathan is suggesting that there should be a "gay" morality. I believe that he is attempting to get people to admit that sexual behavior is a choice. And by admiting it begins the path to morality.

I think he is looking for is an admission that gay people choose to have sex with members of the same sex.

The act of having sex is a choice. We can all choose to abstain. I won't. But I admit that I choose to have sex.

So, let's all take responsibility and say yes we choose to have sex with the member of humanity that gets our hormones raging.

Is that all it takes?

I had begun to think that this subject had jumped the shark. We've made runs at it several times. And yet, maybe I'm wrong. Every time we've made a run at it, things have gotten a little less fierce, a little more conciliatory. I find that healthy.

I will acknowledge Nathan's points with a couple of points of my own:

First, I am not a believer, am not a Christian. I like to use the noun "a bright" for myself mostly because I think it's silly and funny but also convenient: I'm not a strict atheist, I'm not a wishy-washy agnostic, and I have specific areas of disagreement with the Secular Humanist and Freethinker credos (these are specific movements with specific creeds and manifestos of their own that I dissent from). The best term for me, really, is a naturalist skeptic, but "naturalist" also gives some people offense and "skeptic" just annoys people. Whatever. I stand as an apostate from Christianity, hold no specific credo, and leave it at that.

Nevertheless, as a non-believer I freely admit one thing to the supernaturalists: the great benefit of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a few of the other great world religions is that they have a specific moral code which can be consulted and debated. And, while most such scriptural sources can be debated, at some level they all have a certain level at which most people have to agree: "this says what it says, and there's no worming around it."

Indeed, if you look at history, one of the more liberating moments for humanity was when the law was first written down (and most early law was religious). Thus we went from rule purely by strongmen, to rule by law. The lowliest peasant could point out the law to the mightiest King, and the King could often (not always, but often) be made to agree. Having a moral code, a moral source, outside of everyday human authority, is incredibly important.

For the non-theist, having no moral code that is above and beyond his own individual conscience, the constant challenge is to define what is moral and what's not--and the constant temptation is to rationalize. I can lie if the lie seems harmless, I can steal as long as I think no one is really hurt. At the most extreme level, I can kill someone who I am certain deserves it.

This is especially challenging for non-believers when it comes to instilling values in their children.

Of course, religious believers sometimes don't know their own scriptures, and sometimes distort them or argue about them. But my experience is that most believers have a deeper rootedness to their views of right and wrong, and I respect that.

I also note, as I have many times before, that if we look at the last century, the regimes that most fiercely rejected the traditional religious values of their culture did not exactly do atheism proud. Nazi Germany, which used Christian symbols but was an overt attempt to subvert Judeo-Christian values with a sort of neo-Pagan mythology, was a horror. All Communist regimes have been officially atheist. The results were never pretty.

I don't claim to have easy answers for what the source of my morality is, other than "enlightened self-interest" and the pragmatic values that I know lead to my ability to raise a family, take care of people I care about, and help create the next generation. That's as far as I can go. I do my best.

Since I have people I love and admire who are non-Christians, I will constantly have personal issues with Christians who think everyone's going to hell who doesn't accept Christ. That said? My experience is that, despite the bloviating diehards, most Christians are really trying very hard to be decent and loving people, and most of them really do mean it when they say "love the sinner and hate the sin."

As I've begun to say lately, I'm fine with that. It used to make me angry, but now I just say, "love the believer and hate the belief," and I let it go at that. ;-)

So that said: if Christians will do a better job of admitting that they themselves are all sinners, that they all sin regularly and they all regret that, and will affirm that they have no right to force people to accept their faith, and aks only that they be allowed to raise their children as they choose and to be allowed to preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, I have no problem with them.

But we've got to have a society where people who aren't overtly harming others are allowed to live in peace and reasonable respect.

I love all sinners, and hate only my own sins. But that takes too long to say ;)

B

I forgot to mention, but it is true, that I also love and admire many Christians.

It would be easier if I didn't. Then I could just be mad and stay mad at you. Darn it, stop being so fundamentally decent so much of the time!

You've mentioned that many times, Dean. If it helps any, I kicked my cat yesterday. I'm truly sorry and I humbly repent, but I did do it.

Rosemary, I think I can agree with you that sex, the act, is a choice. But sexual orientation is not. We can't choose who we are attracted to. If I were celibate, I'd still be heterosexual. Sexuality is built into our psyche, not our genitals.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by asking for gays to admit that they could choose to have sex with someone they weren't attracted to. Is that a healthy act, for either the gay person or the theoretical opposite sex partner?

I think it's entirely appropriate for the gay person to say, "Yes, I could certainly put tab A into slot B. I am capable of that. It just makes me miserable, it's not what I want. Just like you could force yourself to eat food you don't like. You could. But why would you want to?"

"Because God says you shouldn't."

"Okay, well, I've looked into it, and I don't believe that. Now, will you please let me alone?"

"But your immortal soul is in danger."

"Okay. My soul. Now will you leave me alone?"

"I don't want you teaching my children to do what you do."

"You know, I have no interest in that, and I really don't think I can. Is that our only hangup here?"

"Well yeah, I guess it is."

Seems to me like that's how the conversation should go. I think a lot of arguing past that point either gets into stuff people are never going to agree on and ought to just agree to disagree on--politely, and with decency.

It's when you get into this nonsense about putting people in jail and treating them like garbage that we get into trouble. Fortunately, almost all the states quietly got rid of their sodomy laws over the last 20 years, and the Supreme Court finally got rid of the remaining dozen or so (which were mostly unenforced anyway). So now that's more or less moot--although the tendency of the courts to throw out laws in this fashion sometimes scares me, for the potential of a backlash is always there, I don't see it happening this time.

So what more need be said? There's a disagreement over what constitutes sexual morality. One side says that scriptures that are thousands of years old say it's not right. Another says they feel no obligation to follow those scriptures.

You know, wouldn't the moral position just be "live and let live" at that point? I would think it incumbent upon the Christian to acknowledge that, once he's given his witness, his testimony to his faith, that really should be it, shouldn't it? No further harassment for people who say they aren't interested. Shouldn't it end there?

I mean, seriously, shouldn't it?

Dean,

Many of us Christians don't believe that all homosexuals will live and let live. When the public schools teach that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, that isn't live and let live. This is happening now in California and New Jersey. For the record, I don't think either you or John Kusch wants the public schools to violate Christians's First Amendment rights this way, but many (maybe even most) homosexuals do.

I am becoming more and more convinced that public schools cannot help but violate the first amendment. All instruction of children is a religious act. Secular instruction teaches atheism, not overtly, but via an overwhelming subliminal message. Every religion demands that its followers immerse themselves completely in it. How can we accept sending our kids to a place where religion is excluded? I am not advocating that atheists be forced into religious education, but that theists be freed from secular eduction.

BTW, my money is where my mouth is on this issue. We home-school.

Yours,
Wince

I think one of the key things that Nathan said is about his belief(which I share) that the moral code presented by God is for our benefit in the sense that it provides for the best life, avoiding harm. It is not about our eternal destination, which Christianity teaches is not about our actions(apart from the one of accepting Christ). It is for our own benefit.

The moral code presented in the Bible defines the way to live the best and most successful life. While I agree that many would disagree with that view, I believe it to be true and I believe that there is ample evidence to support that claim(though it is admittedly difficult when you are attempting to support a clamin about something as subjective as a good life).

I believe that sinful behavior is self-destrucive and it pains me to see people pursue it. That is where my desire to "impose my morality" comes from, a desire to help people find a better way to live. It is not about being perfect, not about being "better", not about "good" and not about "evil" for me. It is simply that I believe that God's plan as defined though the Bible and the teachings of Christ is the one that provides the best life that one can have.

I do not view people who fail to follow Christ with contempt. I do not feel superior to them. I am doing the same thing that they are, trying to live my life in a way that makes it better for me. I do, however, believe that they are on the wrong path, and I do have the desire to help them.

Take, as na imperfect example, drug addiction. Most people who use drugs are doing it to enhance their lives. Some by gaining a thrill, some by numbing pain, some for other reasons. I think that most of can agree that it is a very self-destructive behavior that ultimately makes their lives worse, and not better(at least in the case of the more hard core drugs). Most addicts, however, do not want help do not recognize their destructive behavior and continue on that path because it is the best one they can see. This doesn't make them evil or bad people, it doesn't make them less. In my mind, it makes them deceived. They have been led to believe that they are pursuing the best life they can. Certainly some of them would agree it's not the best life that someone can have, but most feel that it is the best they can have.

I see all sinful behavior in much the same way. Some of it less extreme, of course. I believe that it all offers a false hope of making life better in one way or another and that it all causes harm instead.

It is from that perspective that I try to "impose my morality on people". In the same way that drug treatment centers attempt to "impose their morality" on addicts.

Of course, I also recognize that you do not change people who do not want change. I don't wish to force people to follow what I believe to be true. I don't wish to pass laws which attempt to coherce them to follow my views. I do, however, try to share the truth with people. I help those who are willing to accept it.

You may certainly question my beliefs. You may think I am wrong, or misguided or foolish. I have certainly been all 3 at different times in my life. However my intentions are not to make people feel guitly or inferior. It is not my desire to condemn or reject. My desire is to help and protect. I know that is not true for all people who claim to follow Christ. There are many of us, however, who feel the way I do.

Wince,

I doubt you'll get much argument from Dean about the education issue - from what I've read of him, he'd be entirely in favor of allowing religious parents to opt-out of public education via school choice.

But you are correct when you identify part of the problem being that its no longer a "live and let live" argument. That argument was engaged in and won overwhelmingly by the gay rights people - there is nothing in morality, properly understood, which compells us to interfere with the private sexual acts of consenting adults. But we all know that there's more to the issue of gay rights, and its main current these days, gay marriage.

I first came across this particular problem when I was living in Los Angeles when "Project 10" got underway - so-called because it was a project to assist that putative 10% of the public school population supposedly gay (even if they didn't know it, apparantly); the 10% figure based upon the quack-study known as the Kinsley Report which held that 10% of the population is gay. The public face of Project 10 was to increase tolerance of homosexuals, especially younger homosexuals - the practical results of Project 10 was to instruct kids, in defiance of their parents, that homosexual sex is the moral equivalent of heterosexual sex...this should have appalled everyone, even those who thought the basic concept correct, because it was a gross interference in the right of parents to provide uncontested moral instruction to their children.

This all, by the way, is why the Catholic Church was so long ago opposed to the initial establishment of public schools - initially, they were conceived as a vehicle for Protestant indoctrination (to keep people away from those wicked Papists, don't ya know?) and the Catholic Church, naturally, wasn't too keen about the tax dollars of Catholic parents being used to undermine Catholic instruction in Catholic youth...but the problem holds true even today; today, of course, schools are vehicles for secularist indoctrination - including, among a host of things, indoctrination in a very particular version of what homosexuality is.

I certainly met in my youth plenty of straight young folks sleeping around who showed no sexual morality whatsoever. But it's only when gay folks do it that it's an issue? I don't think so...

Listen, gay folks are just as capable of stable, lasting and monogamous relationships as straight folks, and there are both gays and straights who have no sense of sexual morality. This is not a sexual-orientation thang, this is a human nature thang. Some people got it and some people don't.

I happen to be a monogamous type and I"m sure I would be if I were straight too. But as I'm not, well....I'd sure like to be able to marry my partner whom I love, beyond measure, and will till the end of my days. Your Church doesn't have to recognize it; after all, Catholics don't recognize divorces and second marriages. It's a civil issue, not a religious one. You can believe what you want in your Church, but youf Church can't dictate civil policy. That's the rule.

As for not wanting it talked about in schools, I'm flummoxed how teaching tolerance of different viewpoints impinges on the first amendment rights of anyone. Seems we all benefit from that.

And finally: there are plenty of gay folks who are good Christians, though some Christians don't believe that. This isn't an either/or situation. It's SOME Christians and SOME gays who seem to mutually demonize one another to everyone's detriment.

Oh no, one MORE finally. Nathan directed his blog to gays of both sexes. There is a laughed-about phenomenon that lesbians are more than likely to develop long-term monogamous relationships than gay men OR straights, and that these relationships are likely to become asexual. It's called "lesbian bed death". Yup, two women who love each other forever but don't have sex any more (fortunately, not a problem that WE have... :-) Would Nathan cosider that sufficiently "moral"?

IT,

Please define for us what 90% of the population would consider "tolerance" and what 90% of the population would not consider one-sided propaganda. Unless you can ensure that what you want to teach in schools passes both those tests, then you get into very rocky ground...insurmountable differences of opinion, actually. Heck, we can't even get agreement on George Washington's place in American history - we're supposed to be able to teach what tolerance is?

Part of the problem with a conservative Christian asking for a "moral homosexuality" is that it seems that he thinks those two things are inherently incompatible, period, so I find it difficult to imagine that he'd accept a moral homosexuality even if it moved in next door to him.

In his book "Skipping Towards Gomorrah", Dan Savage talks about calling a Christian advice hotline and confessing that he feels tempted to cheat on his boyfriend. Instead of trying to talk him out of it, the person on the line said that he was doomed to hell, no matter what he did: cheat on his boyfriend - go to hell; stay in a monogamous gay relationship - go to hell. If so many supposedly thoughtful, concerned Christians are telling gay people that they have a choice between "Evil" and "Evil, but a little more fun", how on earth can you be surprised when so many gay people choose the latter? (And the third choice, celibacy, is just not a viable option for the vast majority of human beings, whether gay or straight.)

Staying in a relationship can be immensely rewarding, but it's also incredibly hard work from time to time. If Nathan says that 50% of heterosexuals manage it "without being under scrutiny", then he's blind. There's a lot of scrutiny and positive external pressures applied to straight marriages - from family hints to get married applied to seriously dating couples; to social disapproval of divorce from family, friends and church; to the legal complications involved in divorce. Despite all these pressures, 50% of staight marriages still fail. Generally, gay couples are under few if any of these pressures. Given that, it's surprising that gay relationships last at all!

Opponents of gay rights often defend themselves by saying that they disapprove of adultery just as much as they disapprove of homosexuality. So where does that leave homosexual adultery? If just being actively gay is as bad as adultery - if gay partnerships are contrary to God's plan and deserve to be discouraged, then how could it possibly be worse to throw in a little "adultery" (in quotes of course, since marriage is forbidden) on top of being gay?

It's a circular problem: social conservatives say that homosexuality inherently banishes you to the fringes of society; and then they turn around and say this attitude is justified because, look! they act as if they're the fringes of society!

If you really want to see a moral homosexuality, you have to make room for it. If you tell someone they're an inherent, unrepentant sinner and they believe it, then guess what, they're going to sin. If you tell people they're scum, a lot of them are going to believe you and go out and act like scum.

Fortunately, there are gay people who do manage to construct an alternative morality where they can be responsible and build lasting relationships; either by adhering to an established religion and sort of squinting and blurring their eyes over the anti-gay bits, or by constructing a more secular values system from scratch. And what's the thanks they get? They're told that they're perverting God's scriptures or that their secular values are arbitrary and fatally relativistic.

It's a no-win situation. You just can't expect a "moral homosexuality" while simultaneously claiming that those two words are contradictory.

Alex,

But unless you can square that circle, you wont get what ya want.

No one said it'd be easy - but, have at it and get back to us when you've got it all worked out. Its not incumbant upon us to modify our beliefs as we are not the people advocating a large change in society - its upon you to prove to a constitutional majority that right is on your side.

Have fun!

I.T. says "This is not a sexual-orientation thang."

Um, yes, it is. As a group, homosexuals are more promiscuous than lesbians or straights (before anyone tries to flame me, note the phrase "as a group"). As a group, they change partners more frequently, and are less faithful -on the average- when compared to lesbians or straights.

This is what worries a lot of conservatives. Oh, yes, there are those conservatives who just can't stand any kind of homosexuality, true, but there are also conservativs who believe that men like John should be afforded the legal opportunity to live regular lives and (in passing) demonstrate that gays are "regular people" too, in their own way.

The problem is that this group is opposed by those who say a leopard won't change his spots, and gays are naturally promiscuous. They point to the statistics of homosexual fidelity and claim gays will never change. Then they quote some of the more radical gay-rights groups who have actually said they want to eliminate marriage as an institution, to justify their opposition.

To me, this carries about much weight as using Pat Robertson quotes to prove that all Republicans are bigots, or Cynthia McKinney quotes to prove that all Democrats are unpatriotic conspiracy nuts.

For now, alas, the "hate all gays" group, added to the "gays are sluts" group, result in a majority of conservative thinking right now. But the good news is that there is a dialog in process.

As usual, the key is determining the key issues while filtering out all the exremist claims from either side.

"I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by asking for gays to admit that they could choose to have sex with someone they weren't attracted to. Is that a healthy act, for either the gay person or the theoretical opposite sex partner?"

I don't think that's what Rosemary wanted to accomplish, it certainly doesn't satisfy my desire. What I'd like to see is for homosexuals to state that they choose to have intercourse with others of the same sex, and that they could choose not too. Not that they will choose not to, not even that they should choose not to, just that they could choose not too.

It's such a blindingly simple thing, but the stock response to arguments against homosexuality is that it isn't a choice. But sex (homo or hetero-sexual) is a choice, even if the preference isn't any more voluntary than somebody's preference for blonds or red-heads would be.

I think marriage is about children, and the argument that homosexuals will be at least as responsible as other groups we allow isn't hard. (think of the 'standard' you have to live up to) However, starting with "but we aren't responsible for who we sleep with" is a really good way to loose the argument quickly.

I find the following two viewpoints incompatible:

1) homosexuality is immoral and undesirable
2) if homosexuality is to occur, homosexuals need to demonstrate that they can conduct their relationships in a moral fashion

Such contradictory messages (from people whose beliefs and/or faith tell them homosexuality is a no-no) are, to a great extent, why gay and lesbian people tend to disregard them and move on to find their own way. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Christians who are members of churches who accept them and affirm their relationships. They have found a faith that works for them, that upholds their basic humanity, and that gives them a bar against which to measure their own imperfection. Then there are people like me, who are strict rationalists when it comes to morality; and while rationalization can occur when the path of reason is chosen, the history of Theology seems to demonstrate that rationalization is rife within religious communities as well.

This argument is not about homosexuality. It's about the right of people to live according to their beliefs, and what happens when belief systems clash in a public sphere. I believe that no one should be silenced in the public arena; yet education is a different animal. What children learn -- who are not adults and who cannot give legal consent -- is of grave importance to their parents and to society at large. If children from different backgrounds are to be allowed to coexist, then some contentious issues must be removed from that sphere: religion, political ideology, sexuality. These are things children must learn about at home. If their parents feel that a certain viewpoint is not being appropriately dealt with, it becomes their own responsibility to teach their children.

If a child has a choice to believe his/her parents and to believe a school, all signs point to the parent as the victor. I went to public school with children who denied evolution, even as we learned it. Upbringing trumps indoctrination.

So in short: if you feel that homosexuality is wrong and don't want your kids to approve of it (which the VAST majority of them don't already), then teach them that it's wrong. But if your child turns out to be gay or lesbian, I wish I believed in God, because then I would pray for someone asked to choose between their faith and their child.

John Kusch,

You are right that the odds favor the parents over the schools. But when it is my kids, I want those odds stacked dramatically in my favor.

If one of my children is both a homosexual and chooses not to treat her condition (I do not accept the prevailing notion that orientation cannot change), I'm sure my wife and I will still love and support her, and I hope we will have taught her sufficient tolerance that she does not reject us.

Yours,
Wince

Shell:

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by asking for gays to admit that they could choose to have sex with someone they weren't attracted to. Is that a healthy act, for either the gay person or the theoretical opposite sex partner?

That isn't what I said. What I said was that I think he is looking for is an admission that gay people choose to have sex with members of the same sex.

He said that taking responsibility is admiting that there is a choice involved in homosexuality. I believe that the only choice is actually having sex or abstaining. Two choices. I'm wondering if the concession is what Nathan and others are looking for.

Wince and Nod...

Well let me just say your idea of what the first ammendment means in regards to education are out there.

Only one problem with your little theory there, is that you seem to be forgetting that not everyone is Christian. In your simplistic little world all kids would be taught Christian values along with math, reading, and writing, and THEN you are correct, we will have trampled all over the first ammendment. Unless, of course, you are ok with also teaching Islam and Judaism, and Wicca, and Buddhism, and well, every other legitimate religion, too.

Sex education is not about morals, per se, it's about knowing the facts. Maybe you are too prudish, yourselves, but heterosexuals happen to practice the exact same sexual activities that homosexuals do, generally.

While I'm sure you assume homosexuality is a choice, I and many others do not. Part of the stigma of homosexuality and some of the cultural, physical, and emotional problems that the gay community suffer from are a direct result of them being told that being gay is NOT ok. To me it is more important that those that ARE gay are accepted and told they are "ok" than a bunch of prude christian's getting all offended that others might actually accept gays for the people they are.

Get over yourself already.

Casey, please.

A lot of conservatives are concerned about the promiscuity - "as a group" - of homosexual men.

What a bunch of crap. They are not "concerned" about it, they are using it as their "excuse du jour" to oppose gay marriage. As if the institution of marriage could possibly be hurt worse than it already is by the heterosexuals that mock it regularly.

Gay men are gay and having gay sex right now as we speak. And if they are allowed to marry, they are still going to. And if they aren't allowed to marry, they are still going to. There's a chance, even ever so slight, that "marriage" might actually be a positive force in their lives. How it would be a negative - AT ALL - is still lost on me.

You know, the practical way in which society is damned by the acceptance of gay marriage?? Haven't heard that one explained yet. Mostly what I hear is - It just will!!!

I think as long as some people are thinking of sex as a discrete physical act and others are thinking of it as a part of our identity, we aren't going to be able to communicate.

I could choose to be celibate. But I could not choose to be asexual. I will still have sexual thoughts, attractions, and dreams. I could choose not to masturbate, but I couldn't choose not to desire. I could choose not to look at porn, but I couldn't choose to have a physical and emotional reaction if something popped up on my computer.

We can't reduce homosexuality to the sex act. Sexuality is part of our identity. It can be repressed. But it can't be removed.

Sherard,

I hope you will either read my post more carefully, or having read it carefully point out where I failed to write it carefully. (Always a possibilty with me, right Dean?)

I do not advocate requiring non-Christian children to be subjected to Christian teachin in the schools. My theory is that public schools are necessarily unconstitutional because they cannot avoid teaching children values to which some set of parents (Wiccans are an excellent example) would rightfully object. Mathematics may be the only subject to which this would not apply. You do have to choose the reading material, don't you?

I am aware that this is at least a dramatic reading of the first amendment.

My policy goals could be summarized as: 1. School choice. 2. Privatization of the public school system. Number 2 is close to politically impossible, but it did work for Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, and it might work piecemeal.

I do not assume a homosexual orientation is a choice. Homosexual behavior is a choice. I also belive that sexual orientation can be deliberately changed because in some cases it has been. It's is quite possible that the change was from homosexuality to bisexuality, but that is a change, right? And would you deny the current cultural trend to celebrate those who change their orientation from heterosexuality to bisexuality? Once someone has changed their orientation from mono to bisexuality, they certainly do have a choice, don't they?

I suspect that we have a lot more choice than many would like to admit, since in all comes down to friction between the various bits, doesn't it?

Yours,
Wince

Let's say that a young boy in school tells his classmate, "My Daddy and my Mommy are married. Daddy likes Mommy."

Let's say the teacher pulls the young boy out of class an admonishes him for talking about sex in class. Let's say he has to write, "I will not say 'married' ever again" 1,000 times. Let's say his parents are notified that their child is using inappropriate language.

Confused? You should be.

Two people being married is a description of their familial bonds. Marriage certainly contains a sexual context, but to say, "My wife and I are married," is not equivalent to, "I stick my penis in her vagina until I ejaculate and boy oh boy, is it great! You should try it!"

In the same vein, to say, "I have two Mommies who like each other," carries exactly *zero* sexual information. You don't know whether the Mommies sleep in the same bed, whether they kiss, whether they engage in cunnilingus, or whether they whip each other to orgasm with leather straps. Describing who your parents are transmits *non-sexual* information.

There is a double standard, where to say, "I have a wife," is a non-sexual statement, but for a man to say, "I have a boyfriend," somehow implies sexual acts. This double standard needs to be explored before common ground can be found in the debate on homosexuality and families.

"I suspect that we have a lot more choice than many would like to admit, since in all comes down to friction between the various bits, doesn't it?"

Wince:

Most gay people acknowledge that there is a choice regarding sexuality: have sex or don't. As far as there being as choice as to *whom* one is attracted to, that is less mutable. Straight guys have sex with other guys in prison, usually as an expression of violent dominance. They get a sexual outlet *and* get to strictly enforce a male pecking order. Are these guys *attracted* to the guys they rape? Not exactly. Would they prefer a woman if one were available? Given the way I see male inmates looking at and speaking to female employees, I can only conclude the answer is YES!

We acknowledge that by having sex, we are making a choice. Our argument is that our choice of gender is not an immoral thing. Which gender one finds attractive isn't a moral issue for us. The way you conduct your sex life certainly is; and the whole point here is that there are many perspectives on what constitutes a "moral" sex life. Most gay people do not presume to regulate the sex lives of others, because we understand how demeaning and embittering it is when people try to regulate ours.

When it comes to sexual conduct, the issue for me is *consent*. If you consent to sexual behavior, the sex is moral. Looking through the lens of consent, it becomes plain why pedophilia and bestiality are wrong: As minors, children cannot consent, and as non-humans, neither can animals. If you can't consent to sex, it can't be moral.

Does this open the door to incest? Not exactly. Can a child consent to sex with a parent? No. With a sibling or cousin? No. Children cannot consent to sex. Can an adult consent to sex with an adult relative? Yes, but our societal taboos against incest are extremely strong, and the siblings and cousins who *want* to screw are already doing it, I assure you. Incest interferes with familial relationships. People know this, and the vast, vast, VAST majority of them behave accordingly.

You might not *like* the sexual decisions people make. You might not want your own children to make such decisions. Yet we live in this world, and as parents, you have to take responsibility for your children. Teach them what you want to teach them. Monitor and control their environment so they are free of influences you think are bad. And when they're adults, hope the lessons stick, because they're going to do what they want to do.

I'm tired of hearing that I need to "take responsibility". No one *can* take responsibility for my sex life but me. I think that people who disagree with homosexuality or homosexual conduct need to take responsibility for their beliefs and take responsibility for their children. They're *your* children. It's *my* sex life. These things are separate, and I do not understand how one could infringe on the other.

John Kusch,

Sounds to me like your consent position is a way for you to frame a moral position, and I commend you for it. From your description of your goals and desires you sound like you are doing exactly what Nathan has requested.

With regards to choice, I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation. I believe this because every homosexual I have ever spoken to and every report I have every read from a homosexual viewpoint said, "I had no choice." But I have also heard former homosexuals testify that they have changed their orientation, and there are plenty of heterosexuals going bi these days, at least if popular culture is to be believed. So I do believe orientation can be changed, and I have evidence outside the Scriptures to support my belief.

Yours,
Wince

Perhaps Nathan is trying to be tolerant, but he is missing the boat: it seems he really believes all homosexual people want to ride a Mardi Gras float naked.

As an experiment, go through the referenced post trying to think like an eighteenth-century slave owner and replace "homosexual" with "black" and "gay" with "n.....". How much did you have to drop? Four sentences? Six? Bear in mind, your attitude is that slaves not only are not moral, but cannot even be taught morality.

Long ago, in a place far away... a group of tribes sharing a religion decided to proclaim homosexuality to be against their principles. These tribes became a nation, the religion had offshoots which became large and powerful, and a ruling that the tribe must expand (to become numerous in warriors for self-defense) without consideration for the individual remained in force.

Some other such dropped by the wayside as the religion(s) actually became powerful enough to defend themselves. We no longer force a man to marry his brother's widow and beget heirs for said brother, or kill a man (Onan) for refusing to do so. While recognizing the possible health problems of eating them, the law of the land no longer proscribes eating shellfish or pork: many people enjoy a cheeseburger without giving a thought to its being contrary to the [intrepreted, or derived from the Bible] teachings of the original religion.

-----------

Can a homosexual be moral? Depends upon whose morals: a Spartan would answer that of course he[/she] can, it is heterosexuals who have a problem. A better question is can a homosexual be ethical - which they certainly can approach as nearly as anyone else.

Wince,

Could you change your orientation?

The idea that some people can change their orientation (and it does go in both directions) doesn't prove that all people can, or that anyone actually should.

I've been reading up on the comments here, and I agree whole-heartedly with what John Kusch and Shell have been trying to say: orientation is not a choice.

Indeed, I believe that preference - the gender of the person you choose to sleep with - is a matter of choice, but I also consider it an egregious sin against the self to deny one's orientation, one's compunction for a person of the same sex, just to fit in with a particular mores.

If heterosexuality were immoral, would we consider it moral upon themselves and society for them to sleep with members of the same sex (despite the gag reflex)?

Just as John uses consent as his fulcrum in judging sexuality, when coupled with mine - truth to the self - then the concepts of pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia do not belong under the same tent as homosexuality... while incest between adult relatives may very well be.

Alex,

But unless you can square that circle, you wont get what ya want.

No one said it'd be easy - but, have at it and get back to us when you've got it all worked out.

But, as I said, many gay people have built themselves a system of morality - you just refuse to see it.

For example, the Metropolitan Community Church (which is generally quite conservative in every way except with respect to homosexuality) has grown from five members in 1968 to over 40,000 today; and gay people are increasingly involved in mainstream denominations as well. Even the push for gay marriage is a sign of a gay morality - gay people are actually asking to have their monogamous relationships recognized, despite the fact that divorce laws will make those relationships more difficult to dissolve. If being gay was all about skipping merrily from partner to partner, then why on earth would gay people want to be married?

It's not gay people who are having trouble squaring the circle, it's anti-gay people who aren't acknowledging that it's happening and who aren't encouraging it to continue.

I left a comment on another blog but I think it fits with what we are saying here.

I think that one of the biggest problems facing homosexuality is bad PR. Movies, T.V. shows, talk shows and even pro-gay rallies are always showing the “slutty gay man” and it is seen as typical.

Thankfully, times are changing. Gay advocates would do well if they were seen condemning such behavior, as well that portrayal.

Too many people, that don’t know better, believe what they see. If all they see is promiscuous gay behavior they will never come around.

Rosemary, thanks for the comment. I usually comment first via TB and then jump in. Your point is truly relevant. For many the morality towards homosexuality is "live and let live" but when bad PR gets in the way everyone gets hurt in the process.

Shell,

Yes, I could change my orientation. It might take some time to go from heterosexual to homosexual, but bisexual wouldn't be too hard. I think it would be a sin for me to do so.

I do not want to use the power of law to force any human being to change their sexual orientation or their behavior (among consenting adults). At the same time, I don't want people to categorically deny that they can change. I want folks to allow themselves the opportunity to change, without prejudging their own efforts. I know a lot of homosexuals have wished they were heterosexual, because it is easier, or to please their parents, or to have their own children, or even to please God. I believe they should be allowed to make that change if they can.

Yours,
Wince

The following text copied from this post:
Interestingly, people seem to be taking different messages from what I wrote. Does that mean I'm a horrible writer, so that despite all I wrote, nobody can understand it? Does that mean I'm a great writer, that everyone sees different interesting points that speak to them? Or does it just mean I'm a wordy bastard, and the more I say the more there is for people to read into it?

I'm not going to answer any of the questions/comments individually. The answers are already in the posts linked on my left sidebar. The reason for all the posts is that every time I get in a discussion regarding homosexuality, I end up having to explain all the assumptions and evidence that led me to the conclusions I'm using in the conversation. It is tiresome to explain over and over again to all comers exactly why I consider homosexuality an unfortunate and tragic choice. It is even more tiresome when the only response I get is "I reject your conclusions" without providing any evidence to sway me from them, as if really, really believing they are right should change my mind.

The general answer is:
Morality is not imposed from God, nor is it malleable and dependent on culture or preference. Morality is an unresearched science, in which all actions have consequences, for good or ill. The difficulty in undertanding morality is that the consequences don't always appear immediately, and so some people aren't able to connect the consequence with the action(s) that brought it about. What we call "morality" is simply the collection of our understanding of "rules" to achieve peace, health, and happiness for everyone.

Imagine one button and one light. It is easy to see that pressing the button turns on the light. Now imagine 100 buttons and 1000 lights, and a variable delay between pressing combinations of buttons and getting combinations of lights to illuminate. That's morality, and that's why it is nearly impossible to learn how to achieve peace, health, and happiness in just one lifetime, and certainly not just by age 30.

And so we have "morality", which is the combined wisdom of ages telling us how humans work best together.

Some, like lying, are fairly easy to understand...but some people don't learn for years that if you lie, it will come to hurt you and society in the end. People also understand very rapidly that murder is bad, as well. It might be nice for you to murder someone who betrayed you, but what happens when someone murders your parent or loved one or child? So we all agree that murder is wrong.

Unfortunately, the more abstract the rule, the harder it is to see how it came about, and the more certain stubborn people will insist it shouldn't be a rule. Profanity has a bad effect on the person using it and the company it is used in, but the effect is subtle enough that some people never notice. Whether they notice or not is immaterial, the harmful effect is there nonetheless. But the proper way to deal with it is not law, but standards.

So in our modern "enlightened" society, many people refuse to accept that it is possible for certain sexual actions to be harmful to them and society. Again, their refusal doesn't make it any less harmful. What I'm trying to do is point out the harmful effects.

I'll repeat one more time: extremely high correlation between homosexuality and substance abuse, addictive personalities, HIV/AIDS, suicide, depression; an extremely high correlation between children undergoing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse becoming homosexuals or extremely promiscuous heterosexuals.

So. So? So I've already explained myself multiple times.

If you disagree with my conclusions, you have three choices:
1) refuse to accept my conclusions and live your life, i.e., denial
2) challenge the assumptions, i.e., find a preponderance of credible evidence that homosexuality does not have these high correlations with these negative aspects.
3) challenge the logic, i.e., admit there is a high correlation, but that there are other compelling reasons for those negative aspects.

So far, the overwhelming response is #1.

No one has even tried to attempt #2, perhaps because it isn't out there. On the other hand, if you don't accept the evidence that is there because it isn't "proof", that's the same thing as denial, because most things about human psychology cannot be proven. A high correlation is usually the best we can hope for, and what it shows is that there is an undeterminable connection. For instance, we can't prove what causes ADD or AD/HD, but that doesn't stop us from medicating the heck out of our boys, does it?

#3 would probably be the best response, and that's what I'm asking for when I ask for a "homosexual Promise Keepers" movement that is more than just a miniscule fraction. That's what I'm asking for when I ask for someone to convince me that homosexual marriage can bring about moral homosexuality. I would love for someone to make good arguments that they recognize the correlations, but they can be overcome, "and here's how and why". Unfortunately, when I ask for such arguments, I generally encounter indignation that I even dare ask such a thing. Which is just another form of #1's denial, and just increases my conviction that my assessment is correct.

But in the end, what I think and what you think is largely immaterial. I'm either right about morality, or I'm not. I'm either correct that homosexuality is generally incompatible with morality, or I'm not. I'm past trying to convince anyone anymore.

But neither am I going to just give up and let homosexual advocates freely erode our standards. If they have the right to advocate their views, I have the right to advocate mine. And the logic and evidence are there on my sidebar for anyone to investigate. Where's your evidence?

Time will tell. But I'm not willing to blithely stand by and allow what I dread will be a disaster for 4-6% of our population. I'm not going to advocate criminalization, either, tho.

Nathan, you don't seem to want to admit that some of us ARE moral homosexuals even by your terms (cept the fact we actually ARE gay), and live healthy, decent, monogamous lives. Heck, SOME of us are even preachers and there's at least ONE Bishop I know of, who sounds like a great guy....

As for the high correlation with substance abuse and promiscuity: yup, it happens. First,you write as though you think it's everyone. It's not. It's not even the majority. Lots of us are posting here and we're all advocating a conservative view, that recongizing our partnerships stabilizes our families and thus society. We aren't druggy loonies.

Second, you are ignoring causality. Seems to me if a bunch of self-righteous self-appointed moralists keep telling gay kids that being gay is evil incarnate and leads straight to hell, that they have to live their life in poisonous secrecy because the so-called moralists hate them, that their love is nasty and dirty (LOVE! the most amazing gift one human can give another--and I'm not talking sex, I'm talking LOVE!) they might start to believe it. I think if you look at any children who are rejected, demonized, and excoriated, whether gay or straight, you will find high rates of drugs and sex. Those are self-destructive behaviors of people who feel lost and abandoned and cast out. And whose fault is that???

As a group, homosexuals are more promiscuous than lesbians or straights

As a group, men are more promiscuous than women, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let men get married, or that they should "prove" that they are capable of adhering to a moral code before we let them do so.

The idea of a separate morality for homosexuals strikes me as absurd as a separate morality for those who are attracted to red-heads. I believe there are certain absolute values, a hierarchy of values, of which (yes, thank you, OF Jay) truth to self is the keystone. I believe that sex is a sacred expression of love between two consenting adults, body and soul, and that sex is at its highest in a committed, monogamous relationship. I have heard all the arguments against homosexuality and I have not yet heard the one that came close to convincing me that homosexuality is wrong.

1. Whether homosexuals are 10% or 1% of the population is utterly irrelevant. I know of one other minority that is also only about 1%, and has had a similar history. If you get tired of me bringing it up, tough, I get tired of having to. If the comparison offends you, tough, because I'm offended by the implication that because a minority is tiny and has less political clout, its members therefore have less rights.

2. Whether homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. I don't remember the day I chose to be attracted to women, and I'll burn in Hell before I ever condemn a woman for falling in love with a woman -- and, therefore, by analogy, I refuse to condemn a man for falling in love with another man. I'm absolutely opposed to this whole idea of _changing_ homosexuals into heterosexuals or bisexuals. It sounds like Communist brainwashing to me. I'm conservative. I oppose change unless it's proven to be a change for the better. And I don't buy this notion that we're all bisexual. It's not a flip of the coin. The sexes are different, male and female, and you're predominantly attracted to one or the other, androsexual or gynosexual.

3. The primary purpose of sex is not reproduction, but the expression of love, of total commitment, the passion for and experience of (masculine or feminine) beauty, between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. You'll have as easy a time convincing me otherwise as you'll have convincing me that colors are not beautiful. The experience of beauty is a good in itself and needs no external justification. That is where I stand.

Nathan:

I have many reasons to believe it's nearly impossible to do meaningful studies about the ill or good effects of homosexuality, for one simple reason: the homosexual population cannot be reliably identified. There are "hidden" homosexuals -- homosexuals in the closet -- and "partially open" homosexuals who might tell friends or family but who would not participate in the kind of scientific studies you cite. Without a reliable and representative population to study, results can only be skewed.

Is there promiscuity among homosexuals? Yes. Is there promiscuity among heterosexuals? Yes. Is there the spread of disease among homosexuals? Yes. Is there the spread of disease among heterosexuals? See *AFRICA*.

Perhaps the reason you aren't getting the reasoned responses you desire has nothing to do with the merits of your argument. Maybe you aren't as irrefutable as you think you are. Maybe -- just maybe -- the gay and lesbian people who *could* easily refute your arguments on any number of bases are simply not interested in doing so because (and in my case this is undeniably true) you bore them with old-hat twaddle that they've heard about 1,000,000 times before.

Want to talk about male homosexual promiscuity? Let's. Because historically there have been no societally-sanctioned means by which homosexual men could meet, date and court one another, and because public knowledge of one's homosexuality was a social and financial (and sometimes *physical*) death-knell, homosexual men tended to meet in private places. Since shame surrounding homosexuality was prevalent (if not overwhelming), the negative feelings and guilt surrounding homosexual liaisons, coupled with the need for secrecy, made emotional intimacy and long-term commitments nearly impossible. Homosexuals were seen as sexual deviants without emotional lives, whose behaviors had no value or merit whatsoever. Unfortunately, many saw themselves in the same unflattering light. These ideas were so deeply ingrained in all people, including homosexual men, that it's approaching *self-evident* that fidelity, intimacy and commitment would be nearly non-existent. How could one have a meaningful long-term relationship in such an unremittingly hostile environment?

We carry the burden of that cultural legacy with us today. Homosexuality is still considered a "secret shame", and so the people who internalize those values have sex in secret, without love, without intimacy, and without commitment.

Couple that with the "wild oats" phase that many young men go through (gay men included), and you have a recipe for widespread promiscuity with the attendant emotional and physical damage -- lack of trust, lack of stability, lack of love, and the spread of disease. Whether this level of promiscuity is more or less prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals cannot be meaningfully measured for two reasons: 1) homosexuals who engage in this behavior do so secretly, and so are difficult to study; and 2) heterosexuals tend to be blind to and disproportionately forgiving of their own lascivious behavior (see: the Fox network).

But things are changing.

Whatever studies you could cite today will be irrelevant in a year, as more and more homosexual persons decide to live openly, without fear, without shame, and with an unshakeable belief that we can have meaningful long-term relationships that meet our emotional, financial and familial needs. What started out as furtive couplings, full of guilt and shame, have become relationships. This has nothing to do with "homosexual morality" or the choice/no-choice argument. This has to do with basic human needs. We need love. We need financial security. We need family. Gay and lesbian people are learning that we deserve to have those needs met, just like anyone else.

Another thing to consider: Many gay and lesbian persons find it difficult if not impossible to even *consider* that you could have a point. You see this as a stubborn refusal to see reason, to look at the evidence, to connect the dots. You call it "denial". What you fail to recognize is that most, if not all, gay and lesbian people grew up believing that what they were and what they wanted was wrong, sick, depraved, sinful, evil, degenerate and worthy of nothing but contempt. The journey each of us goes through to discover ourselves, to learn about our nature, to find others of our kind, and to heal lifetimes of guilt, shame and fear, is transformative. It gives us back ourselves, it heals our minds and our spirits, and it allows us to live as full human beings. To be confronted with an argument that there's something *wrong* with us after such a journey strikes us as simply laughable. You would be funny if the legacy of your beliefs weren't so repugnant to us. We work too hard to come to terms with ourselves, to reclaim our lives and our dignity, and to find love, security and family life, to consider arguments such as yours.

We know our own house. We know which rooms need cleaning up. We wag our own fingers at our own people. You come to us with old ideas that we have already discarded, poking your flashlight through our bedroom windows to point out the dust in our corners. As my dear friend Joe Clark once said (to someone who needed to have an argument whether we cared to have one or not), you are not required.

I'm sorry but let me jump in with what would be a total logical fallacy here, just so that I can be done with this discussion with Nathan.

I choose, among your options, #1. I will live in denial. You know why? Because of couples like Michael Demmons and Robert. Because of Shell. Because of the gay couple that saved my life in the Philippines. Because of gay friends who've pulled me through tough times. Because I have good faith that gay people can be moral too, and my experience is that they are... But good faith was never proof.

I think this all boils down to bad PR and bad choices for advocates. But what do I know? Personal experience and sentiment never figured into numbers. What I have experienced is not evidence, never will be.

Nathan: Actually, if you read much gay press, you'll find that a goodly number of people do acknowledge the high degree of promiscuity in the gay male (but NOT the lesbian) community, at least in the urban centers such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and so on. Before HIV, this group was also a major vector for heptatitis, herpes, syph, and a ton of other diseases.

People who angrily deny this are guilty of angrily denying reality. It is simply the truth. Ironically, the definitive book on this subject was probably And The Band Played On, by a fairly angry gay man named Randy Shilts who himself eventually died of AIDS. It was a brilliant book, should have won a Pulitzer. Its focus was on AIDS, but in the process it revealed in unsparing detail just how irresponsible sexual activity in many parts of the (male) gay community was, and still is in many ways.

So yes. You are absolutely correct. A lot of gay (male gays) engage in very dangerous, often massively self-destructive behavior. Hundreds of sex partners, even thousands, not uncommon. Add on the poppers, the pills, the unsanitary conditions of many of the sexual encounters, and you have a veritable petri dish in large segments of the gay community.

Once again: people who deny this are either guilty of some sort of Orwellian denial of reality, or, they are ignorant fools who don't know what goes on.

And by the way, you should give kudos to gay men who acknowledge this. They're around. You just haven't encountered them. I have.

Now, as I see it, there are several problems in your logic, that you probably haven't encountered simply because you've been beaten about the head and shoulders by some people who don't like hearing what you're saying.

Now:

1) Yes, a disproportionate number of gays do seem to come from dysfunctional homes. But they don't all, and most people who come from dysfunctional homes don't turn gay.

It is quite possible that there is a combination of genetic, environmental, and flat-out random events that determine a person's sexual orientation. It's possible it has different pathways in different people--indeed, lesbianism and gay male sexuality seem to occur differently. In any case, to date this is not much evidence that, once a person is past a certain point of development, homosexuality can be "cured" in anykthing but a tiny minority.

Thus you are putting them in a position of either choosing lifelong sexual discomfort and misery, just to avoid your approbrium, or, accepting them as they are.

2) Gay females do not behave in a dangerously promiscuous manner, as a rule. There are exceptions, but for the most part, they don't. That's one of the dirty little secrets that the PC police don't want you to know, but it's true.

3) There is a significant subsection of gay males who either never behaved in a dangerously promiscuous way--I've known some--or who once behaved that way, decided it was self-destructive, and stopped.

Some of those who've stopped behaving this way are, in fact, the biggest advocates of gay marriage, because they see a problem in their community they would badly like to address. Telling them that they're vile and disgusting, so far, hasn't done much but make them hate folks like you.

4) Your notion that most morality has thousands of years of proven value is not without reason. Indeed, I would say that ANY religious tradition that has survived for centuries or millenia has obviously proven that it has functional values that are pro-survival.

Thus, your fundamentally conservative instincts are generally healthy: major changes can be frightening, because we have something that we know is imperfect but has worked, and people are proposing to change it. Major changes are often potentially dangerous, and we can't always foresee what all those dangers are.

That said, I put it to you thusly:

1) We live in a time of much longer lifespans and unprecedented ability to travel and communicate across long distances. Previously, most gay people have either lived lives where they might never find each other, or been wealthy children of the nobility and the merchant class and only a tiny percentage of the population--a mostly-unnoticeable one. Throughout history, the majority of gay people would have been as poor and limited as everyone else, and might likely go their whole lives without (knowingly) meeting another gay person. The dawn of the 20th century showed a steady change in that state, however, and it's only accelerated since then.

These people can now find each other, talk to each other, explore their identities, what makes them similar and different, and band together in support of each other. (And by the way, substantially longer lifespans also allow people more time for reflection and mutual exploration of the above topics).

In short, it's a whole new ballgame from what we had throughout most of history. Therefore, we cannot count on "the wisdom of the ages" to be able to perfectly deal with what we have today.

2) There is a high degree of convergence between Hellenistic philosophy and the Judeo-Christian tradition. A highly stable, highly advanced society developed in ancient Greece, even though homosexuality was common and accepted there. Ditto Rome, which lasted well over a thousand years.

Thus, it should be apparent that, if homosexuality is "destructive" to society, it must have a pretty minor effect, since some of the longest-lasting, most stable, and most advanced cultures in human history have either embraced it outright, or given it a wink and a nod and otherwise made no fuss over it.

3) It is very clear that gay men in particular are at a higher degree of danger to themselves and society so long as they continue to be highly promiscuous and unsanitary. As many gay writers are starting to decry, using condoms are out of fashion in large parts of the gay community, promiscuity is as prevalent today as before the AIDS outbreak, and nothing much has changed.

Society can deal with this in only a few ways that I can see:

a) Say, "to hell with 'em, let 'em immolate themselves." In which case, we all pay the higher health insurance premiums, the higher taxes to fund government medical care for the uninsured, and put up with the loss of individuals who could be contributing society.

b) Continue to shake our fingers and say, "shame shame shame, stop that!" In which case, most of them are in a position now to tell you to get lost. Indeed, the record of the last 30 years shows that, whether you're angry and rude about it (ala Jerry Falwell), or kind and compassionate about it (like James Dobson), whether you're traditionalist about it (ala the Catholic church), or just take the "aack! that's disgusting!" position (ala Anita Bryant or Ayn Rand), it doesn't change. They are ignoring you.

c) At the same time, a growing subset of these folks are seeing that there's self-destructive behavior here, and doing something about it. Many are committing to monagamy. Many are settling down, buying homes, getting stable careers, and having children. Some of them even vote Republican.

Given the simple reality of B), that this is a group that routinely hears your message and rejects it, it would seem that, at some point, pragmatism should come into effect, yes?

I, for one, think that this is a perfect time for the concept of federalism to be applied. Let us allow states to experiment with things like civil unions and/or gay marriage. Let's go ahead and let the "Defense of Marriage Act" prevent other states from being forced to recognize those relationships, FOR NOW.

Let's let gay people prove that they can be responsible, upstanding citizens. Sure, some gay people probably think it's not fair that they should have to prove anything, but I think the mature ones should be able to "get" that, prior to 30 years ago, what they're asking for wouldn't just have been inconceivable, it would have (and sometimes was) the subject of jokes in books and movies. They've come a long way, in a very short time. Some people are still afraid because they don't understand. Some people are doubtful, and actually do have reasons for their doubts--if nothing else, just because major, radical changes can have unforeseen consequences.

But how can Vermont or Massachussetts' civil union laws threaten anyone? Let them experiment with this. Will it undermine male-female marriage? If so, we should see that within a few years. Will it do anything to instill a culture of greater responsibility in young gay men? We should see some signs of that as well.

No one says you have to approve of these relationships, embrace them, jump for joy and declare them accepted by your religion. But I suggest to you, from a simple sense of pragmatism, not to mention simple decency toward people you disagree with but who you just might be wrong about, they deserve that chance.

No?

Dean:

I love your comments -- even handed and reasonable -- but I have to take issue with one thing: the reasons behind gay marriage in the minds of gay people.

I do not want to marry Matt as a way to reject or protect myself from the world of gay promiscuity. I willingly participated in it, and I'm quite happy about it. The sex was awesome. No regrets.

The reason I want to marry Matt is that I love him, he's my best friend, he's the anchor of my life, and if anything were ever to happen to me, I'd want him to be protected. I want him to be happy, healthy and safe. And if we ever have children for whatever reason, I want them to be happy, healthy and safe, too.

I don't believe that marriage is some sort of fortress against social chaos. I believe that it's a natural thing for humans to do: we pair-bond. Maybe not for life, and maybe not with 100% fidelity, but it's something we do. It's natural.

John: I should have included you in my illogical statement of good faith up there.

Dean: Major props for the level-headedness.

My comments about gay marriage have always been clear on my blog... it does not tender fidelity (or as Andy Sullivan would call "behaving") onto couples. Loyalty and commitment come before that.

But then again I can't help but bite back a bit of snark: does good faith even matter when arguing against numbers?

OF Jay,

Good faith always matters, especially when arguing against numbers. It helps us keep the numbers true.

I truly appreciate the good faith and forbearance for the commenters on this site. Thank you, Dean and Rosemary for leading us thus.

Thanks to nathan for this post which spawned this thread.

Yours,
Wince

"Is there such a thing as homosexual morality? A code of morals that is group specific to homosexuality."

I doubt it. In terms of general humanist morality, the same principles would seem to apply; in terms of religious morality, it depends on one's flavor of religion. (If I understand correctly, for example, the present Catholic stand on homosexuality is that it's perfectly moral to be gay, as long as one doesn't ever engage in sexual intercourse.)

Beyond that, why wouldn't the same general principles apply? Being honest with others, respecting both others rights and privacy as well as one's own, and so forth.

Well John, all I'd say to you is, many straight men go through a period of chasing tail, then many of them decide that that's kind of empty and they need something more. Which sounds like something you've gone through yourself. Many of those straight men also have no regrets, either about their earlier wild-oats sowing, OR their long-term choice to commit.

I think it is in society's interest to encourage this. I do not believe we can make young men stop behaving like, well, like young men. I do think there is positive value to us all to find positive, uplifting ways to encourage better behavior, however.

I also, frankly, think there's nothing wrong with saying, "You know what? You're not 19 years old anymore. Keep this up and you're going to kill yourself. Grow up a little, would you please?"

I don't have any problem saying that to my straight friends. In fact, I recently chewed out a friend of mine who sometimes reads this blog, who just turned 30, in exactly the same way. The guy's got a girl who loves him, who he loves, they have a kid together, but he doesn't want to marry her and be there for his boy because he's having too much fun sleeping around with college chicks. He's a good guy, but someone needs to kick him in the ass. He's behaving like a child.

Nathan, I'd be happy to take a swing at your #2. Prepared to be fisked. ;) You want someone to challenge your logic, or challenge your assumptions. I wonder if you have looked at what you've written, and have an understanding of the assumptions therein. My short list:

1. You assume some may view you as fascist. This is highly unlikely; by inserting this drastic word, you grant yourself immunity -- you can say, "I am not that bad. I am not that extreme".

2. You assume homosexuality is a choice. As others have pointed out, the act is a choice, but the feelings are not. Unless you have a mechanism for knowing what's inside someone else's head, you're just going to have to take their word for it. I certainly won't pretend to know what goes on in your head.

3. You assume concepts drive human beings. We are many parts logic and many parts emotion.

4. You state that there is a high correlation between drug use and homosexuality without providing a single serious source. Without an unbiased source this does not stand.

5. You provide no examples of "all sorts of unfortunate consequences", with which we might connect homosexuality. What consequences, exactly, are you speaking of?

6. You indicate that disagreement with the "choice" theory is in fact "denial". This is only true if the "choice" theory is in fact true. If the choice theory is wrong, then there is no denial. Support your choice theory with actual evidence, generalize it, and then perhaps you have a denial argument. Otherwise, nothing.

7. You indicate that the position holding that AIDS is not a homosexual disease is once again "denial"; denial is against your pattern of morality, therefore such denial is immoral. Homosexuality is emotion and a set of physical choices, made in the context of those emotions. Certain physical choices in the gay male community have resulted in increased rates of AIDS in that community. There are millions of heterosexual persons all over the world who've made certain physical choices, and AIDS has been the result. Statistically most AIDS victims in the world are heterosexual. There are numerous other sexually transmitted diseases, the very vast number of which are equally available to hetero- and homo-sexual persons. Is there some reason why you single out AIDS, as opposed to other diseases, as an indicator of lack of morality? Perhaps you intend that _any_ sexually transmitted disease is evidence of behavior that contradicts your moral pattern.

8. You state that the homosexual population "at large" should "accept responsibility". For what? What should they confess to? If you are referring to the "homosexual disease" notion, you need to back that up with some kind of statistical evidence. I don't see it. If you're referring to the "choice" argument, prove its a choice, and we can talk. You haven't proven it. You've _stated_ it.

9. I must confess that I do not know what a "bug-chaser" is. If I did, I would probably disagree with you.

10. You indicate that there are homosexual "demands". You make several assumptions: First, that homosexuals are the only ones who want these social changes to happen. I am happy to be your first counter-example. Second, you assume that the homosexual community is homogeneous in demanding, rather than supporting. It is highly unlikely that the gay community is sigificantly unlike any other community in this regard -- a minority of persons feel extremely strongly about an issue and press very hard, while most simply favor one side or the other and go about their lives. I am certain that within your Church community, you find a similar spectrum of activity with regards to gay issues.

11. You make the rather ridiculous assumption that 100,000 happy, lifelong monogramous gay couples do not presently exist. I'm just one guy who barely knows any gay people at all, and I know two couples like that. Come to think of it, that's 50% of the gay people I know. ;) Do that math on that.

12. You make the assumption that there is something that needs to be _proven_ to you, or to other people, at all. Why should gay people have to do _anything_ to convince you of the "correctness" of their lifestyle? At which point, exactly, did your particular brand of religion become a benchmark? The founders of this country were very explicit in their desire that religion be a fundamental freedom. The heart of that is the notion that personal religious choices _must_ be protected; to ensure that, the _public_ does not make such choices. Where possible, society usually chooses to engage in religious acts in circumstances that are _voluntary_, thus ensuring personal religious choice.

13. You make the assumption that homosexuals are offended (and "adolescent") by your notion that morality be a part of marriage. My opinion is that they are not offended by the notion; they're offended by your definition of morality. You confuse the two. Of course "morality" can be part of the marriage discussion, but you've got to agree on what that is. You've made no argument as to the correctness of your "morality", other than your opinion that it is in fact the "best". History gives us a lot of examples within your religion and others of people saying it also. You might want to provide some evidence you're right.

14. You're not advocating responsbility and morality. You're advocating acceptance of a moral framework, then defining responsibility as the act of gauging oneself according to that framework. Can there be no responsibility outside that framework?

15. You assume that the teachings of today's Churches (or religions) do, in fact, represent a "combined wisdom of ages". Give the fact that historically most repression, violence, and hatred has had religion at the core, how do you presume this? Personally, I think organized religions have a hell of a long way to go before they can presume to tell anything to anybody about morality.

16. You state that you're not going to "give up and let homosexual advocates freely erode our standards". You assume that "your" standards are "our" standards. You also assume that something like gay marriage represents an "erosion" of standards. Feel free to give evidence for either one of these assumptions.

The point by point is over, but...I have to agree with Dean on how short the conversation _should_ be, ideally.

If we start with the notion that all persons are equal in this country, we note that the structural institution of marriage conveys with it a certain relationship with the state (taxation, granting of power of attorney, right to visit, etc). This particular state is granted to married persons. Is this special relationship a "reward" that the state provides to encourage marriage? It is not. The government provides a means with which we can define familial bonds, and thereby derive the answers to many other important questions, such as responsibilities of a person (parent to child, man to wife), inheritance, accessibility (next of kin for health purposes), genetic compatibility (cousins marryin') and so on.

You want to _deny_ this choice to two people who happen to be gay. You don't know these people and their lives have no intersection with yours. This falls squarely into the "telling other people what to do" category. Why should you be allowed to tell other people what to do?

Well, there might be some _direct_ effect on you, and there are _indirect_ effects. I am quite hard-pressed to think of a direct effect on you, Nathan, if two gay men in Iowa get married. So I assume that you are talking about indirect effects.

Which brings us back to the "consequences" argument above: You made the assumption that being gay brings a host of negative consequences without providing any examples that this is so. You could try to find some correlation between homosexuality and crime rates, or homosexuality and tax evasion, or homosexuality and any other generally agreed _secular_ negative phenomenon, I guess. Maybe you can dig something up that shows a "decay" of that type. If so, bring it on. You have a path to legitimacy there. Contravening your personal moral code doesn't count.

You do have a right to educate your kids as you see fit, and it seems you have taken that path. The generally agreed-upon standard that we have in society is that we favor tolerance. If someone is gay, let them be gay. If someone is X, let them be X. But we also teach that if someone swings their fist and impacts your nose, you don't need to let them swing their fist.

Are you saying that you believe tolerance towards gays (and other groups) should not be taught in schools? Or do you believe that intolerance should actively be taught? You are unclear on this point. The consensus within society is, at the moment, that being homosexual is no big deal. You don't have a right to punch someone in the face for being gay. Teaching kids that it's not OK to punch someone in the face for being gay is not the same as encouraging them to be gay. I remain perplexed as to why certain religious conservatives cannot make this distinction.

So the core of this argument becomes: How does this affect you at all? What logic or justification provides you with the right to control the definition of marriage and grant or deny a relationship with the state as a result? What justification do you provide for imposing your will on other people by creating inequity with respect to the state?

I haven't seen any yet.

Nathan, I have been arguing against your logic during this whole conversation.

Even if it is a given that homosexuality is associated with destructive behavior (and I have to agree with John Kusch that none of the studies performed up until now have been of representative samples with a true control group), I disagree with the logic that "because some homosexuals engage in self-destructive behavior, homosexuality is immoral". Individuals are not groups. Homosexuals are not responsible for proving themselves capable of morality.

I've read a few of the posts linked from your sidebar. So you knew some obnoxious gay people in college. I bet you knew some obnoxious straight people too. I don't see you spinning any theories about how straight men couldn't possibly be moral because they're more likely to commit date rape or to promise love to get sex than gay men. Or that black men couldn't be moral because they are more likely to father illegitimate children than white men.

Not only is correlation not causation, but causation isn't justification. Even if we grant that all of your studies are true and that homosexuals are more likely to be self-destructive than heterosexuals, that still doesn't justify the assumption that gay people are incapable of morality.

You are the one lumping individuals into a group and making judgements about them. That is why the burden of proof is on you, and not on those of us who want to judge each person on the content of their character.

Why do any of you even care enough what I think to bother responding? The only reason I continue responding is because Rosemary asked me to.
I've already given all the explanations I need to:
I have the evidence of all the aforementioned correlations, in the form of credible academic and CDC studies, linked on my website. Since none of that evidence has been matched by links to any refuting studies (I've done googling for refuting studies on my own, and all have obvious flaws, like no control groups or self-election of participants, etc), I have to assume none of you have bothered to read them.
As long as you don't bother to do actual research to back up your assertions or read the evidence behind mine, it reduces this whole discussion to "what I think versus what you think," which is an exercise in rhetoric and half-remembered statistics.
So, final word:
If you're happy with what you think, great! I'm happy with what I think. You go ahead and advocate your views, I'll advocate mine.
One way or the other, everyone in this conversation will know the truth sometime within the next 80 years (sometime before we die, is what I mean). I'm expecting the knowledge will arrive via accumulated wisdom, but maybe science or societal experimentation will prove me wrong.
If I end up being wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit it.

shell,

Scroll down nathan's sidebar to the 'The Nature of Homosexuality' section. Choose any of the posts with the word 'Facts' in them. I think these are the posts to which Nathan is referring.

Consider also that Dean, who is on the other side of the issue from nathan has conceded this point because it matches what he has learned in his reading on the topic.

Nathan,

Are these the posts to which you refer?

Yours,
Wince

It also just occurred to me: we aren't really in the same discussion (again!)...

The post that Rosemary linked is not, and should not be considered, a stand-alone piece. It is the last part of a LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG conversation (spanning many different sparring partners on several posts) in which I am continually called upon to provide the basis of my views.
There's no way to do it in the space of a comment block, so I gathered all the stuff from the past and gave them a place on my sidebar. But my view has grown and changed from the beginning...in part because I always get the same response as you are showing here: long on conviction, short on evidence. You can go look at the information in less than 3 clicks; I would have to spend an hour coding it into Dean's comments every time, and most of you still wouldn't read it.

But if you feel like we are arguing different points, it's probably because I have no interest in explaining for the 50th time exactly what the percentages of substance abuse and depression are among lesbians, and how many points above the statistical norm that is from heterosexual women, because it is all there for you to go read. If you won't listen there, you won't listen here, so I see no reason to go to the trouble.
Anyone can google. The more I google, the more I find evidence to support my position, so you should be inspired to do the research and link it here and be prepared to defend it, because that way at least you get to control the debate somewhat.
But I gotta warn you, if you go through all the archives, Dean often researches and links anything that supports his position, and neither he nor Rosemary have linked a single statistic to strengthen their positions in this discussion. That doesn't mean the information isn't out there, but it does mean that at the very least, most people would rather keep this discussino in the realm of rhetoric. Well, since that's just "He said, she said," I see no point.
Like I said, I'm confident wisdom or societal experimentation will provide us the truth withing our lifetime. If I'm wrong, I'll certainly admit it. The threshold of correlation is pretty easy to match. But the information just isn't out there right now, alas.

I'm sad that John felt the need to list all the ways he's a responsible, steadfast guy at the beginning of his first comment--I'm glad he did, and all, and I certainly understand why, but I wish it weren't necessary. Constantly having to labor to convince other people that they can talk to you as one adult to another gets really tiresome.

As a responsible adult, I have no problem with owning my own choices. The first time I had sex with a man, I spent the next day alternately throwing up and sitting on the shower floor backbrushing myself raw; from there on, I did a lot of thinking. A lot. It's not as if I just woke up one day, decided that I might fancy guys, started hitting on them, and figured I could work out all that stuff about morality and diseases later.

And personally, I might be one of the few thousand luckiest gay SOB's on earth. My parents didn't disown me (which, to my discredit, is what I was expecting), my friends (all straight) were very gentle with me even when I was a complete jerk, and the people at my office coo over pictures of my vacations with my boyfriend. I didn't earn any of this goodwill, but it's there for me to draw on. And unsurprisingly, I'm not an alcoholic or substance abuser; I'm proud of how I live, but I'm not dumb enough not to realize that the people around me are helping me along.

What tradeoffs would I make if I were a lesbian working in an office where queer jokes were common, or a man whose relatives told him they'd rather he were dead than gay? It would be impertinent for me to pretend to know. All I can say is, I might reasonably decide that I would rather be a practicing homosexual who gets through by hitting the bottle too much than cave in to these people. The only thing the higher degree of self-destructive behavior among gays and lesbians indicates to me is that if people hear from birth on that their kind is disgusting and worthless, they'll often believe it.

Nathan, I only post during breaks at work, so I don't have time to look at all your links. But I'm giving it the old college try, because you seem like a fair-minded person. Not surprisingly, this is representative of the sorts of sources you quote:

"Volunteers and staff members from the STOP AIDS Project, a San Francisco community-based organization providing HIV prevention services, conducted brief interviews with MSM at diverse gay-oriented venues or events (e.g., dance clubs, bars, gay pride parades, street fairs) and on sidewalks in neighborhoods with a high volume of MSM pedestrian traffic. The number of respondents declined from 1999 (n=4,940) to 2000 (n=2,674) because of fewer volunteers and decreasing participation among persons approached. Seventeen percent of subjects (n=1,811) reported they had completed a STOP AIDS Project questionnaire at some time in the past (any time since 1994) and therefore may have been included more than once in the data."

Hmmm. Wonder what kind of results you're likely to get if your information is obtained from gay men in San Francisco who were willing to stop at a dance club, in a bar, or on the street and talk to you about their sex lives. (You did notice, by the way, that the group was called the "STOP AIDS Project"? Not the same ring as "Promise Keepers," perhaps, but a far cry from "Buff Boys for Barebacking.") Now, yes, I'm picking the most egregious example I've seen in your archives to make a point, though I must note that you don't seem to have any trouble citing it without qualification. The others I've clicked through aren't quite as bad, but they don't exactly scream "well-constructed sample," either. It doesn't help anyone's side to play fast and loose with numbers or to put faith in statistics whose significance is unknowable.

Rosemary,

Methinks you got your wish....

Nathan, I don't know who you're arguing with. You seem to be arguing with me. But, I have read the messages on your sidebar. I'm not angry with you, and I'm not refuting any of the data you're showing.

I must point out a few problems I have with your reasoning, and then I must (gently) take us back to the questions I have already asked, that you also have not answered.

First, the problems: A cardinal rule of science is "correlation is not causation." Absent substantially more research into the matter, all you can say is that you've established a link. But without further study, you can't say which way the link goes, or how much. For example: yes, there are an unusually high percentage of female IV drug users who are lesbians. Now, what does that mean? Well it could mean several things. It could mean that lifelong sexual frustration and feelings of shame by a society that makes them feel dirty and immoral makes them more likely to hang out on the fringes of society. Or I suppose it may mean what you're implying, which is that being gay drives you toward drugs.

Or it may be a combination. Or it may be an outlier in a third factor. We just don't know.

Gay male promiscuity is well-documented, as I've already said repeatedly.

Having said all that, we must go back to a couple of points: not only is correlation not causation, but, the fact is that there may be multiple pathways toward one's sexual