I really take issue with the information in the excerpt posted by Keith A of Hertford at 05 Dec 09 - 07:49 a.m. The first statistics quoted are from 1978, and then again in 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, at which time the rate of promiscuity had dropped significantly. That was twenty-five years ago, and a lot of changes can happen in that much time—especially when the individuals involved realize that their very lives may be at stake.

As Samuel Johnson wrote, "Nothing concentrates one's mind so much as the realization that one is going to be hanged in the morning!"

It is not just the certainty of imminent death, it is also the distinct possibility of dying of a lingering and debilitating illness that has no cure that can cause one to change one's behavior quite drastically. I am acquainted with a number of homosexual male couples—committed couples—who, a few of the men admit, had led pretty promiscuous lives until AIDS became rampant, and who then sought a stable, safe relationship with one person, which they also found far more emotionally satisfying.

This is one of the factors involved in the current push for legal recognition of such same-sex relationships.

Both Ake and GfS are vociferously opposed to legal recognition of such relationships and cite the spread of HIV/AIDS as the reason for their opposition (along with the specter of "perversion"), apparently unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious:   Such recognition would encourage stable, "monogamous" relationships by granting the legal "perks" that heterosexual married couples have and cut down on promiscuity and the possible spread of HIV/AIDS.

You'd think that if one were genuinely concerned with reducing the spread of disease, one would favor any measure which offers the possibility of doing so.

As to the canard that gender orientation is a matter of choice, that has long since wound up in the waste basket. No competent psychiatrist holds with that anymore.

Although the actual gene may not have been found yet, it is patently obvious that there is a genetic factor involved in gender orientation. It may be that the gene is being looked for in the wrong place. It is quite possible that the crucial gene (or combination of genes) is carried by the mother of a male who grows up to be homosexual. All fetuses start out as female, and those destined to be male (with the Y chromosome) need to receive an infusion of the necessary hormones at the appropriate time in the fetus's development. If the mother does not produce the necessary hormones at the appropriate time, or if the production of the hormones is insufficient, the child is born with a male body (the Y chromosome), but with some of the characteristics—including gender orientation—of a female.

Now—let's hear that chorus of howls and squawks from Ake and GfS.

Don Firth

P. S. And lest Ake or someone pounces on my mention that I know a number of homosexual male couples and tries to make some kind of hay out of it, I know them because my wife of thirty-two years and I belong to a small, inner city church that is a signatory of the "Affirmation of Welcome" (scroll down), and as a result of the welcoming, accepting, and non-prejudicial spirit of the church, a number of gay people have gravitated to it. The congregation numbers around 250, about ten or twelve percent of whom (men and women) are gay. And the pastor has performed at least four marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples (whether the law recognizes them or not). One of the members of a committed same-sex couple is a fine writer and attends the writers' group that meets at Barbara's and my apartment once a month for mutual comment and critique of each other's writing. We know he and his partner quite well.

P. P. S. By the way, Washington State Initiative 71, upholding the law recently passed by the Washington State Legislature, recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships, unlike California's Proposition 8, was passed by the voters.