I will not waste my time re-reading GfS's screed just above because it is copy-and-paste from a previous post of his. It was psychobabble then and it has not improved with time. It's still psychobabble.

This whole discussion here on Mudcat started on another thread having to do with California rescinding the same-sex marriage law, despite the fact that such laws are being passed in one state after another and will continue to be passed at an accelerating rate. The proposition in California was not put forth by Californians, but by out-of-state fundamentalist religious groups, who consider homosexuality to be a sin.

This is a direct violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state as set forth in both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. Whether it was voted in by a narrow majority of California voters or not is irrelevant. It is still un-Constitutional.

Nevertheless, this thread brought several people out of the woodwork to express a spectrum of anti-homosexual sentiments, not based on any legal or constitutional positions, but upon their own prejudices. When challenged, they tried to support their positions by citing various studies of dubious scientific validity and by inundating the thread with carefully selected and edited statistics.

The thesis of one of the more prominent opponents of same-sex relationships, tried to claim that homosexuals, homosexual men in particular, are not just plague carriers, but plague creators, invoking the medieval notion that HIV/AIDs is created by male homosexual activity, not just that the virus can be transmitted that way, if and only if one of the two is already infected. This "spontaneous generation" idea was debunked by many of the more enlightened scientists early on, and definitely put to rest by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s. Nevertheless, this person continued (and continues) to assert the same medieval nonsense.

The other more prominent opponent of same-sex relationships involved the claim that same-sex orientation comes as a result of early psychological problems and, in the end, is simply a matter of the individual's choice. And that same-sex orientation can be cured through counseling, when, in fact, if such deeply rooted psychological problems were the source of same-sex orientation, they would require, at the very least, extensive psychotherapy, not just "counseling."

This person cites the work of people such as Richard Cohen, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" who "counsels" his clients by lying on a sofa with them, caressing them, and assuring them that they are loved. A book that Cohen wrote to this effect has been used by an American fundamentalist religious group to support the Ugandan anti-homosexual laws, going to far as capital punishment for homosexuals.

This person, when confronted by the studies refuting the so-called "cures" claimed in a study by Robert Spitzer, merely ignored the data presented, reiterated their claim that same-sex orientation is merely a matter of personal choice, and became personally abusive toward me.

He becomes especially abusive when I, or anyone else, quote or post links to sites that indicate that same-sex orientation is not a matter of choice, but there are strong indications that it has a genetic component. Same-sex orientation tends to run in families, appearing even when the relatives have no contact with each other, and there is some indication that the gene or combination of genes is carried by the females of a particular line and results in the mis-timing of the release of specific hormones in utero to a developing male fetus.

Granted, the specific gene of combination of genes have not been isolated yet, but research continues, and geneticists are confident that it is only a matter of time.

Rather that being willing to admit that the possibility (probability according to geneticists involved in the research, since all other factors are present), this person categorically denies that such a gene exists or will ever be found.

Both of these people attribute those who are not strenuously opposed to legally recognized civil partnerships or gay marriage as slaves of the "liberal agenda." And are, indeed, "liberal fascists!" Thereby demonstrating that they have no idea of what "liberal" or "fascist" really means.

This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. No matter who complicated the opponents try to make it sound.

Recently, one of these people in particular, one who has been especially free with the childish personal insults (such mature epithets as calling me an "asshole") has chosen to attack me with accusations of lying about him—when I quoted something that was posted under his own "handle"—which he now denies having posted, going so far as to claim that it was me who authored it and posted it under his name. But Joe Offer has confirmed that it came from his computer, not mine. (Now, how could I have managed that, I wonder? Bloody clever of me!!).

I suggest that anyone interested (and who has their gag reflex well under control) merely read some of the posts for themselves and make up their own minds as to who it is who is actually posting the "outrageous lies and disinformation" and doing the "name calling."

Crystal clear.

By the way, I have not followed the wrangle between Keith and Royston because after being inundated with carefully selected and skewed statistics by Ake, and trying to follow them, I simply don't have the stomach to go through the same song and dance routine yet again!

Don Firth