No, GfS, I have not altered my position that homosexuality has a genetic component.

There have long been indications that male homosexuality, at least, runs in families. Lesbianism is not quite so clear, but for male homosexuality, it seems to hold.

There is a family I have been acquainted with for many years. I first met Bob, who was the cousin of a female friend of mine, maybe some forty years ago. He was gay. I learned that he had an uncle who was also gay. Then I met a nephew who came up from California to stay with Bob for a week and HE was gay, almost stereotypically so. Effeminate mannerisms and such.

Now, I know you are thinking that the various uncles molested their nephews when young and thereby made them gay. But that would be a bit hard to do considering that these uncles and nephews lived in different parts of the country and, although they were certainly aware of each other's existence, they did not have contact with each other until WELL AFTER puberty.

The hypothesis among many geneticists who have noted this pattern is that the GENE which determines the boy's sexual orientation is carried by the MOTHER, and triggers a mis-timing of the release of certain hormones in utero. The formation of the male genitalia, determined by the presence of the Y chromosome, has already begun when the determining gene mis-times the release of the hormones that determine the male structure of the brain centers. There are noticeable differences in the hypothalamuses of homosexual males from those of heterosexual males.

So if the male homosexual himself does not carry the gene, it is STILL genetic. The gene is carried by the mother. And THAT runs in families.

This is science, not wishful supposition.

Nor can you write it off as a "political agenda."

And as to the availability of "therapy" purported to change one's sexual orientation, no, it should NOT be denied to anyone who wishes it. But they should be made aware of the true results, determined by scientific surveys of this kind of therapy (which I have noted in a post above) before submitting to this and spending their dime. But IN NO CASE should anyone be coerced into this kind of therapy.

And as far as my position being emotionally biased due to the fact that a few of my friends and acquaintances are homosexual, that is a spurious assumption (an attempt to save face on your part) and has nothing to do with it. I have observed their behavior in social situations and have noted over a long period of time that these couples are staying together in the same way that heterosexual married couples stay together, and I see no reason whatsoever that they should be denied the same legal and social rights and privileges that Barbara and I enjoy.

And as far as HIV/AIDs is concerned, these people, in their striving for marriage rights (which in a few states including Washington State, they now have—by the vote of the populace at large), they are hardly jumping out into traffic. They are attempting to create a situation that minimizes risks.

So what's your problem—and Ake's problem—with that?

Don Firth