Taoist physicians regarded homosexuality among men as a dangerous practice- for several reasons. First of all, Yang is by nature an active, aggressive force, and, when two aggressive forces meet, a fundamental conflict of energies and intentions result. Male homosexuality requires that one partner yield to the other by adopting the female role, both physically and psychologically, and when this practice becomes a habit it completely undermines the fundamental role of Yang in the order of nature. Looking at this situation of Yang conflict at a microscopic scientific level, when sperm from two different men are mixed together and observed under magnification, they may clearly be observed fighting one another in a desperate struggle for supremacy.
Psychology aside, the greatest threat posed to men by homosexual practices are physiological.
Anal penetration, the mutual exchange of Yang sexual fluids, and frequent uncontrolled ejaculations are the culprits. Ancient Taoist physicians noted a pathological condition called 'Dragon Yang Syndrome' which occurred exclusively among promiscuous male homosexuals. 'Dragon Yang' (lung-yang) is a common Chinese euphemism for male homosexuality, equivalent to the English word 'gay'. Symptoms of this ailment included weakness and fatigue, skin ulcers and boils, low immunity, and impotence.

it really just shouldn't matter. people should be free to be gay/lesbian/bi whether its by biology or by choice. i am gay, and i've always been uncomfortable with the idea that if its "biological" that makes it ok, but if its a choice i should be damned. and as a movement, i just don't think "we can't help it" is a grand platform to stand on. its about freedom, and that includes freedom to choose.

Lee, you are somewhat Confusius'd. Traditional roles of dominance and passivity are no more defined by gender than by anatomical components or the phyiologcal constituencies of the organism. Though you may view your penis as a spear of conquest and a tool to penetraye the dark mysteries, this my friend is a learned neurosis. More appropriately, "gayness", is a socio-cultural expression of biological diversity within a species. Genetic, or otherwise, the viability of a partnership does not in any way depend on "penetration" but the mutual manefestation of growth with the natural paring of two organism, human or not, and in the manner and style reflected by the personal prefernces of two consenting adults.

Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.

Lee is funny. According to him her, I (and other gays) am ejaculating randomly without control, all while being fatigued (maybe from all the ejaculation?) and suffering from boils.

What a sorry lot we gays are!

We Chinese know how to handle the problem. Homosexuality went underground after the formation of the People's Republic of China. The Communist regime persecuted homosexuals, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when many homosexuals were punished with long prison terms and sometimes execution. Social tolerance of homosexuality declined.
Since the policy of Reform and Opening Up in 1979, the communist party has been loosening its control over this kind of behavior. But the practice of homosexuality is still labeled as a "moldering life style of capitalism".

Lee, you're so wise. Yawn.

Anyway, I think that the stigma about homosexuality will often prevent scientists from sound reasoning. Even in this article, Jen says something about gayness maybe being due to too much or too little testosterone in fetal development. That is as offensive [as is the whole subject] as scientists saying that a fairly mutant like level of pigmentation in fetal development of the skin organ is what causes blackness. Why do people have so much trouble accepting diversity within our species?

They key is that we have no idea what makes one gay or straight. The only requirement for marriage should be "do the two people love each other?" I just love it when churches with pedophile priests tell us what people should do in th bedroom.

remember our constitution. we all have the right of our persuit of happiness. we do live in the united states of america. we all have the right to be happy and free. this has nothing to do with our sex lives.

As much as I like MoJo, it is disappointing to see it has joined those who insist upon using inflammatory language , such as "right wing", "hate-mongers", and "homophobes", to automatically describe those who have serious questions about the wisdom of same-sex marriage. Obviously, demonizing one's opponents is certainly not the monoply of the "right wing," is it?

Here we go again: nature vs. nurture. Who cares? Why can't I be gay simply because I want to be?

I don't understand why anyone feels a need to question the "wisdom" of same-sex marriage: if the people marrying are foolish (as are many straight people who marry), that is their folly. Is the only thing keeping straight people from marrying same-sex partners the illegality of same-sex marriage? If so, then maybe "homo-phobia" is more accurate than (as I had assumed) euphemistic. If not, then why are they concerned? How does a gay couple's making a formal, public commitment to each other undermine straight commitments? In a country in which, soon, half of all children will be born out of wedlock, how does a desire to commit oneself to love another person undermine straight marriage? The fact that there are absurd Christians who cast judgments against their neighbors shouldn't undermine the core of Christian teaching of love for one's neighbor; the union of any individuals in marriage does not "harm" the institution of marriage. To each, his or her own.

The Gay gene? FIX IT BEFORE BIRTH?
You breeders might need fixing; but we are just fine. If we find the Brad Pitt gene, will we all look like that?

Have we found the gene that causes ignorant fundamentalism yet? Perhaps it could be fixed.

I agree with du about the demonizing of ones opponents. The name calling is not helpful. But I am still waiting to hear a compelling argument for opposing gay marriage. I have listened very carefully, and read intently. All of the arguments talk about what is "natural" or how marriage is about procreation and how gays can't do that. Being gay IS natural for me. I could procreat with or without marriage if I wanted too. Those opposing gay marriage on these grounds are not also calling for restricting straight but sterile couples from marrying. Or those past child bearing years. Or any number of other examples of marriage not involving the creation of children. Marriage is about 2 people who love each other sharing a life together and providing support for each other. Society benefits from these relationships straight or gay. Many religious reasons are often trotted out asailing these relationships. But I don't have to believe your religion or anyone's. My religion is just fine with me being gay. Many churches are. I am still waiting for a compelling argument. My personal belief is that the bottom line on this issue is all that "icky" sex. Some straight people just can't get past that.

Damn Austin....you got some on my screen w/ your randomness....LOL

Good one! Made me laugh. I agree.

Too true-it's unfortunate that people can't take pride in diversity