Same-sex attraction and sexuality are natural phenomena, which is perfectly clear given the behavior of thousands of other species, including most higher primates. What's at issue is how many people with same-sex attraction are 100% gay. And, likewise, how many people with OPPOSITE-sex attraction are 100% straight. Little research has disproven Kinsey's groundbreaking studies about attraction and desire. But because of Americans' needs to put things into neat little boxes, the idea that most humans are capable of attraction to both sexes is very frightening indeed. I certainly don't doubt that there are people with no attraction to one sex or the other, but I also think that people who behave exclusively straight or gay for social pressure reasons, rather than actual orientation, are far more numerous than anyone currently admits. We've been looking at the orientation question from the wrong angles, when trying to prove or disprove its "natural" origins. People are trying to figure out what "causes" same-sex attraction. I think the research is far better aimed at figuring out what "causes" a lack of attraction to one sex or the other. Not to pathologize it, but to understand it. Instead of the idea of a heteronormative state with homosexuality as the anomaly, we should be looking at a binormative state with both heterosexuality and homosexuality as the anomalies. This is especially true for women, who have been proven to have very flexible orientation. Personally, I think women's orientation has always been flexible (in general.) It's only because social acceptance of same-sex sexuality in women has increased that it is becoming more common. If we accept same-sex sexuality in males, the same should happen there. Regardless of how much of orientation and sexual behavior we can attribute to genes or environment, it should remain perfectly legal. The one thing that no science--however marginally legitimate--has been able to prove is that same-sex relationships and sexuality are in any way socially or psychologically damaging. Every ounce of damage all comes from the social stigma surrounding it. In cultures that accept same-sex sexuality, instances of STDs, substance abuse and depression among gay and bi folks are far lower. Take religion out of science--as it should be for every subject--and the answer to all of this is perfectly clear: whether nature, nuture, choice or a combination thereof, there's no reason to legally restrict same-sex relationships and sexuality.

Whether anyone accepts/likes it or not, the truth ignored by both camps referenced in this piece is that we have a creator who has tagged homosexual sex acts as an abominable sin. I makes no difference why someone engages in homosexual sex acts, scientifically speaking. The fact that they do can never be justified by psychology or biology. What is more, no culture of man has the right to decide that sex acts forbidden by God are perfectly alright. God did not create sex for our indiscriminate use as a recreational sport, or to satisfy an unbridled sexual appetite with anyone who happens to arouse desire in us. He created sex exclusively for the marriage bed of a man and his wife. All other sex is sin, including extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, and casual sex with others of the same gender, consensual or otherwise. It is not an issue to be "resolved" by genetic or psychological study. It has already been resolved by Him who made us in the first place, and who identifies all sex outside of marriage as sin. In short, what people do with their bodies is a moral choice they make, regardless of any predispositions, attractions, or so called orientations they use to excuse and justify their sexual behavior. These are the facts, as revealed to us by Him who created us and gave us free will to choose our destiny. He will not judge anybody on the basis of 'orientation', but will rather judge us all on the basis of the choices we make, including how we choose to conduct ourselves sexually.

Hmmm, Bruce's argument makes sense, except for the fact that there exists no evidence anywhere of any kind of God or supreme being -- let alone one which despises homosexuality.

Randi and Stuart, First allow me to preface my commentary by saying that there is so much more to a gay person than just his or her sexuality. They, like all of us, have been created in the image of God and are no less loved by God than any other human being. The True God, God in Christ, is a God of love, not hate. What God hates is sin which is present in all of us, whether it be in the form of sexual immorality, pride or a "white" lie. I find that people who come to the table with presuppositions such as yours regarding God and the Bible actually have never read the Bible in its entirety. To discuss it in any meaningful way you should at least read it with a heart that wants to seek and know God. If you do read it, you will see that God has revealed who He is in the person of Jesus Christ. His death on the cross was not meaningless nor was it orchestrated by a cruel, hateful God. God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God. We were created to know Him and to have a relationship with Him but our sin has separated us from Him. We must repent and believe the gospel. As for Stuart's comment regarding evidence, I submit that there is evidence all around us of a loving God. He has revealed it to us in nature which He created, the Bible which is His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ His Son, who not only fulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning Messiah but validated the authenticity of the scriptures during His earthly ministry. Jesus Christ is by the way, an objective historical fact. There is a plethora of objective historical evidence to the Christian faith. It is not blind but based on fact. One does not have to commit intellectual suicide to become a Christian. How about origins? When you talk about evidence for God's existence, you must also consider the origin of the Universe. There cannot be an uncaused cause. How did the universe come into existence? Here's another example - can you see gravity? No, of course not but we can see its effects. Foolish is the man who says he doesn't believe in gravity and feels he can jump off a roof and survive. Likewise, the fool says in his heart "there is no God." Life is far too complex to have just come about randomly. We are not just products of some protoplasmic slime pool. There is a purpose and meaning to life which the Bible reveals. If we all do our own thing, that is, if we do not believe in a God to whom we are accountable, the ultimate culturual end is anarchy; the ultimate spiritual end is Hell. Relativism is a very slippery sloap. Ideas have consequences. You can see the results of atheistic thinking in the ideology of Stalin and Lennin or a perverted understanding of God and His Word as with in the life of Hitler and the Nazi reign. The fact is there is a God to whom we are all accountable, whether you like it or not. Some things are true even if you don't believe them. It behooves you to investigate all the facts and the claims of Christ and the Bible before you and Randi make assertions like the ones you made. I reiterate, God is a God of love. He loves the gay person as well as the straight but He hates sin and cannot bear to look upon it because He is altogether Holy. Therefore, none of us could stand before Him unless we accept the gift of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuality, like adultery, like a lie, like stealing, is a sin. Despite all the research, the scientific community has yet to come up with a gay gene. I say to the gay person, if you truly surrender to the Lordship of Christ, He will set you free. To Randi and Stuart, I say, don't be afraid to open your heart to Christ. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Start reading the Bible; the gospel of John is a good place to start and may God open the eyes of your heart.

I my self was born in the house of god. But after some time. I didn't get it. Why is it wrong to gay,bi,les.After sometime I stop and make my own path. I like to know even now. How can you hate someone because who they love. I myself think same sex or not. Love is love why do you hate people for loving someone. I have many friends that are gay,les and bi. And they are all happy. And they never don't care what anyone said about it. I think god made us. To love each other. Not hate or dislike someone only because of there sexual ways. If I'm with a man or a women. I know that noting I do is wrong. Because what I feel is real. God as noting to do with it. And you can't say that we are sinning because we are with someone the same sex. Because if its sin being with the person you love. This world be in chaos. Who ever you love man or women. Don't let anyone put you down. You are your own person. No one can take that from you.

Eleni said "I find that people who come to the table with presuppositions such as yours regarding God and the Bible actually have never read the Bible in its entirety." Sounds to me like you're the one who's never read the bible, I have and I would never have believed it could so totally disgrace itself and Christianity, it depicts one of the most despicable, hateful characters in all of fiction. The book is totally nonsensical and totally unbelievable as the supposed work of an omnisicent being. It reads exactly like one would expect the work of primitive bronze age bigots to read. Eleni said "God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God.". Preposterous. He's supposed to be God!He's supposed to be all powerful, god can do ANYTHING, remember?! Your god most certainly didn't need to commit the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus for wrongs of others Jesus has no responsibility for - the foundation of your religion is crazy, its simply too crazy to be true. Eleni said "Jesus Christ is by the way, an objective historical fact.". You're used to believing things without any evidence, that's why you're a Christian. Fact is there are no historical accounts of Jesus apart from the bible, he was a fictional character. Eleni said "When you talk about evidence for God's existence, you must also consider the origin of the Universe. There cannot be an uncaused cause.". So what caused your god then?! If you believe your logic you still have the same problem with god - who caused your god? There can be no uncaused cause, remember?! If you say your god just always existed then it makes just as much sense to say the universe always existed. Eleni said "There is a purpose and meaning to life which the Bible reveals". There is nothing in that book that remotely even begins to redeem it for the hatred and evil in it. Your "god" demands that the Jews invade others lands and slaughter them all without mercy whether or not the inhabitants try and make a peace treaty. Your god demands that innocent women, children, and babies be killed - see Deuteronomy 7:2. What kind of "god" does that? An evil dispicable one, that's what kind Eleni. Eleni said "God is a God of love. He loves the gay person." An outrageous lie, you obviously haven't read that hate filled bible of yours where god orders or carries ou the torture and murder of millions of innocent people. A loving god doesn't allow belief in him and his religon of choice to be questionable and then eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise. Your thinking is incredibly twisted Eleni, you obviously haven't either read the bible or given it any objective thought. A loving god wouldn't eternally torture gay people for having a loving, nurturing, beneficial and harmless same sex relationship. Don't give me this crap about a loving god - I'm not remotely that stupid or ignorant, I've read your bible, apparently unlike you. Eleni said "Homosexuality, like adultery, like a lie, like stealing, is a sin.". How dare you equate a loving nurturing harmless relationship with things that hurt others?! You are one despicable person. The essence of morality is do whatever you want, but harm no one. Gays in loving committed relationships hurt no one and are by definition moral. You try to deprive gay couples of what is good and beautiful, your actions are by defintion immoral. Eleni said "the Bible was written by men. Those men however wrote as they were superintended by God". Don't be absurd Eleni, the bible contains nothing that ordinary humans couldn't have known and much that a god would not have gotten wrong but that primitive bigots would and did, like the sun revolving around the earth, or a "firmament" holding up the skys which are filled with stars which are just little dots of light that can fall to the earth and be held in the palm of your hand. Face it the only reason your a Christian is the accident of geography of your birth, do you honestly think that if you'd been born in Iran you'd be a Christian?! Eleni said "You want a god you are comfortable with, that fits into your definition of what he should be like and that my friend may or may not have negative consequences for you in this life but most assuredly horrific and unimaginable consequences for you in the life to come." Oooo, I'm sooo scared - your big bad sky daddy is going to get me...Eleni, you're sadly mistaken, I don't want a god of any sort, such simply does not exist. I fart in your god's general direction. There's never been any evidence of the supernatural, and never will be. Mere words written on paper aren't evidence of anything, one can write whatever lie they want on paper and it proves nothing. You have no more reason to believe the bible is true than you do to believe the Koran or Hinduism's holy texts are true. All three are loaded with mistakes, ignorance, and craziness because they all share the nature of religions, it is the nature of religions to be made up. There have been thousands of religions over the millenia and at best only one of them might be true and the odds are at best thousands to one that its yours. There's just as much evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, and Apollo as your god, what reason do you have to believe in Jesus and not them? None.

Randi,your definition of morality is that a person can do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. By your definition, if a Christian has chosen to accept Christ as his Savior and then tell others that they can have eternal life through Christ, he is acting morally. By accepting Christ, he is not hurting anyone. By spreading the Gospel, he is not hurting anyone. While another might intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret Scripture, and thereby take action that hurts someone else, that doesn't make the actions of the first person immoral. Your position is that "Gays in a loving relationship are hurting no one and by definition are behaving morally. Those who would interfere in those relationships for their own trivial psychological pleasure are by defintion (sic) behaving immorally." Your comments are a direct attack - and insult - against the faith of Christians. You are basing your attacks upon your definition of morality, and seem to take great "psychological pleasure" in ridiculing those believers. As for your assertion that there are no historical records of Jesus existence outside the Bible, you are mistaken. Tacitus, in Book XV of his annals, records the death of Christ by crucifixion. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus . . ." There are also very early references to Christians in the letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. (eg. Letter XCVII et seq). Take a look at the writings of Josephus: Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." There are other early references to Jesus, or Christ. Obviously, you are free to choose what to believe, but before adopting a definition of morality or attacking people's fundamental beliefs, I encourage you to think through the logical results of your definition, and engage in some research (with an open mind).

I agree with Shannon. This is a question of civil rights. We do not live in a theocracy. The "founding fathers" wanted Americans to have religious freedom and the separation of Church and State. Sexual orientation should be viewed in the same way as religious freedom. This article was very good in articulating the gray areas that exist in the argument. I agree that sexuality is mysterious and there are no clear cut categories, but how do you make an argument for gay rights without these clear cut medical science, nature/nurture arguments? How do you frame the debate in our world of sound bites? I think it really comes down to framing. Without the medical science argument, where do we go from here to argue for equal rights? I think that my home state of Massachusetts did this very well in defeating an attempt to place gay marriage on the ballot. This measure would have divided the state and cost a lot of money to defend. The argument became that the state constitution should give people rights and not take them away. We should not vote to take people's rights away. They did not focus on the medical science argument in their advertising. This worked well here, but I'm not sure you could use the same argument in the South or Midwest. Any other thoughts??? On a side note, I am a Christian, and I am embarassed by Bruce, Eleni, and Todd and all the other fundamentalists. This is really not the place to be evangelizing. We are trying to have an important debate about real people who have limited civil rights in this county. I don't think you are going to bring anyone into the Christian faith with these posts. You only trivalize the Christian faith, the Jesus you worship (who appears to be different from the Jesus I worship), and the argument. Lets have some real discussions about this issue instead of being sidelined by the Right Wingers.

Todd, those are bold faced lies promulagated by Christians to prop up support for the false idea that Jesus was a historical figure. As Josepheus was born in 37 CE and Tacitus was born in 55 CE they couldn't have been contemporaries and eyewitnesses of Jesus. More problematic for the supposed account of Jesus by Josepheus is that Josepheus lived and died as a Jew. That he would claim Jesus was the Messiah and never have converted to Christianity simply isn't believable. The story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted, Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out like a pimpled nose. Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215 CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had it! The first person to make mention of this obviously forged interpolation into the text of Josephus' history was the church father Eusebius, in 324 CE. It is quite likely that Eusebius himself did some of the forging. As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the Antiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of Antiquities of the Jews. 13 The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, 14 a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting. Regarding the bit you quoted from Tacitus, ignoring the fact that he could not have been a contemporary of Jesus due to his much later birth: [Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16). There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger. While Pliny the Younger may have talked of Christians he made no mention of Jesus and neither did any of the 38 writers listed here from the time or shortly after the time of the supposed Jesus. http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml That a magical being performed miracles and was a major political figure and none of these writers saw him as significant enough to mention is simply unbelievable - Jesus never existed. Todd, your welcome and moral to follow your religion as long as you aren't hurting others. When you try to convince people gays are wrongdoers for simply being in a loving committed same sex relationship you are harming those people. When you tell people that gays deserve to be eternally tortured you are creating a hostile environment towards gays that some can and will use to justify violence against gays, or at the very least denying gays equal rights such as the same protection religious people have in anti-discrimination laws or heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love most. To suggest that I'm hurting you in kind by pointing out the harm you do to gays simply doesn't wash. Demonizing gays and trying to deny them equal rights doesn't provide you with any significant benefit beyond some trivial cheap psychological thrill which you certainly can do without. But, for example your attempt to deny people like me the right to marry the one I love most, or to not be fired from my job for reasons other than job performance (like being gay) are a serious drastically harmful effect on me. Those no way you can even remotely compare the "imposition" not being able to bad mouth gays is to you compared to the huge impact you unjustifiable think you should be able to have on my life. You have the right to control your own life but not the right to control mine. Me marrying the one I love, or having job protection or hate crimes protection doesn't prevent you from living your life in any way you choose, you trying to force me to live according to your whims as a heinous infringement upon my right to live as I choose. You don't like same sex marriages then don't have one, but don't even dream of thinking you have the moral right to control any life other than your own - you don't. The right to freedom of religion also includes the right to freedom from religion.

Eleni, I have the most wonderful relationship with the most caring, warm, nutturing, generous and thoughtful man in the world. If you think I'm going to give that up because of the ancient bigotries of primitive bronze age tribesmen's myths you're severely deluded. The essence of morality is do whatever you want, but harm no one. You go live your life however you feel as long as you don't hurt anyone else and leave me to do the same. Stop trying to push absurdities on people like me which we find too preposterous to exist. You know the muslims think you're going to hell to, why should I accept your religion any more than you accept theirs? There's exactly the same proof for there's as yours - face it, the only reason you believe in Christianity is the accident of your geography of birth. If you'd been born in Iran you'd be just as eagerly trying to convert people to Islam. You only believe in Jesus because it was pushed on you from the time you were too young to think logically and reasonably for yourself onwards - you never made a rational decision to believe and it is all obviously a hateful lie.

Randi, congratulations on the ability to copy and paste. It demonstrates great skill as a logician. My intent has been to keep above the sarcasm, but your response is nothing more than a paste job from an online article (complete with footnotes that aren't actually supplied.) I don't expect you would believe even any contemporary accounts if there had been some written in a newspaper at the time of Christ's death. You would assert that they were fabrications. As for the absence of contemporary writings, Christ was not a major political figure, although some of his followers expected him to become one. The Pharisees saw him as a political threat, but he was a teacher, not a politician. Also, it is highly unlikely that the political and religious authorities would have had reason to record His miracles since they considered Him a heretic. They would have considered His miracles to be demonic. I'm not trying to deny anyone the right to love whomever they choose. I challenge you to find anything in my posts where I have said anything along the lines of "gays need to be eternally tortured." What have I written that has "caused harm to gays?" How have I been "demonizing gays?" From the tone of our respective posts, I believe I have a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than you have for Christianity. I gather you consider Christians to be a bunch of brain-washed, mindless sheep.

Doesnt the bible say to forgive ? They why all this fuss about Gays? Forgive them their sins, and move on. And as to believing that the bible is the word of God, just written through man, then where do you draw the line of what is Gods word and what is Mans word? President Bush says God has told him to spread freedom in the middle east. But yet Bush refused to listen to the Pope when he told Bush not to invade Iraq. Which one is the true vessel of Gods words? Bush, the Pope, or some guys who cant be challenged anymore because they have been dead for over 2000 years? Also, none of the bible is believed to have been written until close to 900 years after the death of Christ. Id also like to know why people cherry pick the bible too? Anyone remember these top hits of the bible : Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife Thou shalt not murder Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Yet millions of Christians willingly do these things daily. Dont even get me started on the Money Changers.. How many so called Christians do whatever it takes to be wealthy? So lets move on to the Gay thingy in leviticus 18:22. It reads something like "Man shall not lie down with another man. In the lord's eyes, it is an abomination". But the bible also has other decrees like "thou shalt not eat clams, they are unclean", which totally have not withstood the test of time. There are many such decrees in the bible. If you went to leviticus, i'm sure that you'd find more that make no sense by today's standards. Still , you will pick out the one thing that you personally agree with, and forget the rest. In the real world, its called hypocrisy. But many so called Christian's today isnt that some of the writings in the bible can no longer be applied to modern times??? Wouldnt Gods word be everlasting? If not, why hasnt there been the Bible Version 2.1? Well technically I guess there has been with the King James version, and others, but still so called Christians pick which version they personally like. And if the bible is a "moldable document" like is often said about our constitution, then why cant parts be molded to fit the times that you dont personally agree with? If being Gay is a Chosen life style,then by your same standards, Christianity is a "Chosen Lifestyle" No one is born a Christian, they are influenced by their peers, and they ultimately decide to be Christian. They might feel they are born this way, they might know with all their might that they were born a christian, but the truth of the matter is, they chose it. Same a Muslims, Buddhist and Satan worshipers. Its a Choice.

Randi,your definition of morality is that a person can do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. By your definition, if a Christian has chosen to accept Christ as his Savior and then tell others that they can have eternal life through Christ, he is acting morally. By accepting Christ, he is not hurting anyone. By spreading the Gospel, he is not hurting anyone. While another might intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret Scripture, and thereby take action that hurts someone else, that doesn't make the actions of the first person immoral. Your position is that "Gays in a loving relationship are hurting no one and by definition are behaving morally. Those who would interfere in those relationships for their own trivial psychological pleasure are by defintion (sic) behaving immorally." Your comments are a direct attack - and insult - against the faith of Christians. You are basing your attacks upon your definition of morality, and seem to take great "psychological pleasure" in ridiculing those believers. As for your assertion that there are no historical records of Jesus existence outside the Bible, you are mistaken. Tacitus, in Book XV of his annals, records the death of Christ by crucifixion. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus . . ." There are also very early references to Christians in the letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. (eg. Letter XCVII et seq). Take a look at the writings of Josephus: Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." There are other early references to Jesus, or Christ. Obviously, you are free to choose what to believe, but before adopting a definition of morality or attacking people's fundamental beliefs, I encourage you to think through the logical results of your definition, and engage in some research (with an open mind).

Can you imagine a civilization where a scientific/political article isn't just more grist for the spiritual mill? It's eye-opening however, as I always forget just how divisive you've all been trained to be. I like the red ball, I'll vote for it! No, the blue ball is better! (Joking we all know blue balls suck praise Jesus). I could go on and on.

It troubles me that so much research and money is spent trying to figure this out. I think the best angle that MoJo (and other left wing) publications can take is to speak directly to the bulk of what currently makes up the Right - ie the christian conservatives - and make it very clear that Jesus wouldn't have cared a lick whether you're gay or straight, and would have loved you al the same (including your kids). That's the languange that I think will make progress happen!

Matt, no one chooses to be gay. Do you remember choosing to be heterosexual? Do you remember a time when you had no sexual attractions one way or another, you conciously weighed the pros and cons of being attracted to men and women, made a choice to be attracted to one and subsequently experienced that sexual attraction? Don't be absurd Matt, gays don't choose their orientation any more than you did. As to your friends supposedly choosing to be gay, assuming you aren't lying that is an illusion. Many if not most gays grow up internalizing the homophobia people like you preach and attempt to be straight until they realize that they can no longer do it. Some after a time of accepting their sexuality go back in the closet and attempt to pretend to be heterosexual again (so called "exgays"). Even most "exgays" when pressed admit they are still attracted to men and that they have little or no attraction to women. Many more, like myself, are bisexual and have relationships with both men and women. Just because a bisexual goes from a relationship with a woman, to one with a man, back to one with a woman doesn't mean they have chosen their orientation. They haven't, the same sex and opposite sex attractions always exist regardless of who we are with. The vast majority of gays report that their sexual attractions appeared at an early age unbidden prior to any sexual experience - just like happened with you Matt. Gays experience is no different than yours. If you think people choose to be gay, then try an experiment - make a choice to be gay for a week and see if you experience any same sex sexual desires. Its time you stopped being a bigot and recognized what all major physical and mental health organizations say, and even most anti-gay "exgay" organizations, no one chooses to experience same sex attractions. As to the distant father theory, there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting this myth. If there was any truth to this you might ask yourself why there was no boom of gays after WWII given all the absent/distant fathers there were. You might ask yourself why there are no more gays in the black community than in the white community given the well known problem of absent fathers in black households. Shidlo and Schroeder studied 200 gays attending "exgay" "therapy". Of the 200 they only found 1 they think might have changed orientation - possibly a bisexual to begin with. Many of those in the "therapy" felt harmed by the experience. If being gay was simply a choice the vast majority of them would have been able to make the change - they were not because its not a choice. This and the estimated .02 percent "success" rate ( a 99.98 percent failure rate) shown by the Spitzer study I mentioned earlier is powerful evidence that being gay isn't achoice regardless of the lies right wing bigots like to put forth. And even if it were a choice, so what? Religion is a choice and we don't deny people equal rights for choosing the "wrong" religion nor should we treat the situtuation with gays any differently.

Randi, one of the many erroneous assumptions you have made is that Christians believe as they do because they happen to be born here in the West. You posit that everyone born in the Middle East must be a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist. What you fail to understand (and sadly Beth as well) is that one does not become a Christian or is a Christian because one is born into it. A true believer becomes a Christian when he or she is truly converted to Christ; when he or she recognizes he or she is a sinner, repents and believes that Christ is the only propitiation for their sin. Sure there are thousands of nominal "Christians" who have no real love or devotion to Christ; who do the church thing and go through the motions but have never truly been converted. As for the those born in the East, there are literally thousands of true Christians born in the Middle East and China who worship in underground churches because they are persecuted for their faith. I know some of them. So you see Randi, you're wrong. Another thing, everyone talks about tolerance but the one thing they won't tolerate is the name of Jesus Christ and those of us who love Him. He came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the greatest. We - you, me, everyone are all sinners who need the Savior. By the way, I have several gay friends who are wonderful, caring people - I love them but I don't condone their lifestyle and they know where I stand. It is possible to love another human being genuinely and yet not agree with certain things they do. You are very very wrong when you think Christians hate gays. I believe it is an act of love to warn people when there's danger ahead. To be more concerned with whether you will be rejected and despised as a result of speaking the truth is what is selfish and unloving. There's no virtue in that; that's easy and everyone does it; so much easier to play nicey nice while souls are perishing. As for this turning into an opportunity to evangelize, I would have been happy to stick with the issue of our First Amendment Rights but the genesis of this entire dialogue was Randi's venomous attack on the Christian faith and God's Word. As an orthodox believer I have no choice but to defend the faith and to present the gospel. I make no apologies for evangelizing because I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto the salvation of those who believe. Randi, you are free to do what you want to do but the problem is that you want everyone else to say your lifestyle it's o.k. Christians are not opposed to your civil liberties, we are just opposed to you marketing your lifestyle as morally acceptable and wanting to silence those of us who disagree with you. The truth is not always easy to bear but surrendering to it will set you free.

Eleni Rigual wrote: "God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God". What a nonsense.

I think sexuality is far too complex to be assigned to a binary causality: biology vs. environment. And, I really don't care. Searching for the CAUSE of homosexuality implies that it is a problem, an illness, a negative, by definition. When do we see studies about the CAUSE of heterosexuality? Thus, I see the focus on the quest for THE biological causes of homosexuality to be misguided. If a biological cause can be pinpointed, then people will want to "cure" it. My sexuality (which used to be straight, but is now lesbian) never had any effect on how I performed in my profession, how I raised my children, how I paid my taxes, etc. An enlightened society would simply accept people regardless of their sexuality. Some lesbians have been appalled when a well-known lesbian writer fell in love with a man, even calling her a traitor. To me that reaction is as narrow-minded and bigoted as homophobia. Sexuality simply has to do with whom we have sex, with whom we find attractive, about whom we fantasize. It can be surprising; I've heard straight men admit finding Johnny Depp attractive; I've heard many a lesbian say she'd make an exception for Patrick Stewart. A straight married woman with children from a very conservative religious background confided in me that she thinks all women must fantasize about sex with other women sometimes. I've had straight married men tell me about homosexual experiences in their pasts. But while such admissions may make for interesting conversations, a person's sexuality, regardless of the complex tangle of biological and environmental influences, is irrelevant to how we conduct our professional lives, raise our children, and deal with all the myriad chores of daily life like cleaning cat boxes, paying bills, and doing laundry. Whatever the "causes" of the various forms of sexuality and no matter how fluid they may be, the only thing that matters is that they should be accepted as part of our common, yet varied, humanity. Thus, a person's sexuality should not subject that person to discrimination and bigotry and should not prevent that person from having equal rights by law in our society.

"If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?" Sexual orientation is a protected right. That protects everyone, not just homosexuals.

What business is it of anyone's, what another person's sexual preference or orientation is? To each his/her own. Opinions based on biblical references are okay as long as others are equally free to voice references from other books. The bible is a compilation by committee. Whether or not it is the "word of God" is debatable, whether the "believers" agree or not. Debate is healthy. Honesty about one's preferences is healthy. Open discussion is healthy. We are all one.

If only the world would open their eyes and see the truth!! God(Nature)does NOT MAKE MISTAKES! If you take "Revealed" religion out of the equation, you wont have the need for "this therapy" or "that therapy." You would have a "civilized world of Males and females who would love those for whom they have a NATURAL attract to. Just because Judeo-Christianity "says" that homosexuality is an abomination doesn't make it so. Up until Judeo-Christianity was born, same sex relationships were the norm. Yet a bunch of religious ZEALOTS decide that they don't like same sex relationships, so they start writing their "Biblical" lies to alter the perception of their followers. "I see, I say, I saw" is a lie that, if told over and over, becomes the truth. As time goes on and people begin to believe what they hear, then naturally, they will hate or despise homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't even a "label" until the 19th Century people! What's that say about the influence of "Revealed" religion! Women were considered "property" by male nobelmen and used exclusively to bear them a males to carry on the family name. Look at our own Constitution. Women were GIVEN rights. Only the Rich good old White men of Power had Constitutional Rights. So, before scientists and religious factions try to claim their studies as true and accurate, they should ask themselves, "When did I choose to become Homosexual?" Get rid of the religion and science and let people marry for love. And for the more morbidly feable brains, NO, I don't want to marry my animal! But you all must want to, since you bring it up and seem to know the sexual positions with an animal, disgusting all!

As a gay Christian and as a long time reader of Mothr Jones, I found all the comments on the article to make fascinating reading. I want to thank everyone for the excellent discussion of scriptural and historical material. I'd like to make a point about the Constitution and "free choice." When the Constitution was written, the issue of "Freedom of Religion" was a major concern. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers knew very well how dangerous a government enforced "State Religion" could be. It had been little more than 200 years since hundreds of English Protestants had died in the flames of Bloody Mary's State Roman Catholocism. Our founding parents knew that they had to make religion into a free choice for all people. If they did not, then some leader would find some way to force all people to worship God... and worship the state... in the way that they wished. Nations across Europe and the world had always imposed a state religion on their people. This State Religion enabled the emporers, kings, Princes and Popes to impose all sorts of political, cultural, religious, and economic controls over all of their people. This type of state religion is not at all what Jesus called for in the New Testemant. In the late 1700's "Freedom of Religion" was a sort of symbolic issue for freedom in general. If the central government of the USA was not going to impose a state religion, then the central government would not impose a variety of other state controls on US Citizens. This fact insured that the USA would give its people far greater freedoms than the other nations of the earth. This position on religion is far closer to the teachings of the New Testament. Today, homosexuality is the symbolic issue that represents freedom in general. Some of this nations's people and institutions, for a variety of religious, personal, fear based and power-seeking reasons, are working hard to impose a state-sanctioned sexual orientation and code of conduct on every person in the country. In so doing, they are seeking to limit everybody's freedom and force everyone into a single political, religious, cultural and economic mind-set. A Perpetual Republican Majority, as it were. This is an Anti-Christian and Anti-American action, but it is certainly a popular action among some people. As Americans, we should not allow this nation to be forced into a single opinion or option about religon. Niether should we allow this nation to be forced into a single opinion or option about sexuality. Freedom of opinion in these areas prepresents and insures freedom in all other areas. No matter where we stand on the issue of religion, let us stand together on the issue of freedom.

The main thesis of this article is the line in paragraph 8, "Even more important, some research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think, that people, especially women, can and do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries, that there are ex-straights as well as ex-gays." Yet nowhere in this article is evidence given. Where are the interviews with the ex-straights and ex-gays saying, "Five years ago I thought Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie was hot, but now I find Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt hot."? The only interview is with a sad gay man whose intellect won't let him sleep with what turns him on. OK--he tried women, so what about men? I had a similar viewpoint, intellectually not wanting to do certain things, and not wanting to be with a man (mainly because of the influence of society), but when I was intimate with a man, boy did it clear things up! It's sad that this gay guy still is 51 and hasn't done it.

Thank you for this article. Not being a gay person I only have my opinion and what I have read to guide me, but I fail to see how people can be born gay, when we are ALL born male and female, except genitalia. In other words a gay man has the same body as a straight man and a lesbian the same body as a woman. I have always felt it has to be some outside influence with causes people to feel the need to have sex with a same sex partner. After all ALL sex is a choice. Even though I an attracted to men I CAN and have gone without sex.

Very interesting. Let's put it on the line: Bruce, Robert, Eleni and Todd and others who think gays are sinners - Do you think that homosexual activity should be unlawful in the United States (as it was in many states prior to 2003's Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision.? Yes or no, please.

Very interesting article. Opponents of gay marriage would be better off arguing that society benefits from same sex marriage. The problem marriage has become an institution based on the premise of "love partners". This is a relatively recent historical view of marriage. As long as marriage is based on "romantic love" then same sex marriage becomes an issue of equality. Maybe what harms to institution of marriage is broader than same sex marriage but simply the concept that a marriage can and should be based on "romantic love"

Irene says: "we are ALL born male and female, except genitalia." True, but it doesn't stop there. Some are born with BOTH which makes them one of several types of true hermaphrodites. So, if a hermaphrodite were to marry a physically correct male or female, is that a Gay Marriage? When we make genital the criteria for deciding if two persons can love one another, what the hell are we allowing to happen? Those who feel compelled to judge others need to hard dose of reality. Get off your pious pulpit and put a stop to what is really immoral, like famine, genocide, immoral and illegal war, avarice and on and on....

For the life of me I can't understand why it's anyone's business who one loves or copulates with, as long as it is a consenting coupling between adults. PEOPLE have this God-given right. Those who are not called to couple, or partner, are not prosecuted and persecuted; neither are most heterosexual arrangements. Why should those "outside the norm"? No one is trying to force a homosexual arrangement upon heterosexuals; why should the reverse be true? Think of all the destruction to people and families because of this insane obsession of many heterosexuals? Consider the ruined lives that this touches--people who try, very hard, to deny their innate sexuality in order to conform to society and avoid persecution and prosecution, and then find that they are unable to continue with the charade or are shamefully exposed. What a waste!!!!! I suggest that Christians follow more closely the teachings of Jesus to love their neighbors.

Sad that such an article needs to be written. Sadder that some gays and some non-gays who want gays to be non-gays hold to the slip-shod Freudian-perverse idea that a cold and distant father prone to bursts of anger make a male child gay for want of male affection. Duh! What an encapsulated view of my father--and none of the four of us are gay or lesbian. In the end, it seems that medical science has become obsessed to psychosis in figuring that if a choice is unacceptable to a whole lotta people, then it's wrong, it's a disease and it needs curing. Hmm...when you cure ham it gets to tasting better.... These psychotically oriented doctors are pandering to the status quo AND are stuck in their castle of disease. To follow along on their logic...all tall people should be put in institutions for being tall and above it all. [deleted]ing insane, sick tall people. Who the hell they think they are? No, no--it doesn't matter than I'm short and like tall women, it's...

Irene says: "we are ALL born male and female, except genitalia." True, but it doesn't stop there. Some are born with BOTH which makes them one of several types of true hermaphrodites. So, if a hermaphrodite were to marry a physically correct male or female, is that a Gay Marriage? When we make genital the criteria for deciding if two persons can love one another, what the hell are we allowing to happen? Those who feel compelled to judge others need to hard dose of reality. Get off your pious pulpit and put a stop to what is really immoral, like famine, genocide, immoral and illegal war, avarice and on and on....

Hey folks. Don't you know when you are being used. No one with half a brain can take this article seriously. Mother Jones' 'writers' are so desperate for material that they float rubbish like this into the marketplace of no ideas in the hope someone will provide them something meaningful to talk about with some air of credibility. Unfortunately, birds of a feather .... ergo GIGO. But what a colossal return on such a small and petty investment: one ton of garbage in and a hundred tons of garbage out. Ninety-nine percent refuse that does little but pollute the intellectual environment with a hundred and one tons of toxic sludge which demonstrates how tainted and corrupted the Constitution has become. Yes, Christopher Hitchens is correct: "religion poisons everything."

"All the major psychotherapy guilds have barred their members from researching or practicing reparative therapy" (from above) violates the very definition of science. Are scientist as restricted, today, as they were in the time of Copernicus. The only reason to restrict scientific inquiry is because you are afraid of the truth.