To me, the debate of SSM goes beyond the politics and the elections. It goes to the level of biological basis, wherein a lot of LGBT claim is the origin of their sexual orientation.
We all tend to take our heterosexuality for granted as if it just happens. But it seems to develop slowly and steadily and to consolidate over about two decades - through clearly defined and documented stages. Psychologists are in broad agreement about the general stages of heterosexual development and unanimous about one thing: heterosexual orientation is not genetically determined. They will say it is overwhelmingly learned; the result of response to the environment. Most will also say genetics has a part to play, but only a very minor one. Homosexuals in contrast frequently show a breakdown in several of the developmental stages leading to heterosexuality, particularly attachment to and gender identification with the same sex parent and positive connection with same sex peers, leading to needs for same sex affection and affirmation that become eroticized. Once the pattern of sexual gratification of these needs starts, a habit begins, becomes ingrained, and often addictive. Rates of male sexual abuse are higher in homosexuals and lesbians than in heterosexuals. If heterosexuality is learned, then homosexuality is too.
--Excerpt from "Are heterosexuals born that way?" as found on the following link.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
Very interesting read. Hope you get as much out of it as I did.
Essentially, what you are conveying by posting a link to the book
My Genes Made Me Do It is that homosexuals can (and probably should) train themselves to adopt the
preferred orientation, so that they will then be able to be afforded the rights of heterosexuals. (Because then they'll
be heterosexuals!) Baloney. Alright, so what if "environmental factors" play a huge role in the development of homosexual tendencies? So what if not everybody is "born that way"? Does this make it fair that some people should have to go against their arduous lifelong human development and alter their tastes in romantic partners? Genetically based or not, that kind of preference -- be it homosexual or heterosexual, or more generally for tall or short partners, cute or serious partners, assertive or passive partners -- is almost
impossible to change, not to mention hellish to deny.
Would it be fair for a heterosexual man who was raised in part by an abusive aunt, who just happened to be tall and assertive/dominant, to have to marry a tall and dominating woman because, say, his family wants him to marry into money? Especially if he's already in love with a short, meek, and fun-loving partner? I give this example, because the romantic ideal of the man within it has likely been influenced by environmental factors. If it isn't fair that heterosexuals should have to choose a more "ideal" partner in the eyes of their family over one which circumstance has made more attractive to them, then how is it fair that homosexuals should have to undergo the same ordeal in order to have a more ideal partner in the eyes of the law?
Rates of male sexual abuse are higher in homosexuals and lesbians than in heterosexuals.
Rates of male sexual abuse are higher among lesbians??? Edit: Oh, I see, you are referring to developmental factors here, not domestic abuse within the lesbian population.
In that case, I wonder how anybody could think it fair that a woman, who has been altered so dramatically by abuse at the hands of men, should have to do something which she sees as a threat to her well-being, i.e. enter into a relationship with another man? If she wants to get married, that is...
