kdryan said:
IMHO, homosexuality is a fact of nature. Many species display the trait. It is there in nature. However, those species don't go out of their way to make it the norm. They do not try to make the entire species think that what they're doing is the way nature intended it. When it comes time for raising the little chimpanzees or the little penguins or puppies or whatever, it is a male/female relationship that is relied upon.
That is not actually a good comparison -- in most species, parental investment is limited to the mothers -- the fathers could care less about their offspring.
As for the discussion of the causes of homosexuality, very large studies with twins and adoptees (behavioral genetic studies) have shown that (as with most other behavior traits), 50% of the variation in sexual orientation is genetic. Though this leaves a considerable non-genetic component to sexual orientation, this still doesn't imply "choice" per se -- various non-genetic factors can still lead to fairly deterministic outcomes, such as developmental noise (e.g., identical twins don't have the same fingerprints) or perhaps even viruses. In any case, the science is pretty clear that sexual orientation is an innate trait.
kdryan said:
For the entire 30,000 years history of man, the mommy/daddy relationship has been the way of raising a child.
Actually, modern humans have been around closer to 160,000 years. And while it's clear that homosexuality has a considerable genetic component, it's admittedly not so clear <I>
why</I> this is the case; it's not clear <I>
why</I> the trait persists in the population. But it's certainly not unique to humans, found in many animal species -- even predominant in some (check out our closest relatives, the bonobos). And I seriously doubt it's some sort of "mistake" of nature -- if anything I would believe quite the opposite. There is a growing belief today in the science of human evolution that many minority traits have been selected <I>
for</I> in the course of human evolution. They were selected for, it is thought, because they serve some function that benefits the species as a whole -- that is human populations benefits from having certain "unusual" individuals around (to fill niche roles or in case of calamities, for example). This is not limited to homosexuals, but includes other personality types that exist in significant minorities, (and no offense is intended to anyone) including the exceptionally talented (geniuses, savants), the depraved (psychopaths), and even certain mental disorders (such as bipolarity or schizophrenia).
kdryan said:
Only in the last 20 years or so has it become fashionable to be otherwise. Can you really accept such a rapid change without question?
Maybe we should ask the ancient Greeks and Romans?
kdryan said:
But I happen to think that a family is better off with a mommy and a daddy, not a mommy and a mommy or a daddy and a daddy. I don't believe in gay marriage.
In reality, it turns out that parents' sexuality matters little to their children's development. Decades of research has shown that, all things held equal, children turn out the same if they have two parents of opposite sex, two of the same sex, one parent of either sex, in the conservative nuclear family or in a hippie commune or an Israeli kibbutz. The Ozzie-and-Harriet, mom, pop and kids is far from necessarily the "normal" or "natural" home environment for children. For the bulk of human history, the "normal" home unit consisted of a man, his multiple wives and their children. Parental death was also more common in the past than it is today, so children had to often suffice with just one parent or neither. And in many societies today, children live in extended families with not just their siblings but their cousins and their parents, and the grandparents as well.
The bottom line is that there is no rational basis for denying same sex couples the right to adopt children, as long as they care well for the child and provide for him/her -- the same we would expect from heterosexual couples. The issue of gay adoption is really a matter of lingering homophobia and, at best, misguided concern for the children they might adopt, ignoring the challenges faced by those children who go without loving homes.
Then I'm really glad that there are people like you who would be able to take them out of such an abusive environment and provide them with a family that would nurture them and care for them, as they deserve. I'm sure they will grow up to be wonderful children under your care.