US Court finds AL marriage laws unconstitutional

[homersapien 11,393]

Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again.

It's all water under the bridge. No harm no file.

I just hope that you did not feel the need to support homosexuals because of anything that I said. My daughter is gay and I would never put her in harms way and defend her with my life. I don't defend her lifestyle but I respect her and love her none the less. She is the apple of my eye.

Her take on this is to get rid of marriage in the law and treat single people (esp. single parents) know differently than married people. I asked her about benefits after a loved one passes and she says "a single person is not lesser than a straight or gay person". "A single parent has no help from anyone now and no hope of any help in the future". "Life is hard, deal with it." LOL. Gotta love em!

I use to not think about same sex marriage that much because it did not interest me. She is the one that supports not changing definitions of words we currently accept. Be creative and make new name is her motto. (I stole her idea of a "love union") She studies French and Hebrew but is fluent in Spanish. Linguistics and books mean a lot to her. she has a poster that reads, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

She gave me my zeal for the word marriage.

I like that very much. It's profoundly true.

But, nevertheless, languages do evolve, especially English. For example, even the word marriage is used to indicate the combination of two things such as food ingredients or even thoughts.

[homersapien 11,393]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

I would reverse the question and ask if it hurts anything. I can think of many benefits, some of which might benefit the "general good", but I can't think of any reasons why it would hurt the general good (or country).

[homersapien 11,393]

I am not sure what "benefit to the country" has to do with it. Can you explain?

I was prodding peoples thoughts only thinking from the debate of why the government even recognized marriage in the first place. Here is something someone wrote to understand the angle in which I was asking the question. I had no motives just wanted fresh takes on the subject.

copy and paste...

"The original question was , “Why is marriage recognized by government anyway?” A problem with this question is that it has so many aspects. The discussion can go off in many directions. Let us break the question into its basic parts. “How does government recognize marriage?” and “Why does government recognize it?” The word, “anyway” also asks the question, “Why not have the government just stop recognizing marriage all together?”

How does government recognize marriage? Sharpening the question, “How do the US Government and the state governments recognize government heterosexual marriage?” This question is a matter of verifiable facts, not opinions. It is written in the laws. This allows the discussion to be narrowed by not discussing religious marriage or other governments or the history of marriage for the thousands of years prior to the founding of the US. Our government only recognizes the marriage of couples with government issued marriage licenses. Therefore we can eliminate discussion of unlicensed person marriages and unlicensed religious marriages. For a start, we should also eliminate discussion of same-sex marriage. Discussion of same-sex marriage tends to complicate and inflame. If we can answer this question for heterosexual marriage we can later see how that answer fits with same-sex marriage.

At the founding of the US, government had little to do with marriage. Over the next 220 years laws dealing with marriage accumulated. Until the 20th century, government marriage was largely a matter for the states. The states issued marriage licenses, benefits and laws dealing with marriage. The federal government began giving financial benefits to couples with marriage licenses after about 1913.

Why did our governments enact these laws? There does not seem to be a consistent philosophical concept or goal guiding these laws. Many were instituted to serve other political interests. For example one of the original purposes of marriage licenses was to prevent interracial marriages. Another purpose of some marriage laws was to help enforce eugenics. A purpose of giving special Social Security benefits to married couples was to gain support for Social Security. Allowing joint filing and income averaging for married couples lessened the opposition to income taxation. Why did our government do all this? The real answer is not knowable and therefore anyone of us can speculate as to the government’s reasons and debate is not likely to be productive.

The real question for productive debate is, “What should the role of our governments be in government heterosexual marriage and why?” The arguments for keeping the laws as they are tend to be:

1. It is not practical to change the laws and benefits.

2. People with government marriage licenses would never accept a change

3. The present laws make issues such as wills convenient

4. Government has an interest in promoting stable families

5. The laws give status and prestige to married couples

None of these arguments is very compelling. There is nothing unconstitutional, unfair, or immoral about changing or removing any or all the current marriage laws. There is no indication that these government laws have improved family stability. The divorce rate has generally been increasing along with increasing marriage laws, benefits and programs.

Even very intelligent and articulate advocates arguing for continuance of government marriage programs has a tough time because the case is so weak. The case can be picked apart law by law, benefit by benefit until there is nothing left. No one of them can be justified. They can all be eliminated or made available to single people. If government marriage no longer exists, then the argument about government allowing government same-sex marriage becomes moot.

Interesting.

One of the things that marriage does (for better or worse) is to legally join the economics of two people which at least has benefits in passing on one's estate in a predictable way. It also serves too protect women and children in a family, which benefits the general good (the state) IMO.

[WarTim 3,456]

For once I agree with homey claus. We should leave marriage AS IS. Thanks!

[homersapien 11,393]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

Because we passed the point long ago of this really being about mere benefits or legalities. Hell, that could have been done with something as simple as a standardized contract drawn up between the two consenting parties detailing things like visitation rights, power of attorney, inheritance, medical decisions and so on.

A contract would not satisfy the need unless the law supports it. If the law doesn't recognize the rights of a same sex spouse, a contract between two people wouldn't establish that recognition.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

Because we passed the point long ago of this really being about mere benefits or legalities. Hell, that could have been done with something as simple as a standardized contract drawn up between the two consenting parties detailing things like visitation rights, power of attorney, inheritance, medical decisions and so on.

A contract would not satisfy the need unless the law supports it. If the law doesn't recognize the rights of a same sex spouse, a contract between two people wouldn't establish that recognition.

Under a legal contract, you can assign power of attorney to anyone. You can assign the right to make medical decisions to anyone. You can designate anyone as your heir. These are not things that require "spousal" designation to be done contractually.

[homersapien 11,393]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here.

That's sorta of right. Homosexuals undoubtedly want to participate in the same social and legal status defined by "marriage" in our culture. That hardly means they are opposing or suppressing those who don't feel they have that right.

That would be like saying blacks in the civil rights area were attempting to remove from the marketplace the ideas of anyone who believed they were not entitled to the same rights as a white person. Anyway, I suspect that is the way a homosexual would see it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

For instance here's something detailing powers of attorney in Alabama:

What does a Power of Attorney do?

• A power of attorney lets you give someone else the legal right to act for you.
  
• The power of attorney can cover simple tasks like writing or signing checks.
  
• It can also involve more complex matters like selling land.
  
• The power of attorney can be very specific or very general.
  
• You can limit a power of attorney to one task, like selling a car.
  
• Or, you can give your agent the power to do almost everything you can now do.
  

Why should I have a financial Power of Attorney?

• It's good planning.
  
• If a car accident or some physical or mental disease keeps you from acting for yourself, your agent can handle your finances and pay your bills. No one has to go to court to seek a conservatorship or a guardianship.
  

How can I get a Power of Attorney?

• You can go to a lawyer. This is the best way to get a power of attorney that fits your needs.
  
• You can buy a form at an office supply store and try to make it fit. But don't.
  
• You can find a form on-line. But don't rely on one you find.
  
• You can borrow one from a friend. But don't.
  
• By trying to use a "one-size-fits-all" power of attorney, you risk problems you might not recognize.
  
• If you want a power of attorney to let someone deposit money into a bank account and write checks on the account, go to your bank. Some banks will only honor their own forms for powers of attorney.
  

Who can be my agent?

• You can give a power of attorney to any adult.
  
• Your agent does not have to be a lawyer.
  
• Choose someone you can trust.
  
• Be sure to have a lawyer draw up the documents.
  

What types of Powers of Attorney are there?

• A medical power of attorney gives someone the right to make decisions on your health care.
  
• A financial power of attorney lets someone handle your money and property. To sell your land, the power of attorney must specifically give that right.
  
• A limited power of attorney lets someone do some specific things for you.
  
• A general power of attorney lets someone act pretty much like you.
  
• A durable power of attorney continues even after you become incapacitated. If you do not use the word "durable," a power ends when you become incapacitated.
  
• A springing power of attorney takes effect when something happens. Usually, it begins when you become incapacitated. You have to be very careful to spell out how someone can tell that the thing has happened, so the power is in effect.
  
• You can combine them. For example, a limited, durable financial power of attorney would let your agent do specific financial tasks for you when you can't. This might include paying your bills and dealing with your bank.
  
• A durable medical power of attorney lets your agent make medical decisions for you when you can't make these decisions.
  

Can I end a Power of Attorney?

• Yes. You can always revoke a power of attorney. This will keep your agent from "taking over" or keeping you from making your own decisions.
  
• You can revoke a power of attorney by giving written notice to your agent and to some one in charge at any place where you expect the agent would try to use the power. For example, you would want to give written notice to your banks.
  

http://www.alabamalegalhelp.org/resource/powers-of-attorney

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here.

That's sorta of right. Homosexuals undoubtedly want to participate in the same social and legal status defined by "marriage" in our culture. That hardly means they are opposing or suppressing those who don't feel they have that right.

That would be like saying blacks in the civil rights area were attempting to remove from the marketplace the ideas of anyone who believed they were not entitled to the same rights as a white person. Anyway, I suspect that is the way a homosexual would see it.

I'm sure they would. I disagree with the equating of race and sexual identity.

[homersapien 11,393]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

Because we passed the point long ago of this really being about mere benefits or legalities. Hell, that could have been done with something as simple as a standardized contract drawn up between the two consenting parties detailing things like visitation rights, power of attorney, inheritance, medical decisions and so on.

A contract would not satisfy the need unless the law supports it. If the law doesn't recognize the rights of a same sex spouse, a contract between two people wouldn't establish that recognition.

Under a legal contract, you can assign power of attorney to anyone. You can assign the right to make medical decisions to anyone. You can designate anyone as your heir. These are not things that require "spousal" designation to be done contractually.

I didn't say there weren't things that couldn't be addressed that way. I said it wouldn't necessarily address everything. An example would be visitation rights. Another would be social security inheritance rights.

[homersapien 11,393]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here.

That's sorta of right. Homosexuals undoubtedly want to participate in the same social and legal status defined by "marriage" in our culture. That hardly means they are opposing or suppressing those who don't feel they have that right.

That would be like saying blacks in the civil rights area were attempting to remove from the marketplace the ideas of anyone who believed they were not entitled to the same rights as a white person. Anyway, I suspect that is the way a homosexual would see it.

I'm sure they would. I disagree with the equating of race and sexual identity.

Assuming that sexual identity - just as race - is a result of nature, why?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here.

That's sorta of right. Homosexuals undoubtedly want to participate in the same social and legal status defined by "marriage" in our culture. That hardly means they are opposing or suppressing those who don't feel they have that right.

That would be like saying blacks in the civil rights area were attempting to remove from the marketplace the ideas of anyone who believed they were not entitled to the same rights as a white person. Anyway, I suspect that is the way a homosexual would see it.

I'm sure they would. I disagree with the equating of race and sexual identity.

Assuming that sexual identity - just as race - is a result of nature, why?

Well, first of all that's a big - and unproven - assumption. In fact, if there's any real evidence to be had, it leans toward being biological AND environmental in terms of cause.

But even with your assumption, they still aren't the same. Race as it is typically defined is a reference to certain physical characteristics like skin color or hair texture. Sexual orientation relates to a behavior and in this instance it is a specific behavior that is at issue, not whether someone is physically attracted to their own sex. I can know the race of a baby the second it leaves the womb. No one would seriously purport to know the supposed sexual orientation of an infant.

An in terms of anti-discrimination laws, the equating of the two is borderline insulting to what black people in this country went through on the way to civil rights. When were gay people denied the right to vote, or considered property, or had their families forcibly ripped apart because two different owners wanted to buy the members? When were gays shuttled off to poor, inferior schools segregated from straights? Their situations aren't even remotely on the same level.

Those are just a few reasons.

[homersapien 11,393]

Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"?

It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here.

That's sorta of right. Homosexuals undoubtedly want to participate in the same social and legal status defined by "marriage" in our culture. That hardly means they are opposing or suppressing those who don't feel they have that right.

That would be like saying blacks in the civil rights area were attempting to remove from the marketplace the ideas of anyone who believed they were not entitled to the same rights as a white person. Anyway, I suspect that is the way a homosexual would see it.

I'm sure they would. I disagree with the equating of race and sexual identity.

Assuming that sexual identity - just as race - is a result of nature, why?

Well, first of all that's a big - and unproven - assumption. In fact, if there's any real evidence to be had, it leans toward being biological AND environmental in terms of cause.

But even with your assumption, they still aren't the same. Race as it is typically defined is a reference to certain physical characteristics like skin color or hair texture. Sexual orientation relates to a behavior and in this instance it is a specific behavior that is at issue, not whether someone is physically attracted to their own sex. I can know the race of a baby the second it leaves the womb. No one would seriously purport to know the supposed sexual orientation of an infant.

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

And it's also not to say that environment can be a factor. But environment combining with genetic or epigenetic predispositions is hardly a new scientific concept.

Now that's not to say one cannot simply deny the science. That's obviously a common practice, especially on internet forums. But if you are hard set in your opinion that we all could be homosexuals had we only "decided" to go that way, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different subject.

Secondly, I don't really need an explanation of how race differs from sexuality.

Finally, homosexuality is defined by sexual desire of your own sex. Whether or not one acts on those desires is not relevant to defining them as homosexuals.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

And it's also not to say that environment can be a factor. But environment combining with genetic or epigenetic predispositions is hardly a new scientific concept.

It being new wasn't my argument though. It being different from race was.

Now that's not to say one cannot simply deny the science. That's obviously a common practice, especially on internet forums. But if you are hard set in your opinion that we all could be homosexuals had we only "decided" to go that way, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different subject.

"Environmental" is not the same thing as saying "chosen."

Secondly, I don't really need an explanation of how race differs from sexuality.

Finally, homosexuality is defined by sexual desire of your own sex. Whether or not one acts on those desires is not relevant to defining them as homosexuals.

Well, you asked why I don't equate the two, so an explanation of the differences was warranted I felt. How else would one answer your question?

[homersapien 11,393]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

And not to derail this discussion, but I would suggest that culture (environment) is just as entwined in racism.

[Weegle777 78]

Question:

If a person is born into a same-sex parent family, and remains mostly around those that are homosexual, and models that lifestyle in their relationships for many years, then "decides" one day that they aren't homosexual anymore, are they considered a biological homosexual or a choice-driven homosexual? Are they really homosexual or are they really not?

Serious question.

[homersapien 11,393]

Now that's not to say one cannot simply deny the science. That's obviously a common practice, especially on internet forums. But if you are hard set in your opinion that we all could be homosexuals had we only "decided" to go that way, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different subject.

"Environmental" is not the same thing as saying "chosen."

Sure it is. Presumably the environment is what causes that particular "choice", if not, then homosexuality would be strictly biological.

And to be clear, if there is a choice at all, it is to act as you truly are.

[homersapien 11,393]

Secondly, I don't really need an explanation of how race differs from sexuality.

Well, you asked why I don't equate the two, so an explanation of the differences was warranted I felt. How else would one answer your question?

Sorry, I got caught up in your distinction between behavior and having dark skin. No offense intended.

I don't make such a distinction. To me, a sexual preference for your own sex is just as distinctive as having dark skin. The only difference is that one is visible for all to see and the other is an inherent quality of the individual in question. Either way, the determination of either depends on natural processes rather than a simple choice that (presumably everyone) makes.

[homersapien 11,393]

Question:

If a person is born into a same-sex parent family, and remains mostly around those that are homosexual, and models that lifestyle in their relationships for many years, then "decides" one day that they aren't homosexual anymore, are they considered a biological homosexual or a choice-driven homosexual? Are they really homosexual or are they really not?

Serious question.

If such a thing happened - and I think the research says it does not - then they don't make a choice not to be homosexual, they never were a homosexual to begin with. Acting like - or even having sex - with a member of the same sex does not make one a homosexual.

Prisons are probably a good example of this. Furthermore, homosexual acts between prepubescent or pubescent heterosexuals is fairly common.

http://www.faqs.org/...rientation.html

Alfred Kinsey found that a large number of preadolescents (between ages eight and thirteen) engage in what he called homosexual sex play. Nearly half (48 percent) of the older males who contributed their histories reported having engaged in homosexual sex play in their preadolescence. In his study of females, Kinsey found 33 percent of the preadolescent females engaged in some sort of homosexual sex play and many reported that such experiences had taught them how to masturbate.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Now that's not to say one cannot simply deny the science. That's obviously a common practice, especially on internet forums. But if you are hard set in your opinion that we all could be homosexuals had we only "decided" to go that way, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different subject.

"Environmental" is not the same thing as saying "chosen."

Sure it is. Presumably the environment is what causes that particular "choice", if not, then homosexuality would be strictly biological.

And to be clear, if there is a choice at all, it is to act as you truly are.

I would suggest that you are misunderstanding what people mean when they say "environmental" as opposed to "nature" or "inborn." To say that there are environmental factors that affect sexual orientation is in no way saying that the person simply "decided" to be gay. I've no earthly idea what would make one try to make the one be synonymous with the other.

[Weegle777 78]

Question:

If a person is born into a same-sex parent family, and remains mostly around those that are homosexual, and models that lifestyle in their relationships for many years, then "decides" one day that they aren't homosexual anymore, are they considered a biological homosexual or a choice-driven homosexual? Are they really homosexual or are they really not?

Serious question.

If such a thing happened - and I think the research says it does not - then they don't make a choice not to be homosexual, they never were a homosexual to begin with. Acting like - or even having sex - with a member of the same sex does not make one a homosexual.

Prisons are probably a good example of this. Furthermore, homosexual acts between prepubescent or pubescent heterosexuals is fairly common.

http://www.faqs.org/...rientation.html

Alfred Kinsey found that a large number of preadolescents (between ages eight and thirteen) engage in what he called homosexual sex play. Nearly half (48 percent) of the older males who contributed their histories reported having engaged in homosexual sex play in their preadolescence. In his study of females, Kinsey found 33 percent of the preadolescent females engaged in some sort of homosexual sex play and many reported that such experiences had taught them how to masturbate.

Interesting. The reason I asked is because I read the story of Michael Glatze. Granted, he didn't have homosexual parents, but was a prominent member of the gay community before declaring that he wasn't gay anymore. Was he ever really gay? His partner said that he was absolutely baffled with his decision.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Secondly, I don't really need an explanation of how race differs from sexuality.

Well, you asked why I don't equate the two, so an explanation of the differences was warranted I felt. How else would one answer your question?

Sorry, I got caught up in your distinction between behavior and having dark skin. No offense intended.

I don't make such a distinction. To me, a sexual preference for your own sex is just as distinctive as having dark skin. The only difference is that one is visible for all to see and the other is an inherent quality of the individual in question. Either way, the determination of either depends on natural processes rather than a simple choice that (presumably everyone) makes.

But the argument you put forth wasn't that they were merely both "distinctive." The argument you made was that both were the same and your main support was that they were both inborn or by "nature." But as I mentioned before, that's not really true (certainly not proven) as one is clearly by nature while the other has perhaps multiple factors of which nature is only one. But also, one (as it applied to marriage) is regarding behavior while the other is entirely a physical characteristic. The equating of the two still breaks down.

[homersapien 11,393]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.