"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Matthew Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
> >>>biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
> >>>change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
> >>>out the window.
> >>>Matt
> >
> >
> >>Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
> >>homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
> >>this just the perfect unions?
> >
> >
> > It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>

OK Matt, suppose your right and that people can choose to switch between
being homos or hetros whenever they choose.

The point you are ignoring is that a huge number of gays out there don't
want to stop being gay, and a huger number of hetros out there don't want
to stop being straight.

Why then, do you want to make them change? What purpose does it
serve for gays that don't want to change to have to change? And why
discriminate against them just because they don't want to change?

You claim to be a computer scientist, I would assume you would disagree
with people who think we would be better off without computers. Those
people think we would be better off burning all the computers just as
strongly as you feel we would be better off burning all the gays. You
however would demand they have a logical explanation as to why we should
burn all the computers, well we are demanding you have a logical explanation
as to why all the gays should stop being gay.

I think that whether or not gays can switch really has no relevance to
the issue of whether or not we should permit gay marriage. Why, may
I ask, do you?

Ted