I think this issue is far more complex than either side wants to admit at this point.

I also think it can vary, person to person. Once not that long ago, I was having a discussion with some longtime friends of mine who are very politically conservative, but leaning toward being accepting of gay marriage. One brought up the assertion that there are "biological gays" and "social gays." In other words, some people really are born that way, some are socialized to be that way... and in many cases, it might be a combination of the two.

I think such a concept would scare the crap out of either extreme side. On one hand, GLAAD and their ilk would be forced to admit that it really is a changable matter in some people... on the other James Dobson and his crew would be forced to admit that for some, the concept of just "praying away the gay" flat-out ain't gonna work.


One more case in point I'd like to cite.. .anybody read the book/seen the movie "Running with Scissors"?
I saw the movie. The main character, a teenage boy, turns out to be gay. However, his life was like a textbook example of all the things some people assert would "make" a young man go gay.
*An emotionally distant father completely devoid of any affection toward his son.
*A raving, psycotic mother to whom the boy had an overly-obsessive attachment, but who ultimately abandons him.
*Being put in the foster care of an insane, and compeletely over-sexed household with basically no rules whatsoever.
*His first, formative sexual affiar is with a significantly older man who obviously manipulates him at all levels.

Under those circumstances, how could the kid NOT be gay?

Again, I don't think this is the case with all, or even most, gay people... but I think gay activists need to admit there is some truth to the concept that some people are gay by circumstance and CAN change, if they so wish.