MarkNoel

evmori:

Yes, YiS, and it will continue to be so. I'm no longer a member of the BSA, but please remember two things:

1. The Scouting movement is bigger than just the BSA.

2. The BSA may have rejected me, but I haven't rejected the principles or values of Scouting.

I realize that this will probably result in a flood of posts about exactly what the "values" of Scouting are, so let me go ahead and volunteer the opinion that we share more than you may think. The concentrated focus on a couple of divisive issues where reasonable people (and religions) disagree seems to cloud that fact sometimes...

YiS,

-Mark

This guy in question here -- Matt Hill -- is a senior in high school, and just turned 18. He's also the founder of a gay-straight alliance at his high school and is pretty outspoken now about what he's been through.

He has written a brief description of his case and we're in the process of collecting some more documents and news articles about it. They will be posted here:

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/hill

If anyone is interested in talking with him directly, please let me know and I can put you in touch.

YiS,

-Mark

Yes. You're wrong.

I want to see BSA return to its roots, where local chartered organizations get to decide for themselves what kind of membership standards they want to set for their units. A lot of those chartered organizations (including the church up here where my troop used to meet) believe that it is immoral to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Which, by the way, I presume you're referring to when you talk about "perverts" -- another example of where you're wrong (not to mention unfriendly, discourteous, and unkind, among others).

And Ed, I sign off with YiS because I spent two thirds of my life in the program and still believe in it. I'm sure that anyone with a search engine can find out as much as they could possibly want to know about my case -- it's an open book. (And one from three years ago -- I'm not sure if that qualifies as "many.") There's no intent to deceive here, no conspiracy to destroy Scouting, or anything else like that.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone could disagree with you about this and still be a supporter of the Scouting program?

YiS,

-Mark

Bob, perhaps you need to re-read my last two answers to that a bit more carefully.

YiS,

-Mark

Um... this still IS a discussion forum for "Issues & Politics," is it not?

I posted something that was on-topic and that I thought several folks here would be interested in discussing. It's hardly a secret that I disagree with the BSA's current discriminatory policies, but it's a tremendous and unjustified stretch to assume that simply by sharing the news, I was advocating the end of Scouting in our country.

And I'll take it from your response that your statement WAS directed at me. But now that you know that it is not, and has never been, my intent to "end scouting," I trust that you'll refrain from making such misstatements about me in the future.

YiS,

-Mark

Bob White writes:

>Keepin mind that the goal of Merlyn, and Mark, and the ACLU is not to change scouting but to end scouting.

I hope you're not referring to me in this statement, because if you are, you're dead wrong and totally misrepresenting my position.

I believe that the current political and religious stance of the BSA's leadership needs to be changed precicely because the current policies are damaging the Scouting program in the United States, and have consistently expressed that opinion.

I'm going to presume that you're either referring to some other "Mark" here, or that you've made a mistake. But please do not make it again.

YiS,

-Mark

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 8, 2004

ACLU SECURES LANDMARK SETTLEMENT

IN BOY SCOUT LEASE CASE

SAN DIEGO TO END SUPPORT FOR SCOUTS

(San Diego) The San Diego City Council has agreed to a settlement in the ACLU's 2000 lawsuit challenging the City's subsidy of the Desert Pacific Boy Scout Council through preferential leases for public land in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island Aquatic Park. In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Balboa Park lease violates First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. The City has agreed to request that Judge Jones enter a final judgment based on that ruling and then to give notice to the Scouts that the Balboa Park lease has terminated and that their interest in the property has expired. The City has also agreed to end its support of the Scouts in the lawsuit and not to oppose the ACLU as it pursues resolution of the remaining issues in the lawsuit, particularly those involving the Fiesta Island lease, which Jones put over for trial in his July ruling.

"San Diego has finally taken itself out of the business of endorsing the exclusion of many of its residents from their own city parks. While, it is unfortunate that it has taken an adverse court ruling to get the City on the right side of this issue, the end result is a victory for every San Diegan who cares about tolerance and equality," says ACLU legal director, Jordan Budd.

The City has given the Scouts nearly seventy years of exclusive use of 18 acres of prime park property in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and free use of an aquatic facility on city-owned Fiesta Island in Mission Bay through preferential leases. The Balboa Park lease also contains a provision that terminates the lease if any court issues a final judgment finding the lease illegal. The City Attorney will ask Judge Jones for such a final judgment based on the court's finding that the lease is unconstitutional and will then notify the Scouts that the termination clause has been triggered, paving the way for the removal of the Boy Scouts from the park.

"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways. Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and non-believers is essential to their mission, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination," says ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens of the law firm Stock, Stephens, LLP.

"We applaud the City for finally doing the right thing," says co-counsel Mark Danis of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster. "While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families, it has never been acceptable for the City to bar those families from a public park. Government has a constitutional duty to treat everyone fairly and equally."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two San Diego families, the Breens and the Barnes-Wallaces. The Breens are agnostics who are unsure of the existence of God and who do not participate in organized religion. They have a son, Maxwell, who is nine years old. The Barnes-Wallaces are a same sex couple with a ten-year-old son, Mitchell. Both families are avid users of Balboa Park, except the portion of the park under Boy Scout control. Their sons would like to be Scouts, but cannot join. Max Breen would be unable to take the Boy Scout oath, which avows a reverence for God. Mitchell Barnes-Wallace cannot join because his parents are lesbians, whom the Scouts do not consider "morally clean." Even if the boys were able to avoid taking the Scout oath or, in Mitchell's case, revealing his parents' sexual orientation, each time the boys participated in Scouting activities they would be reminded that their families are considered unfit by Boy Scout standards and, by extension, by the City of San Diego. The lawsuit challenges the City's financial subsidy of these policies.

The lawsuit is Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, case # 00cv1726J.

# # #

Looks like the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia is working towards a new non-discrimination policy based on the one currently in use by Greater New York Council:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7538923.htm

Cradle of Liberty Council officials would not release a copy of the proposed policy, but they did say it was fashioned after one crafted by the Greater New York Councils in February 2002.

That policy states, in part: "All of our members repeatedly pledge to respect all people and defend the rights of others. Prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of the Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America."

"That's the model," said Cradle of Liberty executive director William T. Dwyer 3d. "Until the city is satisfied, we can't let anything out, until things are officially ironed out," he said.

David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the local council, said he thought the new policy would be sustainable, unlike the first antidiscrimination policy that the group withdrew after pressure from the national group.

Some of the earlier comments here reminded me of this editorial cartoon (Flash animation) on the death penalty:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

Disclaimer: This guy does work for the San Francisco Chronicle, just so you've got an idea where he stands politically... ;-)

YiS,

-Mark

Also for what it's worth...

Ronald Reagan didn't make the Jamboree in 1985, but Nancy Reagan came in his place to speak to us... I think it was a health issue that kept him away, but I don't remember exactly.

And speaking as both a Democrat and as a former law enforcement officer, I'll have to agree with NJ that support for law enforcement is broadly non-partisan. The high-profile differences mainly seem to come up in arguments over constitutional issues such as racial profiling and due process for the accused, which might give ammunition for some bumper-sticker designers and talk show hosts, but doesn't really reflect a big split over "support" for law enforcement.

Personally, I like to think that we hold our law enforcement officers to a higher, stricter standard, but I know that's probably inviting yet another flame war... ;-)

YiS,

-Mark

evmore writes:

> MarkNoel,

> Where in my previous post did I mention religion. I refered to race.

>

> Once again twist till it fits!

No twisting here -- at least, not on my part. I didn't say that you mentioned religion -- I acknowledged that you only mentioned race.

My entire point was that you seemed to be arguing that discrimination against gays is justified because it was different from race -- that people "choose" their sexual orientation (untrue, but beside the point in this case), and that people do not choose their race.

_I_ brought up religion, since it seems pretty obvious that people can "choose" their religion to at least the same degree as what you argue to be true for gays.

If that's your argument, then could you please explain why it's not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, or if you believe that religious discrimination is okay?

YiS,

-Mark

BW writes:

> I watched the event televised live how exactly do you think the image was slanted

> by the media. The place errupted in boos. The DNC leaders were on the stage and

> did nothing to regain order or decorum in respect to the flag if not their invited

> guests.

Personally, I think that the image is slanted in your memory rather than in the media. As I recall, the place did not "erupt" in boos -- rather, there was a smattering coming from a small number of individuals in the crowd that was otherwise being very quiet and respectful -- as you would expect during a flag ceremony. DNC leaders didn't interrupt the flag ceremony because those few individuals who were booing stopped on their own, and probably as a result of elbows to the ribs.

I can't speak to the issue of whether an apology was offered to the Scouts in question or not, but just because your friends at National didn't get one doesn't mean that one wasn't offered.

Frankly, I think that you're simply looking to demonize the DNC. If this had happened at another venue, I imagine that you would be giving more benefit of the doubt to the organizers and participants rather than paint the entire group as "rude, unpatriotic, and cowardly" and then accuse them of engineering the whole thing in advance just to make some political statement at the expense of the boys in the color guard.

At least admit that your own animus towards the DNC is coloring your perceptions and interpretations here.

YiS,

-Mark

cjmiam writes:

> So I write: Are you talking about a guy that had sex with interns and committed

> perjury while in office? Yep, I wanted him fired. That would never be accepted in

> the business world. Why is politics different?

and then writes:

> By the way, Id say the Republican Party is very strong and united with a leader that > knows what keeping his word means.

Would that be the one who loudly proclaimed an immenent WMD threat from Iraq based on carefully selected evidence, or the one who claimed to abhor leaks and then didn't bother for two months to look into the leak from his own administration that burned the cover of a CIA operative (for spite, no less)?

"In the business world," as you cite, I would imagine that deliberative falsifications on substantive policy issues and on national security issues where thousands of lives hang in the balance would be even less accepted than covering up an affair with your administrative assistant.

So what's your justification for these two views? I'd like to hear this...

YiS,

-Mark

TrailPounder writes:

> Those speakers aren't running for any office or stumping for any candidates, where

> does partisan politics come into this?

I think it's pretty clear where it came in, when one of the speakers (Ann Coulter) addresses the group with the following:

"The cowards and quislings of the Democratic Party have been exposed as the Neville Chamberlain of their day," Coulter said, setting the tone with her discussion of Iraq. "That will be the historic legacy of the Democratic Party."

Speaking as a former Atlanta native and camp staffer for the Atlanta Area Council, I agree that that region leans Republican. But I still don't see that as an excuse for hosting an event that clearly demonizes at least a third of the local population, if not more.

And if the BSA thought it had problems in court right now with its classification as a "religious organization," imagine what a few more cases like this is going to do to its legal classification (not to mention its public reputation)...

YiS,

-Mark

Ed Mori writes:

> You can't compare race discrimination with gay discrimination. People of different

> races have no choice what race they are born to. Gay people do have a choice. It > fits about as well as a glove fits on a foot!

LOL. Leaving aside the fact that most gay folks do NOT have a choice with respect to their orientation (no matter how stridently you want to climb on a soapbox and proclaim otherwise), this "choice" argument still doesn't work.

You can "choose" your religious faith. So if we were to kick out all the Protestant Christians (unless they pretended to be something else or otherwise refused to "avow" their faith), this would be okay?

YiS,

-Mark

Rooster7 writes:

> If you're convinced that the rest of the country believes as you do, then how do suppose President Bush was elected?

That's easy... Bush was elected 5 to 4. By the exact same split in BSA v. Dale, oddly enough... ;-)

YiS,

-Mark

John Schmidt writes:

> As Todd Beamer said, "Let's Roll!"

Are you sure that wasn't Mark Bingham who said that?

YiS,

-Mark

In light of the ongoing George W. Bush love-fest on another thread here, I thought I'd kick this news article out to see what everyone thought:

Personally, I don't think that BSA should be a partisan organization, and even if it was, it could choose better role models than Ann Coulter and Oliver North.

I mean, if BSA wants to consider any arbitrary gay person as being an inappropriate role model for the Scout Oath and Law, why should we put convicted felons on a pedestal?

YiS,

-Mark

-----------------------------

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

October 2, 2003

Vitriol sullies Boy Scouts' 'patriotic rally'

Jay Bookman, Assistant Editorial Page Editor

jbookman@ajc.com

"On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty, to God and my country ...."

Even today, many years later, those words from the Boy Scout pledge bring to mind camping trips and corny singalongs, troop meetings in dank church basements, summer camps and late-night whispering sessions in which we swapped dirty jokes that we didn't fully understand.

Much of the magic of boyhood, in other words.

Unfortunately, something's gone awry in the Boy Scout movement I knew and loved. Last weekend, I went to a Scout fund-raiser in Lilburn billed as a patriotic "rally for America." It certainly had all the trappings of such an event, from a row of American flags across the stage to prerecorded patriotic music and polite, fresh-faced Boy Scouts, draped in merit badges.

In reality, though, this was a strident political rally, run by and for the Boy Scouts, in which the beliefs, patriotism and moral decency of roughly half the American people were considered fair game. That wasn't a surprise, though -- not when the evening's star attractions were syndicated columnist Ann Coulter and Fox News star Oliver North.

"The cowards and quislings of the Democratic Party have been exposed as the Neville Chamberlain of their day," Coulter said, setting the tone with her discussion of Iraq. "That will be the historic legacy of the Democratic Party. Apparently they think that's worth a warm handshake by Susan Sarandon."

Such rhetoric is hardly noteworthy in today's culture, but what made it sting was the fact that it came at an official Boy Scout event, with the Boy Scout emblem displayed prominently behind Coulter. Sitting in the audience, surrounded by cheering adults, I couldn't help wonder how the sons of "cowards and quislings" could possibly feel welcomed in the Northeast Georgia Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

This wasn't Scouting as I knew it, and part of the change can no doubt be attributed to the gay-rights issue. The Boy Scouts today bans gays from membership or leadership, even to the point of kicking out gay Eagle Scouts with long records of service. That has made the organization a target of gay-rights groups, and the darling of conservatives.

Personally, I disagree strongly with that ban, but I also understand why it persists. Attitudes toward gays may have changed dramatically, but some institutions simply cannot adapt as quickly as others. Scouting, with its core in small-town America, was always going to be one of the last to make that change.

At the fund-raiser, Coulter addressed the issue with her usual tact, talking of gays as perverts wanting to lure little boys into the woods. North also noted that he found gay Americans "personally offensive." But North and Coulter had something else in common: They were curious choices for an organization that stresses the importance of truth-telling.

North, after all, gained celebrity status back in the '80s when, as a key player in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, he was found guilty of destruction and falsification of evidence, aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress and accepting an illegal gratuity. Those felony convictions were later overturned only on the sort of legal technicality that conservatives claim to abhor.

To his credit, though, North kept political attacks to a minimum in his remarks. He talked movingly about his experiences covering the war in Iraq, and about the bravery, skill and commitment of U.S. troops in that struggle. He also retold the story of Todd Beamer, one of four passengers who led the attempt to retake Flight 93 from hijackers on Sept. 11.

The story of Flight 93 is indeed a tale of bravery and self-sacrifice, and it ought to be recounted around Scout campfires for generations. But someday, I hope it can be told honestly.

In his version, North did not mention the role played by Mark Bingham, a big, strapping rugby player from California who joined in the assault on the hijackers. Because Bingham, you see, was gay.

He was no less brave for that fact, no less patriotic and no less worthy of being honored and remembered. Someday, I hope, the Scouts will acknowledge that.

I'd have to disagree slightly with saltheart on this, because I come from the point of being one of those kids silently listening to the jokes being told. This is more than just standing up for something that you believe in, or addressing something that makes you uncomfortable. For some kids, this IS a safety and issue and borders on emotional abuse.

Young men who are gay typically discover this for themselves at a median age of about 13, but it currently takes about 4 years before they start 'coming out' to other people, usually starting with one or two very close friends. In the meantime, however, they are often surrounded by jokes and abusive language like this, which often leads to higher incidence of self-destructive behavior, depression, substance abuse, etc. One study even showed that in some high schools, the average student heard the word "fag" or "faggot" used about 40 times a day.

As far as I'm concerned, the moral obligation you have to stop that sort of language is the same that you would have if a group of the boys were telling "nigger" jokes in front of African-American boys.

I believe that what your son did was absolutely the right thing, and actions like his will go a long way towards improving the environment for ALL boys in the scouting program.

YiS,

-Mark

Rooster7:

All the examples you cite are of a "public forum" -- public property used by a multitude of DIFFERENT organizations, each of whom has equal access to the forum. If the public schools tried to prevent the Black Student Union or the Gay-Straight Alliance from meeting in public schools, it would be engaging in viewpoint discrimination (and a violation of the Federal Equal Access act) unless it prohibited ALL groups.

If Philadelphia only allowed Catholics to use its softball fields, then there would be a problem. Likewise if say, San Diego gave the BSA exclusive use of city property in Balboa Park.

But until the Philadelphia Freethinkers and the Pennsylvania Coalition for Inclusive Scouting can get free land and office space at the COL's city-owned headquarters on the same basis as the BSA, your examples fail.

YiS,

-Mark

CubsRgr8 writes:

> This will link you to the City of Philadelphia's Fair Practices ordinance:

> http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/philadelphia/

> If you can figure out how the COL deal violates it, well, you've got a better legal mind than I.

Here are the relevant sections:

Chapter 9-1105 Unlawful Public Accommodations Practice.

(A) It shall be an unlawful public accommodations practice:

(1) For any person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,

superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation,

resort or amusement to:

(a) Refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person because of his

race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion,

national origin, ancestry, physical handicap or marital status, either

directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages,

facilities or privileges of such place of public accommodation, resort

or amusement.

(b) Publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail, either

directly or indirectly, any written or printed communication, notice or

advertisement to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages,

facilities, and privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld

or denied to any person on account of race, color, sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry,

physical handicap or marital status, or that the patronage of any person

of any particular race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, national

origin, physical handicap or marital status is unwelcome, objectionable

or not acceptable, desired or solicited.

Chapter 9-1102 Definitions:

(u) Public Accommodation, Resort or Amusement. Any accommodation,

resort or amusement which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage

of the general public, including but not limited to inns, taverns, roadhouses,

hotels, . . . , terminals and airports, financial institutions and all City facilities

and services but not any accommodations which are in their nature

distinctly private. No entity covered by this definition shall invoke

its private character for the purpose of excluding or discriminating

against any member of a group protected under this Chapter.

So according to these, "public accomodations" are prohibited from actively discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation when providing services, and are also prohibited from advertising discriminitory policies or otherwise making it clear that certain classes of people are unwelcome there.

While the Supreme Court ruled that BSA by itself is not a "public accomodation" under these sorts of laws, the definition in this statute of "public accomodation" includes "all City facilities and services." Since the land and the building currently used by the Cradle of Liberty Council are owned by Philadelpia, this is a "City facility" under the ordinance. Furthermore, the grant of free use of city land to COL can be construed as a "city service."

Thus, Philadelphia facilities and services are being provided to the BSA which both actively discriminates against protected classes (section 9-1105(A)(1)(a) ) and also openly advertises that members of these protected classes are unwelcome in the organization (section 9-1105(A)(1)(b) ).

Finally, in case there was any doubt that these restrictions should be binding on the city of Philadelphia in the case where it is supporting a private organization which is doing all the heavy lifting with respect to discrimination, 9-1102(u) concludes with:

"No entity covered by this definition shall invoke

its private character for the purpose of excluding or discriminating

against any member of a group protected under this Chapter. "

Seems to me that the City Solicitor made the right call here.

YiS,

-Mark

cjmiam writes:

> So Scouting will provide a shopping mall for pedophiles or in New Mexico I guess they would

> be called homosexuals.

So... you'll have to excuse me if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm starting to wonder exactly why you feel the need to keep coming up with this sort of needlessly inflammatory and insulting language.

I think the whole issue of homosexual vs. pedophile has been hashed through in excruciating detail more than once, and even if you still disagree with the medical and scientific data (not to mention the personal statements and observations of people on this forum), there has still got to be a more friendly, courteous, and kind way of expressing your disagreement, right?

That is, presuming your goal is to "discuss" rather than to "provoke."

YiS,

-Mark

CubsRgr8 writes:

> I sent this same request to the reporter at the paper, Linda Harris, but so far no response from her. Sad, I

> used to think the press had an obligation to present us with the pertinent facts so that we, the public,

> could make informed decisions about public issues. Nowadays, it seems, the press is little more than

> yellow jounalism - let's rile up the public so they /buy more papers/watch our broadcast/listen to our

> talk show/visit our website/

First, here's what Linda Harris DOES provide us with in her article from last week:

"""

Last week, the city acknowledged that City Solicitor Nelson A. Diaz had advised the mayor and his staff that the Cradle of Liberty Council was in conflict with the city's fair-practices ordinance because of its policy - dictated by the national organization - of barring homosexuals from leadership roles in the Boy Scouts.

The city ordinance bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, ancestry, color and other classifications.

The Cradle of Liberty Council is the nation's third-largest council and serves 87,000 youths in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties.

A City Council resolution dating to 1928 gave the Boy Scouts free use of city land to build a headquarters at their own expense at 22d and Winter Streets. The building immediately became the property of the city, but the expense of keeping it up fell to the Boy Scouts. That same agreement allowed the city to reclaim the property with a year's notice.

"""

Based on this, it looks like the agreement in 1928 was not an "ordinance" but simply a "resolution" by the city council. Furthermore, under the terms of this resolution, the land remained city property and the building became city property as soon as it was built. And as NJ has pointed out, it allows the city to reclaim the property with one year's notice. Seems pretty clear.

Besides, the person you probably want to talk with isn't Linda Harris, but Nelson A. Diaz -- Philadelphia's City Solicitor who did the legal analysis on this issue for the city.

YiS,

-Mark

cjmian writes:

> At any rate, to compare the species of homosexuals to heterosexuals, you would need to include women

> as a part of the heterosexual species. I guess if you want to include lesbians as part of the homosexual

> species you can, but I dont see the point.

Perhaps the point that you're missing is that homosexuals aren't a "species." Just as males and females aren't a "species." Humans are.

And humans, like most other primates, are extremely social and tend to live together in fairly large communities (there's some anthropoligical and psychological evidence that we're optimized for social networks of about 150 interpersonal relationships each).

So we don't exist all on our own, and don't self-segregate based on these sorts of criteria. There's a lot of evidence from other animal species that the incidence of homosexuality tends to increase as the population density increases, and there's a good evolutionary case to be made for having non-reproducing (yet able-bodied and productive) members of the society present, especially if they tend more often to be younger siblings.

But now I'm getting back onto the subject of my earlier post. Perhaps you might want to read some of the research on this subject for yourself? ;-)

> The homosexual species cannot sustain itself without lying or

> cheating.

Not only false, but needlessly inflammatory and insulting. See above.

> Once again, Im not sure how a devout homosexual could procreate naturally. Thus the

> species dies.

Yet we're still here, and in the same relative proportions independent of race, geography, or societal norms. So how does your hypothesis here explain that?

YiS,

-Mark

Ed writes:

> Being gay is a lifestyle - a chosen lifestyle. There is no proof that one is born gay.

Just because you keep saying that over and over again doesn't make it true.

The AMA, the APA, and almost the entire body of scientific research on the subject supports the notion that sexual orientation is fixed at a very early age -- probably by birth, and almost certainly before the age of five. Several large-scale scientific surveys (n > 1000) show that gay people report profound feelings of "being different" beginning at an early age (5-8) even though they don't associate this feeling with anything sexual yet. The median age for youth recognizing their sexual orientation is about 13, with an average of 4 years more before they begin the "coming out" process -- usually to friends before family.

Twin studies show a strong correlation between genotype and sexual orientation, but this is not deterministic. In plain English, with identical twins (geneticially identical), if one is gay, there's about a 50% chance that the other will be too, while the proportion is significantly smaller if they are fraternal twins, although still much better than chance based on similar, non-related subjects taken from the population at large.

Some male homosexuality (about 30% of cases) has been shown to be a heritable, maternal trait (therefore carried on the X chromosome). The correlation of these cases to a certain sequence in section 28 of the "q" branch of the X chromosome is established to a P value of 0.00001 (about 1000 times stronger than is needed to publish in most scientific journals).

More recent studies of birth order among males siblings shows that younger siblings have increasingly higher chances of being gay or bisexual. These finding, in conjunction with earlier studies, have lead to a new hypothesis regarding interaction effects with the hormonal reactions that some mothers have to the androgens released by the developing male fetus in utero. This accomodates what we already know about non-deterministic genetic components or pre-dispositions to homosexuality as well as self-reports from thousands of gay people interviewed in the course of these studies.

I could go on, of course, but I don't really see the need to start pulling out references here. The sad truth is that most people who are genuinely interested in the "proof" are usually quickly convinced by the huge body of scientific knowledge already accumulated on this subject, not to mention the official positions of professional medical and psychological associations.

But for those who decide beforehand what they want to believe and only afterwards start scrounging around for some "proof," well... they have to start searching the web for pseudocientists like the rejects at NARTH in order to find some ammunition to bolster their beliefs.

Ed, I would hope that you would be receptive to at least reviewing the relevant scientific and medical research on topic before issuing blanket statements like that -- especially since the implication of your statement is that I don't know what I'm talking about (or even that I'm flat-out lying), even though I've got a lot more first-hand knowledge on the issue. But I seem to recall that we've covered this ground before...

YiS,

-Mark