Pet Issue = Big Issue

I think there might be some misunderstanding here.

First of all let me say that the people who commented are all my family. At least, as nearly as I can tell.

Second, and I don't want to be argumentative, the population control thing is silly. The homosexual population of the world, in spite of whatever popularity it seems to hold currently or will over time, seems pretty stable at about 7-10% of the population. Now admittedly, as the population grows, that number is bigger, but that won't have much to do with keeping the population from expanding. I know that's a pretty light point in the responses, but let me just throw that out there.

Third, and it probably ought to have been first, let me say that I meant no offense whatsoever and I think/hope that I can say why offense taken at that last post is not really right. I apologize for hurting any feelings, and especially familial ones.

Let me re-state my case a little more carefully, it hinges on a few key points:

1: Evolution is a true.
2: Homosexuality is genetic.
3: Evolution is progressive, by which I mean that it take beings from less to more complex structures over time.

Now, I don't necessarily believe ANY of those points. I think that the third one is the closest to anything I could say was actually true, but since I don't know if I buy point 1, then 3 is probably moot.

If 1,2, and 3 ARE true, then it's a shaky place to be. And I bring it up only because I had this thought process years ago, and since then I read articles like the one mentioned in Slate.

Please, everyone go read that Slate article, and if possible the article in the June 2008 issue of Psychology Today, "The Darwinian Logic of Homosexuality" on page 89. It's a pretty good article and the researchers are Italian, so that's our hot buttons right there, as a family.

They are interesting articles that make interesting points AND they kind of allude to the points I made above as putting one on a shaky philosophical ground.

I also appreciate that there was very little personal mud slung, since I am a blot on the family escutcheon and probably deserve more mud slung my way than I generally get.

Things I am NOT doing in either of these posts:
Suggesting that I have a reason for homosexuality.
Suggesting anything at all about ACTUAL sexuality.
Saying anything that should be cause for offense.

I tried to make it clear that that is NOT what I wanted to do. The article and my response to it are only there to say that there is this kind of logical danger that one can get into when presupposing these things.

Let me say these following things and then I'll go back to a passive role for a while:

1.) Obviously I have some family that is gay.
2.) I love them, every one of them. There is no member of my family that I do not love and do not wish I could see more often.
3.) I am probably the least successful of the people who are responding to me, so probably the other people should start blogging. I'll read what you blog, I promise.
4.) I don't blame anyone for anything in my life and would be surprised to hear that others are blaming their parents/friends/family for theirs.
5.) Can't we all just get along?
6.) The logic is there in the points, but it is really the points that have to be argued with at that point.
7.) 7 is my favorite number because when Grandpa Pitrone wanted us to pick a number between 1 and 10, he was always thinking of 7. Sorry Frank, I knew and you didn't.

So, to those of you reading that I love, I love you and I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to. Please, while you're here, go look at the other things I have on here. There's some good stuff about Okinawa and in my Flickr site there is good stuff about Cambodia.

I'll take the spanking now. Whattaya got?