In response to Jason's blog of January 14, 9:48AM:

As a queer-by-choicer, I must first and foremost state that, regardless of genetic predispositions towards something, one of the greatest attributes of mankind is our ability to choose, which is, of course, the underlying issue for me. I should be able to choose whom I wish to spend my life with regardless of the other's gender, race, orientation, provided that the other wishes to spend eir life with me. So, for me, the issue of "sexuality" is much much more complicated than a simple matter of genetics. Am I predisposed to being attracted to guys? Yes. Does that mean that I'm gay? Not necessarily. I might very well choose to live as a heterosexual, marry a woman and have lots of fat babies. I could also choose to completely ignore my attractions and destroy my sanity. "I could let you drown. But I can't bring this ship into Tartuga all by me onesy."

Savvy?

I'd like to point out that "blackness" is curable, too. See Dusty's post of 3:04PM.

Traditional is not the same as beneficial. Indeed, traditional can become, in fact, inhibitive in a changing world. Take, for example, the feudal system. I doubt very highly that you agree with the feudal system, and yet it was, indeed, traditional during the period in which it went out of phase. Furthermore, I challenge you to prove firstly that there were as many actual "traditional" gender roles in families in history and, secondly, to actually define these.

Inhibiting breeding is no argument. We can "cure" homosexuality with genetic engineering, but we've been able to artificially inseminate for quite a long time (the first artificial insemination of a dog was in 1784, though the first human was in the 1950s). I would also wish to point out the overabundance of unwanted children who starve to death every year. Why, if we are arguing that the minimal decrease in the "labor" pool caused by lack of procreation on the part of homosexuals, are we not arguing for aiding those children? Why let them starve, when we could give them to people who cannot have their own?

Also, since sexual intercourse between men and women is "natural", from a health standpoint, the breeder sex is bound to be more healthy. Huh? I fail to see why it's natural. Because it results in childbirth, sometimes? Firstly, I would say this means that unprotected sex is much healthier than using a condom, since with a condom there's not possibility of childbirth. What's that you say? Men and women were designed to go together? What makes you think that two men weren't designed to go together, too? There's that happy little prostrate so conveniently located to the anus... For women, have you noticed that you don't actually have to be inside a woman for her to have an orgasm? Seems to me that if the only way we were designed to go together was man inside woman, there wouldn't be any need for such sensitive areas in such convenient places. I would argue, as have those before me, that sex is more than simply a tool for reproduction but also a social device.

I can't say much on the "comforts" of sex, gay or straight. But it seems that the apparent "discomfort" involved in gay sex isn't exactly a deterrent to actually having it. Now, I could understand that in the context of sex being a social device which is given to a dominant in order to keep it happy, but I'm sure you can find any number of bottoms and women who are extremely happy and even eager with it the way it is. And, as some of the rest of us out here note, you don't have to label everything. Why not just be yourself, let it come naturally and not worry about "tops," "bottoms," and such?

I would like to conclude by stating that the final paragraph is the scariest of the whole bunch. Removal of diversity leads to greater risk of defects. Ask a farmer who's had his entire crop wiped out because he only had one strain of corn and the corn blight that came through affected only that strain.

Go watch GATACA. One of the best movies out there.