[Lucern]

I found a link that goes through some of the science that's been done on homosexuality. It had this general bit to say after it discusses some research.

The issue of genetic or other physiological determinants as the basis of homosexuality is a highly politicised issue. Recent studies have demonstrated that public acceptance towards homosexuality would increase significantly if scientific proof emerged that sexual orientation had a genetic cause or otherwise innate cause. Therefore, both sides have a lot to gain or lose depending on results in this area. Most objections to the idea of a genetic or innate cause of homosexuality come from religious groups and others in the anti-gay lobby. They seek scientific proof that homosexuality is not determined by genetics or other innate means and interpret scientific results warily. They believe that homosexuality is determined by purely psychological factors, and, more so, that a person's sexuality is a matter of personal choice or of poor upbringing. Similarly, many gay rights advocates seek scientific proof that homosexuality is determined by genetics or other innate means. However, many do not actually believe the cause(s) of homosexuality to be purely genetic, and instead believe a collection of various factors, including genetics, to be the cause. Most agree that homosexuality is innate. Many research scientists find themselves in the center of these two camps. They see themselves as neutral observers merely publishing their results as they find them. They often have little control over the public dissemination of their findings. A few scientists capitalise on the large media interest in the subject, publishing dubious or meritless findings with large press conferences, frequently with little or no peer review - in other words, science by press conference.

http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genet...sexuality.html

I'd say it, like anything else related to sexuality, is pretty complex, but has a significant biological component, which will be elaborated upon in the coming years. Note that psychologists used to identify homosexuality as a type of identity confusion. This is no longer the case.

Azred said:

Marriage is a very ancient social contract between men and women so that heirs could be properly identified

There is truth to this, but it's more broad. Not only are the terms 'man' and 'woman' differently defined (ie, not always based upon biological sex) across cultural boundaries, but marriage is certainly rife with variety. Marriage is a universal trait, and gender is usually mimetic (sex=gender) in societies, but I just wanted to point out that any one definition of marriage isn't universal. You're right on that marriage is most often about property and lineage as far as I've read. I think it's interesting that it's even controlled by the state, and I do not think this would be the case if it weren't for the property aspect of marriage.