>Joanna, you seem to operate on the odd assumption that homosexuals can't
>have kids.
What do you mean by "can't have"?
>In our society, for various reasons, they are less likely to.
"Our society" meaning, I suppose, Anglo-American? One of the most prudish, yes.
>In ancient Greece and Rome, where homosexual behavior for men was normal
>and expected, the opposite was true. Upper class man had a wife for
>children and housekeeping, and boyfriends for sex and companionship. --jks
Yep, homosexual behaviour was indulged as a side line in ancient Greece and Rome, though it was also ridiculed (see Arisophanes' somewhat lumbering _Thesmophoriazusae_, and Petronius' fabulous _Satyricon_). According to a friend of mine who spent six years in Iran, something of the same attitude holds there, or did, thirty years ago. None of this conflicts with what I said. As I mentioned in my post, homosexuality is more or less tolerated according to culture and period; and human beings are the only species that makes an issue of it. I'm one of those folks who is no respecter of gender when it comes to sexual attraction, and my guess is there are lots more of us than let on; so I'd rather human cultures would learn something from other animal cultures and adopt the attitude that sexual preference is not delineatable. There's no benefit, as far as I can tell, to be had from deciding who's within and who's beyond any of the pales that have been erected on this issue.
cheers, Joannna S
----- my site www.overlookhouse.com news from down under www.smh.com.au