Moving on to K6's view of gay monogamy: It is absolutely true that monogamy in most gay relationships is just about as 'ironclad' as it is in str8 relationships, which is to say not very ironclad at all. But to admit that is not to say that it isn't a worthy aspiration for those relationships wherein both parties seek it. That is, sure, people 'cheat,' but I think the dynamic surrounding 'cheating' is different in a gay relationship than it is in a str8. Or, at least, it ought to be. It is a wise gay couple that clearly apprehends what seems to be the nature of men, and therefore does not promise absolute and everlasting monogamy from first meeting to death. Yes, guys sometimes 'step out,' and as often as not, for str8 people, the action of so doing (and the lies that seem to invariably surround the act) bring about the end of the str8 relationship. I would submit, however, that a smart gay couple, while generally monogamous, has made allowance for the prospect that one or the other partner will 'stray' from time to time. Having made such allowances, there are no lies, and relationship soldiers on. There is no compulsion for gay people to mean the same thing by the word 'monogamy' that str8s do. It is imprecise, but what else can you call a relationship that lasts, say, 25 years, but one wherein each partner 'steps out' two or three times in that stretch of time?
My fiews on monogamy and "open relationships":Personally, I believe in a monogamous love relationship of two men when they passionately love and respect eachother. This is not the only type of relationship I have enjoyed and might imagine to enjoy in future, but it is a very desireable one. Being posessively loved and love same way in turn is an intense experience. Many such relationships do not last forever – the feelings often tend to cool down or other people crossing the way appear more interesting and fascinating. I don't see any real sense in pretending that one still passionately loves eachother when in truth one merely has a friendly relationship accompanied by mutual sex once in a while, and maybe shares the same house. If love is over, one can amicably separate and begin a new passionate relationship with somebody else.
On a political level I must say that everybody is free to seek his luck in any kind of relationship which two or more men are willing and able to build up. Having a poligamous or monogamous relationship is subject to negotiations between involved individuals.
It is surelly true that from time to time men might happen to "step out" even in many tight and long-lasting relationships. It is also a fact, that the reactions to such a "step out" might be different:
- an immediate break of the relationship,
- a stalwart argument followed by promises not to "step out" again and finally a reconciliation,
- a treaty between partners recognizing that sleeping with other people is from now on a natural right of a man and any discussions or reproaches connected to such a behaviour are unfair, backward and vicious.
Whereas an immediate break-up probably cannot be a wise action for a long-lasting and a serious relationship, I cann't say that every progressive gay must surrender to an "open relationship" against his true feelings. You argue, that one must not deny a man his alleged natural right to "step out" – but have you considered that it is also a natural right of a man to be posessive on the object of his love? You can't deny that this is at least as often occuring a feeling as the promisque drive among men. Your pledge for the open relationship is therefore a bit one-sided. Whereas I admit that it might be a solution for a couple where both partners enjoy this way of dealing with eachother, but I see no reason why one partner shall be forced into accepting of poligamous attitudes of his husband, whereas he himself is being teared apart by jealosy and feeling humiliated and not desired anymore?
You teach the jealous husband not to be jealous anymore, I teach the treacherous husband not to be treacherous anymore and instead learn to respect his partner's feelings. 
At this point, I am ready to let the str8 people worry about the str8 kids-- at the moment, we have our hands full trying to keep the gay kids from killing themselves (or being killed by str8 kids), before they get a chance to be gay adults. And that effort is a more legitimate one for us.
This is a point often being neglected in our everyday debates. We are fine about us being gay and we believe that the kids have it much better novadays than we were. This is not necessarily the case: indeed, the homophobia is very persistent in schools, especially in those having socially marginallized clientele.
Moreover, there is a severe breach among the gay generations: the youngsters are consumptiously engaged in getting a profession and finding a bed mate, the middle-aged are busy with earning and spending money, and the olders do not dare to go out and make some contact with new people. All together we are badly in need of sharing our intergenerational experiences and give eachother the necessary support.
While it is obviously true that children cannot be produced through gay sexual intercourse, this does not mean that gay people cannot produce biological children amongst themselves. Just 15 years ago or so gay marriage was largely deemed as a far-fetched and unrealistic notion. [..] Today it can be more clearly viewed as what it truly is: another stage in the social development of homosexuals as a people.
It will hardly be the final stage. In fact, the succeeding stage is already occurring - though in a still relatively minor way. This is gay procreation. [..] Every indication is this phenomenon will continue to grow, and that similar to gay marriage, support (and involvement) in gay procreation will continue to expand. This is for the simple reason that child-rearing is not a heterosexual impulse, but a human impulse. [..] an impulse [..] that is shared by most people - particularly as one approaches or reaches middle age and one's priorities in life begin to change.
This development will radically alter who we are as individuals, and therefore, who we are as a people. Old definitions (or limitations) of what homosexuality is or can be, will become obsolete. This will disarm many of our most vocal critics: after all, one can't long argue that homosexuality is a ‘sterile' lifestyle when significant amounts of homosexuals are having biological children together.
Jeff, I used to be very fond of the idea of producing children by myself, and, actually I haven't surrendered this motion untill this day completely. Being a natural scientist, I am simply somewhat reluctant of accepting the idea of my genes being taken out of the genetic pool of the mankind. Generally, raising kids is a fine thing and one should not underestimate the work and commitment which parents invest into this activity. I am most sure that raising children enriches the individual's personality and does the society in general a good service.
However, I do not share the political implications of your beliefs: namely, that having children is a kind of natural duty and that renunciation of this venture leaves a person incomplete and being less successfull in life. In short, you are very close to state that sterility is in some way a mishap or a failure, and we therefore should try to prove the straight society that we are "not necessarily" steril. What is it, if not a well-meant, but still an obvious recommendation to "pass" as (better?) heterosexuals? No, my friend, you are cardinally mistaken in this point: a man can serve society in various ways: being a teacher, a scientist, a soldier or in some other way canallizing his energy into some other particular activity which is not solely selfish. I am far from adopting the ideas of Friedländer (who was an ugly antisemit), and his "Seven Propositions" (1908), but unquestioned adopting heterosexual values and their social patterns will not cause us having a new gay culture – it will merely make us a worthy part of heterosexual society.
There already are some societies (e.g. Japan) existing, which do not sanction homosexual affairs, as long as the individual does not oppose being married and generating off-spring. These societies regard the lack of descendents as bad luck, whereas purposefully staying sterile is an affront against family, society and the state. Accepting such an "integration" would mean to be completely defeated on all fields of emancipation as a people.
Therefore, even if accepting the right of an individual (or a group of individuals) to have and rise children, we should not define these activities as
essential for us as a people. Instead, we should publicly admit that "recruiting" is not at all objectional and that we would be lucky to see as many kids as possible to turn out to be happy homosexuals.
[..] My parental philosophy in a nutshell is that you don't raise a child to be gay, bi, or straight; you raise them to be themselves. You let them know at appropriate times that there are 3 primary forms of love, and that all 3 are valid and will be accepted whichever one the child decides they are. [..]
I couldn't say this better! Children must grow up in an atmosphere of love and acceptance, no matter what their sexual orientation might turn up when they come into proper age. Alone, we can't agree into a policy which doesn't care whether parents do accept or dismiss this above guildlenes. It's not so much a matter of gay parents oppressing hetero offspring (never heard of this so far!) but rather a matter of straight parents emotionally abusing their queer kids (which is quite often). No society surrenders the field of raising and educating children entirely to the parents alone, we therefore rightfully should demand that heterosexual indoctrination of children must be limited, e.g. by proper treatment of homosexuality and gay history and culture in schools.
[..] Currently, no one knows for sure the reasons some children grow up to be gay. The leading theories are that it is either due to ‘nature' or ‘nurture', or some combination of these two. Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring.
What is largely unknown, is what percentage of offspring would be non-heterosexual if the two biological parents were both homosexual. In this case there most certainly would be reason to suspect a possible difference in the sexuality ratio. If there is a genetic link to sexuality (which many believe there is) such a link would reasonably be reflected in a larger number of non-straight offspring.
It seems that male and female homosexuality is not being caused by the same biological factors. It would be therefore not resonable to expect an increase of homosexual offspring if produced by two homosexual parents – most probably there woluld be the same 9:1 ratio even if the "gay genes" were located on chromosoms. Instead, the indices allow a funded conclusion, that a preferably homosexual orientation (of males) is being transmitted solely by the female line, causing essentially higher rates of male homosexuals in certain families. Male and female homosexuals with children themeself seem not to produce more homosexual offspring than the average of society. This can not be therefore explained sufficiently by the location of the "gay gene" on the X-chromosome. The most plausible explanation seems for me that the "gay gene" is located on the mitochondrial DNA, which is always being inherited from mother, and that this "gay gene" on the mitochondrial DNA somehow influences the production of testosteron in the female during the pregnancy (the concentration of testosteron in the blood of the mother at particular periods of the embrio's developement seems to influence sexual orientation of the child). An interesting phenomenon on it's own, and K6 will be probably pleased that it is
possible to increase the feasibility of gay off-spring by an elaborated treatment of the breeding female with injections, or simply putting her into emotional stress.
Whatever the real cause of homosexuality is, it can't be that much disadvantageous to any given clan of monkeys - at this point the catholic charch is completely mistaken. Biologically, having childles brothers and sisters is very advantageous for a dominating female, because they stay somehow affiliated with her and help rise her offspring and protect it from concurrent clans. In the modern society (in terms of evolution), I must agree with the following argument of K6:
[..] The gay sexual orientation does have however and upon reflexion a purpose.Through it,gays renounce any private competence in matters having to do with human reproduction.
The best known example of this social purpose is probably the catholic church, which most likely was established by a bunch of homosexuals, no matter what ist current leadership wants make us to believe. The officers of this entity are not supposed to have their own children and instead must care for the rest of society at large (this was at least the original design, no doubt).
Besides, the catholic example teaches us as well, that any particular culture can be sustained through millenia, independently from current governmental form or changes in social structures of the society at large. This is not to say that such a culture will not alterate to a certain degree with centuries passing by, but the fundamental elements and the organization as community can be preserved for very long times.
In case the science shall actually make the doubtfull progress towards methodical selection or artificial generation of homo- or heterosexual embrios (and this is no doubt in the offing), we might face not only a cultural, but a physical genocide much earlier that we are expecting this. Experiences with Down-syndrom children in western world or with female embrios in China and India prove us, that whenever parents have the possibility to get rid of undesired off-spring, they have little scruppels to actually do this. I think there is no need to explain that kids with our sexual orientation do not belong into the wish list of straight parents, no matter how lovely parents they can be when we are grown up and they got used to us.
For us as a particular culture, in 20 or 50 years it might become the only possibility to procreate us as a people by artificial means, ourselves using the above mentioned technologies in influencing the sexual orientation of the off-spring. A very theoretical and ethically questionable debate at the moment, but it might become pretty urging one sunny day.
