Turi, as far as I know a "gay gene" has yet to be discovered. However, genetics seems to play some part in it...
Although from a Catholic site,
this page is helpful trying to understand how complex this is:
...like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is multifactorial. It is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intra-uterine influences (some innate to the mother and thus present in every pregnancy, and others incidental to a given pregnancy), postnatal environment (such as parental, sibling, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases in development.
Science doesn't know for sure (yet) if people are necessarily "born gay" (hense the debate), but the consensus so far seems to be that there is a mix of nature and environment. Perhaps some are born w/ a predisposition to be gay and some environmental factors cause the "gay switch" to be turned on.
What's most important, however, is the fact that one does not CHOOSE to be homosexual -- so it really doesn't matter if it's genetic. Being homosexual isn't a
choice one makes, just like being born a particular race isn't.
As such, and specifically relating to the original question, I don't think a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be much different than a law that would, say, ban marriage among members of a particular race.
The only "choice" a homosexual gets to make is whether to ACT upon his sexuality. And to not, as the religious right would love them to do, would be denying who they are.
lol
