I read up on the sales tax idea. Couldn't really find out definitively what the plan is, but it smells fishy. In EVERY example of personal income and tax rates they analyzed, the amount paid in taxes went down. How can that be possible and still maintain the gov't's current funding levels? There is more to that than what they're showing - I ain't buying it.

The second link that Turbodog provided was very interesting, however. If the numbers from the budget office are correct in that table then it appears the liberal notion of the top 1% having 90% of the wealth is erroneous (at least the income levels don't reflect that - maybe there are some other numbers that take into account real property).

Spiff, of course I knew you wouldn't encourage a son to be gay. I forget what I was driving at; I may have been drinking last night, but I can't be certain.

I've always struggled with the "homosexuality is a genetic trait" argument because the gay gene would seem to be doomed in any organism carrying it due to the non-reproducing nature of that organism. Your friend's argument does supply a reason for the existence of a agy recessive gene, but that is opening up a huge can of worms (That can of worms being the notion that behaviors are a product of genetic predisposition. We could basically abandon all personal responsibility for our behaviors and blame our genetic make-up. It could also imply that cultural differences between races are the product of different genetic tendencies). Regardless, the human genome project will likely one day be able to substantiate or refute that belief.

I have no proof, but I would venture that for many homosexuals the root cause was a difficulty in the reconciliation of growing sexual desires with social norms regarding sexual behavior. I would also venture that such difficulty is the cause of other "deviations" (not making a judgement, I just mean deviation from the norm).