If homosexuality were harmful to the human race, natural selection would have eliminated it a long time ago. There must be some advantage for a certain percentage to be attracted to members of the same sex and thus essentially taken out of the gene pool. We can only guess about the reasons but at least in men it may have something to do with male bonding which can be very useful when young men are sent off to fight an enemy. Besides, the young male is very expendable. It doesn't matter if most never reproduce. How many men does it take to impregnate 100 women? I have also read that in primitive societies, homosexual men helped to take care of their sisters' children, which gave them a better chance of survival. There ought to be studies whether this is still true today.

That line of thinking does not at all explain homosexuality in women. In the past, many homosexual women were probably forced into marriage and child bearing. Their genetic disposition was thereby passed on. If that is true, then perhaps there will be less lesbians in the future because now women are allowed to live out their destiny.

There is another aspect, perhaps unjustly neglected. During puberty, children of both sexes tend to be attracted to members of the same sex. Most lifetime friendships are formed in these years. There may be sexual play but the norm is probably platonic friendships. This certainly was a good way to avoid too early pregnancy for girls and conflicts with the dominant male for boys. Most people eventually discover the other sex. Some never get over that stage and become homosexual. One could thus call homosexuality a case of arrested development. Cultural and personal aspects probably play a significant role in the transformation process, especially in those persons who have the genes for homosexuality.

Whatever it is, homosexuality is not a sin against nature!

Perhaps I am reading this wrong but it very much looks like she has the Media wrapped around her little finger. Nobody seems to really put her to the test.

A Democracy functions only in countries with a sophisticated electorate. With that I mean voters who have the intelligence and knowledge to know what is important for the country and can discern between real and phony. Absent such an electorate, elections degenerate into popularity contests. Populists tend to win out over candidates with a legitimate agenda.

Bush won twice using populist tactics and now we see it again. Most Americans realize that we have been living beyond our means for several decades and that the prosperity of recent years is based on soap bubbles. The wealth amassed by financial institutions is largely an illusion, supported primarily by money borrowed from other countries. And now the house of cards is coming down. Brought down by greed which the government encouraged by neglecting the lessons learned after the crash of 1929. We are spending billions on an unnecessary war and no longer needed weapons systems while the Infrastructure and the National Parks go to pot. Not to mention the waste of human potential because millions fail to receive an adequate eduction or even learn useful skills. We all know that we have to make sacrifices but no politician has the courage to call for sacrifices. Can't blame them because doing so would be the kiss of death. That goes for both major parties.

On what single issues do too many voters make a choice? Abortion, same gender marriage, sex education, to drill or not to drill and yes, also race though very few dare admit it. You know, all the issues important for the future of the USA. When I hear "drill, baby drill" it reminds me of a Kindergarten. Obama has drawn back on many key issues and McCain has betrayed most of his principles. He learned his lesson in 2000 when his honesty doomed him from the beginning. And now the GOP is giving us Sarah Palin, enthusiastically supported by much of the Media. The Palin presented to us is a product of clever spin doctors, the same who gave us GWBush. Could it be that we are so susceptible to this kind of manipulation because our brains have become conditioned by incessant TV commercials?

Do we need to worry about the USA, once the greatest country in the world?

That's exactly what we need: A VP, potential President who is just like everybody else. The average IQ of the population is (by definition) 100. I thought a country should be led by the man or woman who combines intelligence, an excellent education, common sense, ethics, and good people skills on a level far above the average American.

Not somebody with whom most people can identify. This is not a popularity contest!

What we see here is a lady who acts like an absolute monarch of earlier times in Europe - or of the kind that still rule many countries in Africa. She surrounds herself with people who are beholden only to her, the voters be damned. Don't we have a government of the people for the people? Doesn't that mean we elect those who make decisions that affect all and expect from them to act on behalf of the electorate? What authorizes somebody who is not beholden to the voters to make these decisions or to exert the type of influence apparently exercised by Todd Palin in Alaska? If he wants that type of influence then he should run for office and be held accountable for his decisions.

This is another nail in the coffin. Another reason not to vote for McCain. Once can only hope that the spin doctors who are creating the image of Palin that seems to attract so many voters don't succeed in selling her to the Nation.