Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

What the article addresses is the way that people jump to conclusions about things like left-handedness, homosexuality, mental illness, and skin color before they know what causes those things. The article just gives another example.

No.

The article is hypothesizing a link between general behavior and heredity. It goes on to say that it is awaiting independent verification. And as if that isn't enough, it says a person's environment has some influence on whether these behavior become manifest or not.

What you have been doing for the longest time is making an argument BY ASSOCIATION. Just because mental illness or skin color is genetic doesn't mean that homosexuality is.

Or do you wish to make the argument that homosexuality is a mental illness?

See above why I posted the link. I gave you the title and the author of the book which is based on hundreds of peer review research articles and papers.

There is no need for the book. Just post the most compelling peer-reviewed papers. I have no intentions of wading through suggestions and innuendos to get to what is really relevant -- hard, scientifically verifiable evidence that there is, indeed, a homosexual gene.

In fact, the human genome has already been mapped. It is simply a matter of pointing to where this silly gene is supposed to be.

Why do I get this nagging feeling that after all your bravado, you don't really know?

A characteristic can be genetic before we figure which genes or complex of genes causes it.

Eh?

Whether it is genetic or not is merely a hypothesis, or in this case, a suggestion. Unless you point to the genes that causes homosexuality, all your talk is SPECULATION AND WISHFUL THINKING.

Duh?

You wish to vent your hatred and bigotry on gay people before we even know what causes them to be that way. I, on the other hand, think that they should be treated like everyone else until we have a real reason to treat them otherwise.

I don't hate homosexuals. I am a bit irked, however, at morons.

 

[numinus]

The self-same cultural benefit that accrues to legally married couples: equality before the law so that all the laws currently granting special rights and privileges to legally married people will apply to gay people.

You mean legal equality is a cultural thing?

You mean to tell me gays can't marry another person of the opposite gender?

Marriage does not deny gay people equality, it's the laws granting special rights and privileges to legally married people and the legal exclusion of one group of tax paying citizens for no reason but religious bigotry that denies gay people equality.

What part of the udhr or the crc do you think amounts to religious bigotry, eh?

You really missed the point on that one, Nums, am I going too fast for you?

I am way ahead of you, its almost psychic.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No.

The article is hypothesizing a link between general behavior and heredity. It goes on to say that it is awaiting independent verification. And as if that isn't enough, it says a person's environment has some influence on whether these behavior become manifest or not.

What you have been doing for the longest time is making an argument BY ASSOCIATION. Just because mental illness or skin color is genetic doesn't mean that homosexuality is.

Or do you wish to make the argument that homosexuality is a mental illness?



There is no need for the book. Just post the most compelling peer-reviewed papers. I have no intentions of wading through suggestions and innuendos to get to what is really relevant -- hard, scientifically verifiable evidence that there is, indeed, a homosexual gene.

In fact, the human genome has already been mapped. It is simply a matter of pointing to where this silly gene is supposed to be.

Why do I get this nagging feeling that after all your bravado, you don't really know?



Eh?

Whether it is genetic or not is merely a hypothesis, or in this case, a suggestion. Unless you point to the genes that causes homosexuality, all your talk is SPECULATION AND WISHFUL THINKING.

Duh?



I don't hate homosexuals. I am a bit irked, however, at morons.

My suggestion to you is that you stay away from mirrors. You have refused to look at any of the other sources that I have given, why should this one be different? You wouldn't look at the site where Dr. Cynthia Chappelle talks about the biological basis for homosexuality, you won't read the book I cited, you won't even look up the book and read what has been said about it. I suspect that you are suffering from invincible ignorance (you don't know and by God! you are not going to find out). Stay away from mirrors, they'll just make you irked.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You mean legal equality is a cultural thing?

You mean that equality isn't cultural?

What part of the udhr or the crc do you think amounts to religious bigotry, eh?

Why don't you quote the Bible too, Nums, then you can make a case for rape, child molesting, murder, kidnapping, and slavery. Quoting crap doesn't make a viable case.

I am way ahead of you, its almost psychic.

So far ahead in fact that you have disappeared head first up your own ailimentary canal. Dark, isn't it?

Since you are now psychic, why don't you write my responses to you? Hey, you could write everybody's responses and have a whole discussion site all to yourself!

 

[numinus]

My suggestion to you is that you stay away from mirrors. You have refused to look at any of the other sources that I have given, why should this one be different? You wouldn't look at the site where Dr. Cynthia Chappelle talks about the biological basis for homosexuality, you won't read the book I cited, you won't even look up the book and read what has been said about it. I suspect that you are suffering from invincible ignorance (you don't know and by God! you are not going to find out). Stay away from mirrors, they'll just make you irked.

I do not bother reading your gay self-help books because these books DIDN'T PASS THE STANDARD OF SCIENTIFIC RIGOR, unlike scientific papers.

And you insist on citing these self-help books because you wish to misrepresent scientific conclusions. If you had bothered to cite published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, it would categorically state, as I have already guessed, that these findings ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE -- hence fatal to all your innuendos and suggestions.

 

[numinus]

You mean that equality isn't cultural?

LMAO. Of course not.

Equality makes sense only in the operation of law -- hence, legal equality. It is legal equality that gays are asking for, is it not?

Duh?

Why don't you quote the Bible too, Nums, then you can make a case for rape, child molesting, murder, kidnapping, and slavery. Quoting crap doesn't make a viable case.

LMAO some more. You would like that, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately for you, the legal basis of marriage comes from the universal declaration of human rights and the convention for the rights of children.

So, if there is nothing religious about the udhr or crc, your THIS ENTIRE LINE OF ARGUMENT IS WRONG.

Duh?

So far ahead in fact that you have disappeared head first up your own ailimentary canal. Dark, isn't it?

ROTFLMAO. I'm sure yours get ample sunshine, among other things.

Since you are now psychic, why don't you write my responses to you? Hey, you could write everybody's responses and have a whole discussion site all to yourself!

I would, except that I am not in the habit of posting nonsense in the public domain, unlike yourself.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I do not bother reading your gay self-help books because these books DIDN'T PASS THE STANDARD OF SCIENTIFIC RIGOR, unlike scientific papers.

And you insist on citing these self-help books because you wish to misrepresent scientific conclusions. If you had bothered to cite published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, it would categorically state, as I have already guessed, that these findings ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE -- hence fatal to all your innuendos and suggestions.

As long as you refuse to look you will be safe from seeing. You are judging without even seeing the cover let alone the contents. It's called "invincible ignorance".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LMAO. Of course not.
Equality makes sense only in the operation of law -- hence, legal equality. It is legal equality that gays are asking for, is it not?Duh?LMAO some more. You would like that, wouldn't you?Unfortunately for you, the legal basis of marriage comes from the universal declaration of human rights and the convention for the rights of children.So, if there is nothing religious about the udhr or crc, your THIS ENTIRE LINE OF ARGUMENT IS WRONG.
Duh?ROTFLMAO. I'm sure yours get ample sunshine, among other things.
I would, except that I am not in the habit of posting nonsense in the public domain, unlike yourself.

Laws are part of culture, or didn't you know that? The legal basis for marriage does not come from your cited documents any more than American civil rights come from the Magna Carta. Nothing in the UDHR singles out gay people for the kind of hatred and discriminatory action that you advocate. Like the Bible-beaters, you are interpreting it to satisfy your own bigotry. I never said that your documents were religious.

Bigotry is nonsense, but you seem to post a lot of that. Hmmm?

 

[numinus]

As long as you refuse to look you will be safe from seeing.

Looking at an absurd argument wouldn't make it any less absurd, now, would it?

You are judging without even seeing the cover let alone the contents.

You're making the assertions. It is up to you to provide the logical argument.

I have roundly debunked every argument you have offered. My judgement is fair enough, I imagine.

It's called "invincible ignorance".

Are you prepared to point out where this silly homosexual gene is located, yet?

I thought so.

 

[numinus]

Laws are part of culture, or didn't you know that? The legal basis for marriage does not come from your cited documents any more than American civil rights come from the Magna Carta.

The last time I checked, the american constitutions was based on 'self-evident' truths -- not culture.

Nothing in the UDHR singles out gay people for the kind of hatred and discriminatory action that you advocate.

LMAO.

What part of a woman's right to motherhood do you consider hate-speech, hmmm?

Like the Bible-beaters, you are interpreting it to satisfy your own bigotry. I never said that your documents were religious.

What part of 'the natural family is the fundamental group unit of society' am I interpreting religiously, hmmm?

What a funny thing to say!

Bigotry is nonsense, but you seem to post a lot of that. Hmmm?

I base my opinions on facts and logic. Nothing more nothing less.

You on the other hand, base your opinions on the chemical effects of your hormone shots.

 

[Dr.Who]

You on the other hand, base your opinions on the chemical effects of your hormone shots.

Too far.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Looking at an absurd argument wouldn't make it any less absurd, now, would it?
You're making the assertions. It is up to you to provide the logical argument.
I have roundly debunked every argument you have offered. My judgement is fair enough, I imagine.
Are you prepared to point out where this silly homosexual gene is located, yet?I thought so.

The logical approach would be for you to at least LOOK at the evidence before deciding that it has no value. What you are demonstrating is classic invincible ignorance.

Denial is not the same as "roundly debunking", what you have done is deny without examination so that you can protect your beliefs. Everybody knows that homosexuality will probably arise from a complex of genes the way that many things do, not a single gene. Your insistence on a single-gene, sound-byte, black and white answer simply points out your lack of understanding.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The last time I checked, the american constitutions was based on 'self-evident' truths -- not culture.LMAO.What part of a woman's right to motherhood do you consider hate-speech, hmmm?What part of 'the natural family is the fundamental group unit of society' am I interpreting religiously, hmmm?What a funny thing to say!I base my opinions on facts and logic. Nothing more nothing less.You on the other hand, base your opinions on the chemical effects of your hormone shots.

What you interpret in a religious manner is the wording of your cited documents. "Family" can have many meanings, but you religiously hew to a single, narrow meaning so that you can exclude others whom you hate. Bible-beaters have been doing that for centuries: blacks, women, other religions, other sects, etc. You are following a long, sad trail of bigotry.

The "right to motherhood" is not an exclusive reference except when you define it religiously to make it exclusive.

The basis for our culture is part of the culture (or do you believe that the foundation of the building is not part of the building?). And it says "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That isn't an exclusive statement either, it's inclusive and applies equally to all of our people.

I'm not sure what the hormone shots comment is intended to mean, I don't take hormone shots. Could it be that you are taking shots of something else and got confused? Tequila will do that to you.

 

[numinus]

What you interpret in a religious manner is the wording of your cited documents. "Family" can have many meanings, but you religiously hew to a single, narrow meaning so that you can exclude others whom you hate. Bible-beaters have been doing that for centuries: blacks, women, other religions, other sects, etc. You are following a long, sad trail of bigotry.

The udhr states that the family is the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY.

In what form of nonsense logic do you suppose this definition includes gay unions, hmmm?

The "right to motherhood" is not an exclusive reference except when you define it religiously to make it exclusive.

Again, all WOMEN has a right to motherhood. That is exclusive enough to the female gender -- with or without whatever 'religious' interpretation you imagine I'm making.

Of course, when you say that gay men have a right to motherhood, you are actually asserting something that is not only contrary to the udhr, it also serves to destroy this particular right.

The basis for our culture is part of the culture (or do you believe that the foundation of the building is not part of the building?).

A country's set of laws are NOT the basis of its culture.

Duh?

And it says "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That isn't an exclusive statement either, it's inclusive and applies equally to all of our people.

That is correct. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you don't have a right to is compel the state to legislate whatever it is that makes you happy.

I'm not sure what the hormone shots comment is intended to mean, I don't take hormone shots. Could it be that you are taking shots of something else and got confused? Tequila will do that to you.

It means your facts and logic are chemically-induced.

 

[numinus]

The logical approach would be for you to at least LOOK at the evidence before deciding that it has no value. What you are demonstrating is classic invincible ignorance.

And you have NOT given any evidence for me to look at.

How much more do you intend for this to go on before you realize this?

Denial is not the same as "roundly debunking", what you have done is deny without examination so that you can protect your beliefs.

I have no need to deny anything since you have not made any assertions that has undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Everybody knows that homosexuality will probably arise from a complex of genes the way that many things do, not a single gene. Your insistence on a single-gene, sound-byte, black and white answer simply points out your lack of understanding.

By all means, state the complex set of genes that makes a person gay. Be sure to back it up with some credible science -- preferably, peer-reviewed, published scientific papers. No need to post the titles of gay self-help books.

What you are trying to peddle in this forum is that homosexuality is a genetic adaptation -- at the same time ignoring the fact that such an adaptation guarantees the extinction of the specie when applied.

So tell me, what part of facts and logic don't you understand?