Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An interesting question to me is why people even care if it is genetic or not. Something being "natural" or "genetic" does not automatically mean it is morally "right" OR morally "wrong". I guess people who are so strongly opposed to the idea that it might be genetic have realised that if sexual orientation is inborn, analogous-discrimination against gay people constitutes a kind of racism.
Actually, I think it is the critical question to the debate. Because the entire debate over the past few has been about behavioral questions. If it turns out that the root cause of homosexuality is indeed genetic in nature, then I think the moral stigma of it can be removed once and for all. Then one would not be legally or socially penalize for being gay any more than one would be for being left-handed or red-headed.
That's because the word 'cannibal' describes a person based on behavior. The words 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' don't - they describe people based on sexual orientation regardless of behavior. A closeted homosexual who only has sex with his wife and has never had sex with a man is still a homosexual because he is attracted to other men -- same-sex attraction is the definition of 'homosexual', not behavior.Similarly, a celibate heterosexual who hasn't had sex yet is a heterosexual even before the first time he/she has sex -- opposite attraction is the definition of heterosexual, not whether one has yet had sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Who said anything about sex?
And the bold is like saying that if a person hasnt gained weight yet or doesnt eat, they are still obese, because they were "born" with an attraction to food.
Quote:
You're free to make up your own definitions of words, of course, but that doesn't make sense. If you're attempting to communicate in English, it helps to use English words in accordance with, you know, the definitions of those words. And dictionaries are widely available, so one really has no excuse for insisting on using words incorrectly.
One has no excuse for insisting on being irrational either, but I see that hasnt stopped you. Because, while my rationale doesnt make sense to you, you can rest assured that you arent making sense either.
Since we're bloviating on about definitions, go revisit the original definition of "gay" and "fa-g"? Find the original definition of "dyke". Then come talk to me about how unalterable definitions are, and how sacred the lexicon is in that dictionary you use.
One has no excuse for insisting on being irrational either, but I see that hasnt stopped you. Because, while my rationale doesnt make sense to you, you can rest assured that you arent making sense either.
He is making sense. You are not. He's making statement of facts. Homosexuality is a matter of orientation. The rest of these analogies are not.
You arent saying anything of importance. I am. Of course those analogies are make sense, but the only reason the analogies could never be factual is because the rationale used for explaining sexuality is ONLY applicable to sexuality, and nothing else in life. Because we dont accept that kind of linear logic to explain anything else in life. But never fear, I wasnt necessarily trying to appeal to your logic.
You arent saying anything of importance. I am. Of course those analogies are make sense, but the only reason the analogies could never be factual is because the rationale used for explaining sexuality is ONLY applicable to sexuality, and nothing else in life. Because we dont accept that kind of linear logic to explain anything else in life. But never fear, I wasnt necessarily trying to appeal to your logic.
Well, whether it's important or not doesn't matter. Voyageur is spot on noting the differences between actions and orientation. The analogies you present, in a western context, are a matter of choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Cited "studies" that have passed the scientific community's scrutiny to accept your "more and more studies" as fact?
0
Reasons based on these "studies" to change military doctrine, religious practice, etc.?
0
But you keep right on pretending you have any logic to support your opinion more than the other side of the argument. If you say it over and over enough, you might... you just might ... convince one other person who doesn't need evidence to make concrete decisions that your position is the right one.
Yes, those studies are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Did you not notice?
It appears that you are yet another person who demands studies yet refuses to even look at them when they are presented. How does that contribute to the discussion. How do you expect your opinion to be taken seriously?
Actually, I think it is the critical question to the debate. Because the entire debate over the past few has been about behavioral questions. If it turns out that the root cause of homosexuality is indeed genetic in nature, then I think the moral stigma of it can be removed once and for all. Then one would not be legally or socially penalize for being gay any more than one would be for being left-handed or red-headed.
According to all the twin studies, homosexuality does have a genetic component. According to those recent peer-reviewed studies I linked to, another component is due to the effect of hormones on the fetus's developing brain.
You arent saying anything of importance. I am. Of course those analogies are make sense, but the only reason the analogies could never be factual is because the rationale used for explaining sexuality is ONLY applicable to sexuality, and nothing else in life. Because we dont accept that kind of linear logic to explain anything else in life. But never fear, I wasnt necessarily trying to appeal to your logic.
Interesting. You think you are saying something of importance? To me, what you opine on this topic is uninformed, naieve and mostly false. But you are entitled to your opinions, even if they make no sense and fly in the face of science.
In another thread you said that the studies I linked to were from some "comic book article".
Is the Journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a "comic book"? Do you even know what the National Academy of Sciences is? National Academy of Sciences: About the NAS (http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page - broken link)
Frankly, you prove over and over again that you just try to trash things you haven't even bothered to read.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
