(March 26, 2013 at 1:56 pm)catfish Wrote: So, you equate studies which suggest things as being conclusive?

Alex,
I'll take aquatic species beginning with 'c' that have no fucking clue how science works for $1000.

(March 26, 2013 at 1:18 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: If you have to ask that question in this thread, you are not very bright.

I believe he's a troll who pretends to be stupid. But I might be wrong about his acting talent.

So, does either one of you guys have conclusive proof that there are no environmental influences on homosexuality and that it is solely genetics and developement while inside the womb? (keeping in line with his assertion "born this way") (next up, "made this way")

(March 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm)catfish Wrote: So, does either one of you guys have conclusive proof that there are no environmental influences on homosexuality and that it is solely genetics and developement while inside the womb? (keeping in line with his assertion "born this way") (next up, "made this way")

I think that, as with most things, it will prove to be more complex than one thing or the other.

(March 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm)catfish Wrote: So, does either one of you guys have conclusive proof that there are no environmental influences on homosexuality and that it is solely genetics and developement while inside the womb? (keeping in line with his assertion "born this way") (next up, "made this way")

I think that, as with most things, it will prove to be more complex than one thing or the other.

I agree, but I also disregard genetics as being the sole reason just for the fact that there are twin studies...

What a long, strange (and probably pointless) exchange this has been.

I went back a few pages but .. blah, boring!

As for normal vs natural, I'm not sure there is any disagreement that I could find. I gather that Cat agrees that homosexuality is natural (giraffes do it, bonobos do it, we do it, etc.) and that we all agree that it isn't any more normal than left-handedness (though it may go unreported more often than left-handedness). That just leaves "Is it an abomination?"

Did it start with Cat saying homosexuality is an abomination? If so, give him that. If his special sky daddy has a list of no-no's and acting/being gay is on it, then by definition it is an abomination. The correct response would be "so what?"

Is there any real disagreement here that I'm missing or are you all just having a good vetch session? If so, back to it!