Are gay people born that way or is it simply a lifestyle choice?

Quote: FinsRule

Many gay people have children. But I think as society becomes more tolerant, gay people will be more open, thus adopting more, thus lowering the percentage of gays.

They are at a disadvantage when it comes to contributing to the gene pool.

Quote: Flynn

Please, I joined this forum to discuss gambling related stuff. I don't mind an off-topic once in a while but now it's turning in the direction of a forum about homosexuality. And how are heterosexuals entitled to comment about that anyway. It's the same as saying that heterosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that everybody could find a member of the same sex attractive if they wanted to. Why cannot people leave it alone and start focusing about the important things in live.

Dude, I suggest you stop reading the "Off-Topic" area if you don't want to read Off-Topic threads.

Quote: rxwine

I think people who think homosexuality is a choice should make a wager.

Offer this to all gays: Just admit homosexuality is actually a choice and we'll vote for your rights issues.


My prediction: heterosexuals won't have to vote for any rights issues.

Just look at the site right here. On the other thread I asked anyone gay on the site here if they would do the following.

Suppose they invented a pill that would "cure" homosexuality. One dose, no side effects, just sleep 8 hours and you wake up with none of the "feelings that you do not have a choice about." The mere thought of homosexual behavior, from that point on, would be physically repulsive to you, and you would have heterosexual feelings only. That being the case, would you take the pill?

Crickets.

Researchindicates that schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and multiple sclerosis could be caused by a retrovirus and triggered by other infections such as toxoplasmosis:

I believe that deep in our DNA there are some genes that can be expressed when triggered by, perhaps, a toxoplasmosis or virus. (Much like the current theories on schizophrenia.) Once triggered the expression may increase the likely hood of developing a h.....sexual person.



Here's some additional information from http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/11/22/is-schizophrenia-caused-by-retroviruses/ that I believe supports my possible theory.

"The facts of schizophrenia are so peculiar, in fact, that they have led Torrey and a growing number of other scientists to abandon the traditional explanations of the disease and embrace a startling alternative. Schizophrenia, they say, does not begin as a psychological disease. Schizophrenia begins with an infection.

The idea has sparked skepticism, but after decades of hunting, Torrey and his colleagues think they have finally found the infectious agent. [...]

After eight years of research, Perron finally completed his retrovirus’s gene sequence. What he found on that day in 1997 no one could have predicted; it instantly explained why so many others had failed before him. We imagine viruses as mariners, sailing from person to person across oceans of saliva, snot, or semen—but Perron’s bug was a homebody. It lives permanently in the human body at the very deepest level: inside our DNA. After years slaving away in a biohazard lab, Perron realized that everyone already carried the virus that causes multiple sclerosis. [...]

Through this research, a rough account is emerging of how HERV-W could trigger diseases like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and MS. Although the body works hard to keep its ERVs under tight control, infections around the time of birth destabilize this tense standoff. Scribbled onto the marker board in Yolken’s office is a list of infections that are now known to awaken HERV-W—including herpes, toxoplasma, cytomegalovirus, and a dozen others. The HERV-W viruses that pour into the newborn’s blood and brain fluid during these infections contain proteins that may enrage the infant immune system. White blood cells vomit forth inflammatory molecules called cytokines, attracting more immune cells like riot police to a prison break. The scene turns toxic."

Quote: AZDuffman

Suppose they invented a pill that would "cure" homosexuality. One dose, no side effects, just sleep 8 hours and you wake up with none of the "feelings that you do not have a choice about." The mere thought of homosexual behavior, from that point on, would be physically repulsive to you, and you would have heterosexual feelings only. That being the case, would you take the pill?

Crickets.

Ever hear about this: (no pun intended) It concerns cochlear implants for the deaf. You're not deaf. Is this also your business?

Quote:

The Deaf Community. Efforts to treat hearing loss are seen by some as a threat to the Deaf culture. Leaders of the Deaf culture have associated CIs with “childabuse” and “cultural genocide.” Conflict has arisen between the hearing and Deaf cultures,wherein the former views deafness as a disability with available medical treatment options, whereas the latter rejects the assumption that deafness is a disability.

Deaf culture represents a group of individuals that share the same language (American Sign Language), customs,and values, thereby rejecting the notion that hearing impairment represents a disability. Cochlear implants are strongly opposed by many members of the Deaf community.

http://cbssm.org/downloads/Shuman.pdf


There's obviously a limit. For instance courts usually interfere when parents refuse life saving procedures for their children. But who is the be all and end all definition of normal, and why does that matter so much to you?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

First, rather than armchair guesswork, this question has actually received a considerable amount of scientific attention. While there isn't yet a definitive answer, most scientists don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, at least in most cases. For example, one paper in a medical journal says, "most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual," and the position paper of the American Psychological Association says, "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." I'm not cherry-picking my sources, either; there just aren't any sources that say that the scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a choice.

The above is yet another reason that I belive that it's much like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and multiple sclerosis. It could be caused by a retrovirus and triggered by other infections such as toxoplasmosis:

-Keyser

Quote: AZDuffman

Just look at the site right here. On the other thread I asked anyone gay on the site here if they would do the following.

Suppose they invented a pill that would "cure" homosexuality. One dose, no side effects, just sleep 8 hours and you wake up with none of the "feelings that you do not have a choice about." The mere thought of homosexual behavior, from that point on, would be physically repulsive to you, and you would have heterosexual feelings only. That being the case, would you take the pill?

Crickets.

I don't even understand what that thought experiment shows? Would you take a pill that made you like men? No? So what does that -mean-?

Quote: Flynn

Please, I joined this forum to discuss gambling related stuff... I don't mind an off-topic once in a while but... Why cannot people leave it alone and start focusing about the important things in live.

You want to discuss "gambling related stuff" so you want people to leave alone other topics and focus about the important things in life.

When you write that, it really seems like you mean that "gambling related stuff" is the important things in life. I hope that it's not for you, or anyone else on this board.

It should be either a hobby or an occupation, but I hope no one thinks that Roulette advantage play, or yelling at Paigowdan is the "important things in live (sic)"

And as always, if you don't like the topic, don't click on the link.

Quote: thecesspit

I don't even understand what that thought experiment shows? Would you take a pill that made you like men? No? So what does that -mean-?

It means that it does not suck to be a heterosexual. That I am not being mistreated because I don't like men, not discriminated against, not oppressed, not denied basic rights. Etc.
Or, if I do, it simply does not bother me too much. Not enough to want to change my lifestyle in order to fix the situation.
It also means, that it does not mater weather sexual orientation is congenital or acquired, because if it was a choice, the choice would be the same anyway.

Quote: Gabes22

Ricky Martin just needed a easy way to justify his bad music

That made me almost spit out my drink....LOL!

Quote: buzzpaff

Have you considered a career as a screen writer. Your plot is better than the dribble playing in theatres today !

It's been done...Mars Attacks! Aliens killed by a C&W song.

Quote: weaselman

... or highering it. I guess, that could be one way to settle the dispute.

[light ribbing (but not in a gay way)]....For a guy who busted someones balls about not having a spell checker and the proper grammatical use of "sic" you may want to replace "highering" with "raising"...just a suggestion.

Well, weaselman does have a point.

I also wanted to present another example - homosexuality and particularly pederasty in Ancient Greece and Rome. The rates, among the particular social classes, were much higher than the most generous estimates for the % of homosexuals today.

This shows that cultural factors play a massive role in one's sexual behavior.
In all cases, behavior has to be separated from orientation, for a lot of people the two differ.

Quote: thecesspit

I don't even understand what that thought experiment shows? Would you take a pill that made you like men? No? So what does that -mean-?

I have no desire to be gay so would not take such a pill. However, I keep hearing from the gays on this board about how "gays are second class citizens" and your family throws you out, yadda yadda yadda.

In the end they say, "why would someone choose this?" So I asked a question, "If you could end it all and not be gay, would you?"

Now, the most constructive answer is the deaf-thing. I kind of recall hearing about this (no pun intended) somewhere before. Kind of a combination of "leaving the deaf culture" and jealousy of, "why can he get the implants but me not?" No matter what, it pops up.

I don't think it is just the deaf community that has this happen. Ever hear about blacks who get teased or worse for "acting white" when they see the disaster their neighborhood and lifestyle can be so they study in school and work hard to escape it, only to have their "friends" give a negative reaction. Or the alcoholic who makes progress but his drinking buddies keep pulling him back. Same with a dope addict.

Have you considered the possibility that it may have something to do with people actually agreeing with it?

And discussing finer details of what affects one's sexual behavior. There clearly exists a large segment of people that are not phobically repulsed by the idea of either, and other factors may play a role there.

Quote: UWPeteO

Seems funny to me that everyone is basically ignoring this post; the scientific consensus is that it's not a choice, and (correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't think anyone on this forum has the appropriate education/experience to refute that. No one here even seems to have anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of whether or not it is a choice, and it's not, the real question is: is there anything wrong with being gay or lesbian?

And the answer is clearly no.

There is no inherent social or personal dysfunction. No inability to form long-lasting relationships. No propensity for violence. They don't hurt other people by engaging in their sexual orientation. No real negative aspects at all.

But it rubs some people the wrong way. So they have to make up all sorts of lies and slander to try to get other people to oppose homosexuality. And at some time int he apst, it was seen as wrong, diseased, etc, so gay people were harassed, mistreated and even murdered for their sexual orientation. This does go on even today, but in a much lesser form in most Western countries. Today if a gay man or a lesbian are murdered, the majority of people are disgusted by the murder, not by the victim.

Let's take an analogy. Christian Copts in Egypt, and in other parts, are harassed, mistreated, and even murdered by some of their Muslim neighbors. This despite that the Koran (sp?) does state that Chrsitians, and Jews for that matter, are "people of the book" and do follow Allah's will, albeit not completely. There's also nothign wrong with being Christian as far as dysfuntion, social or personal, is concerned.

Now, religion is not something epople are born with. They chose it, willingly or by default, as they grow up. Clearly it's something that can be changed, too, as it happens every day, without even any kind of expensive therapy. Anyone can simply choose another religion and follow it.

So why don't these Copts simply change theri religion to appease the bigotry of their neighbors? If being Christian is so hard, why not just give it up? Why dont' we help them do so, even. I'm sure many would be reluctant, but a conversion therapy should help them. it's easy. You attach electrodes to their genitals and shock them while they watch images of saints, churches, crucifixes, and listen to christian prayers. You quit shocking them when you show images of mosques, prayer rugs, Koranic passges and listen to Muslim prayers.

What could be simpler than that? What could possibly be wrong with that?

Why, the fact that any person should be free to engage in any activity that does not violate the rights of his neighbors. And the fact that I'm propposing torturing people in order to appease the bigotry and hatred form another group, who don't even have a cogent reason for their bigotry. And the fact that any reasonable person should feel sick that I even dare to bring up something so clearly immoral and disgusting as punishing vitims so their agressors will feel better.

And yet what I've described above are some of the techniques used in attempts to "help" homosexuals to get "cured." And the reasons I outlined above for such "help" are the reasons the bigots have. Woulnd't the problems a gay man experiences go away if he submitted to this "treatment"? Shouldn't we torture the victim to appease the bigotry and haterd of epople who have no cogent reason for such bigotry in the first place?

Oh, and just so you know, all documented "cures" for homosexuality have a dismal record of "success."

So, gee, why don't gays and lesbians jump at the chance to be tortured in order to have a very small chance of being "cured" of something that isn't a probnlem, shouldn't be a problem, and doesn't need to "cured" int he first place?

It's a real mystery, isn't it? That is, unless you have three working neurons inside your skull.

Quote: Nareed

Regardless of whether or not it is a choice, and it's not, the real question is: is there anything wrong with being gay or lesbian?

I don't think that's the real question here, on this forum. But I'll make a poll just in case.

Quote: Nareed

Regardless of whether or not it is a choice, and it's not, the real question is: is there anything wrong with being gay or lesbian?

And the answer is clearly no.

That depends on what you mean by "wrong". I see nothing wrong with someone being gay.
I would not want my son to be one however. Why? Well ... Aside from wanting to have grandchildren ... I guess, it's the same reason I don't want him to sleep with his sister. There is nothing "wrong" with it logically, it does not hurt anyone, it just does not feel right. I would not dishonor him or trow him out of the house if that happened ... I would just prefer that it does not.

Homosexuality = Incest. Really ?

Quote: UWPeteO

Quote: MichaelBluejay

First, rather than armchair guesswork, this question has actually received a considerable amount of scientific attention. While there isn't yet a definitive answer, most scientists don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, at least in most cases. For example, one paper in a medical journal says, "most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual," and the position paper of the American Psychological Association says, "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." I'm not cherry-picking my sources, either; there just aren't any sources that say that the scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a choice.

Seems funny to me that everyone is basically ignoring this post; the scientific consensus is that it's not a choice, and (correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't think anyone on this forum has the appropriate education/experience to refute that. No one here even seems to have anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

You're right, I am by no means qualified to debate Mr. Bluejay nor dispute the science he presented. However, he did mention some "pretty solid observational evidence" in forming his opinion. Who knows, maybe in 20 years it will be documented beyond dispute that homosexuality is in fact not a choice. But right now all I have is solid observational evidence to form an opinion from. You can grab hold of the science now if you want to. It's just that in my lifetime I have seen so many scientific studies that seem to be published at a most convenient time to benefit some special interest group, only to be disputed by an opposing special interest group by their own scientists at a later date. Which "scientists" do you believe? Global warming comes to mind. And the hot one now seems to be the sugar industry vs. the corn industry. They both have scientists claiming the other is wrong. The earliest I remember was the saccharin scare in the 60's. My mother made my diabetic dad stop using it because the sugar industry proved that it caused cancer by injecting mice with it.

I mentioned I'm an atheist. Well, I didn't come to that belief because of some scientific study. I just look around the world at all the different religions and beliefs and most claim they are the only one who is right. Who do you believe? I choose to believe none of them. I also play poker and feel like I've probably sat across the table from some of the best con artists on the face of the earth. If I believed them every time they indicated they had me beat, I'd be broke.

I said all that to say this: if in 20 years there are more and more studies on the subject and all of it is conclusive and all of it substantiates the same claims, I will probably have to change my opinion. But I'm not buying it....yet.

Quote: buzzpaff

Homosexuality = Incest. Really ?

It's just an analogy, an illustration. But why not? What is your problem with incest (without offspring) other than social stigma?
Can you rationally explain what's wrong with it?

Homosexuality = Wrong Incest = Right

Oh, that makes sense !

I've personally known lots and lots of Gay people,
in Santa Barbara and in the antique business in
MI. You just get used to them being Gay and you
don't even think about it. Most of them aren't in
your face with it, its not a big deal.

So they prefer men over women in the bedroom,
so what. I prefer men over women in just about
every other context and thats OK. I never look
forward to talking to women, I find them boring
and self centered. If I was stranded on a desert
island I'd much rather be there with an intelligent
Gay guy than most women I know. Sex gets very
boring but good conversation never does.

Bob, when does sex get boring? I'll take the woman over the gay guy on the desert island.

Quote: FinsRule

Bob, when does sex get boring? I'll take the woman over the gay guy on the desert island.

Sex with the same person is boring for most people. I
don't know any guy that says, gee, can't wait to have
sex with my wife tonight for the 3rd time this week.
The Al Bundy character wasn't that far off the mark.
He'd do almost anything to get out of sex with his wife,
not because she wasn't attractive, but because he was
bored with it.

I'll take stimulating conversation any day over sex. It
lasts longer and its never the same. Unlike sex with
the same person for years. When I was young, I remember
being bored with sex after two weeks with some girls.
A real yawner.

Quote: buzzpaff

Homosexuality = Wrong Incest = Right

Oh, that makes sense !

No, you got it backwards. What I was saying, depending on the meaning of "wrong" and "right", they are either both "wrong" or both "right".

Gee my mistake. Homosexuality = Incest Now I understand !

Lifestyles:

Year one, decided to hitchike across the U.S. Next year, studied with some mystics in India. Year 3, was gay in San Francisco. Year 4, became a professional gambler in Vegas.

Is that the way "lifestyle" works?

Quote: buzzpaff

Gee my mistake. Homosexuality = Incest Now I understand !

Never mind. You seem to have a problem grasping, and especially using, abstract concepts, such as "equality".
Just forget it, you'll probably never understand what I meant.

Quote: rxwine

Lifestyles:
Year one, decided to hitchike across the U.S. Next year, studied with some mystics in India. Year 3, was gay in San Francisco. Year 4, became a professional gambler in Vegas.

yeah ... I've been trying to talk my wife into moving to SF for years, even without becoming gay. Turns out to be impossible. She must have been born with a genetic attachment to East Coast.

Quote: weaselman

yeah ... I've been trying to talk my wife into moving to SF for years, even without becoming gay. Turns out to be impossible. She must have been born with a genetic attachment to East Coast.

There is a "common sense" gene that makes people not want to live in sf. Unless you like panhandlers and like needing to make six figures to afford even a closet to live in. Good food there I admit. Other than that let it drift into the ocean and eventually be Hawaiis problem.

delete

Quote: WongBo

why does it not surprise me
that the resident "experts" on homosexuality
are also experts on global warming.

Why should it surprise you? Michael is a well educated man, I am sure, he has good knowledge in many areas, not just about gays.

Quote:

are there any topics on which these people are not experts?

Yeah ... Population studies.
I suspect, there is only one expert in that field ...

i was not referring to michael's opinions which seem to be largely based in fact.
rather to those posters who offer nothing but conjecture and opinion.
just a little hard to take seriously when there is no reference to anything other than opinion.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here again, you're just revealing how little you know about what's actually involved in climate science. The trend is *not* based on less than 100 years of data. I could explain further, but it would be pointless. What's amazing is that even showing that you have no idea what's involved in climate science, somehow you think you know better than all the world's scientists. Why are you wasting your time arguing with me on a message board? Call up the scientists at the universities and explain to them how they've got it wrong and how your understanding of climate science is superior.

*sigh* Do we have to go through this again? Let me re-explain using new examples. First, I was unaware that an intelligent person might not realize weather records were only kept accurately in the USA since the late 1800s; that the USA has been doing it longer for most of the world; that reading-stations changed ofer the years from the city to the local airport in most places; that most of the world is covered by oceans and thus there are no weather stations there; and that developing nations might comprise most of the world have kept records for far less time. Going on, I would assume an intelligent person knows that the world is abotu 4.5MMM (that is 4.5 billion) years old. This kind of comparrison can get lost on people so let me use a Vegas-based example.

Say Steve Wynn wants to know if the average bet at a tabe increases or decreases over a year peoiod so he tells you to monitor all table action all year. You do not show up until the last day of the year. At 12:00 AM that morning you are in bed and sleep until 8:00, never able to measure the average bet. You have beakfast; go see the free show at Circus Circus. Then you have a buffet lunch and walk to see the Sirens show at TI. You still have not looked at one bet on one table. You hang at the pool, then go have dinner. After dinner, a early show then you watch the news--you still have not measured one bet at one table. When Lenno comes on, Steve calls you and says, "Hey buddy, hope the project is working, btw, how are you measuring all of this as my pit bosses haven't seen you all year?" CRAP---you get dressed and you hit the floor at 11:50 PM, then you start counting the bets on one table of his 4 pits. You see bets going up and down for that 10 minutes, staying within $1 of $25 average. At 11:58 some guy bets $40. So you tell Steve, "Sir, I have good news, the bet trend on your tables in increasing and it is increasing at an increasing rate!"

Actually,

To only have data on 100 years, which is all we have, is to take the last 10 minutes of the last day of a year in an example when you compress the history of the earth into a 365 day period. So, if you had to tell Mr Wynn how his tables were doing over a year, would you trust someone who started measuring after the last commercial break on Leno on New Years Eve?

And, FYI, I *DO* know about the science they use. Save me the tree-rings-and-ice-flow stuff. This is not accurate to measure temperature. At best it is like having a watch with an hour hand only. Don't try to convince me taking tree-rings can be used in the same data-set as daily thermometor readings. I am not some sheep that will chant, "Four legs good, two legs bad" just because "scientists say so!"

Quote:

I believe it because every single science body of national and international standing on the face of the planet says that that's what the science shows. It's the same reason I believe in gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the fact that vitamin D deficiency causes rickets. When the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement about an issue, that ought to tell you something.

Once again, in the year 1000 every single science body said the earth was flat. To challege this could and did get people killed. Today they just fire you; take your funding; and call you a "denier." Your examples do not compare. I can drop an apple to prove gravity. I can show germs exist by experiments with control groups. None of this is true for global warming. Remember, in the 1970s the "concensus" was global-COOLING. We were going to be in an ice age by now! Do not ask me do destroy our economy and way of life on "consensus." Come back with verifiable facts.

And please google "climategate" before bringing up how every body is in agreement again.

maybe this thread should be split, since it is pretty far off-topic.
i would much rather hear the stories of the 40% of people who think being gay is a choice.
i want to hear how they came to decide to be heterosexual.
it must have been a tough choice for them.

Quote: rxwine

However, lots of issues have to depend on expert consensus which should also be reevaluated.

Oh, absolutely. There are lots of very important things in this world besides science.

I don't think btw, that getting people to believe in (and even to be scared of) global warming is such a bad thing (very much unlike the "genetic gayness" issue), there are obvious and unquestionable benefits to the society from it, so, good for us! Just don't talk about "science" in that context, it's simply an insult to people's intelligence.

Quote: WongBo

maybe this thread should be split, since it is pretty far off-topic.
i would much rather hear the stories of the 40% of people who think being gay is a choice.
i want to hear how they came to decide to be heterosexual.
it must have been a tough choice for them.

EVERYONE is born heterosexual, to be homosexual is the choice. There is your answer.

Quote: WongBo

i would much rather hear the stories of the 40% of people who think being gay is a choice.
i want to hear how they came to decide to be heterosexual.
it must have been a tough choice for them.

You won't accomplish much with such rhetorical tricks. Remmeber you'll be often dealing with bitter, angry people trying to take out their failings on someone else.

I don't think there should be just two choices:

I would prefer to see a choice along the lines of "enculturated"

I think a parallel can be drawn to the third genders in India or polynesia. These individuals do not necessarily choose to become third gender.

clearly there are some opinions untainted by the research on the subject.

Quote: AZDuffman

EVERYONE is born heterosexual, to be homosexual is the choice. There is your answer.

source

Quote: WongBo

source

Nature. There is no proof otherwise. Unless you found the so-called "gay-gene."

nature?
lol
you are really funny.
list of species displaying homosexual behavior

seems pretty natural to me.
next!

Quote: AZDuffman

Nature. There is no proof otherwise. Unless you found the so-called "gay-gene."

You fall into the false dichotomy I wrote about earlier in the thread.

Quote: WongBo

source

If you like hitting your head on a wall, there are less agravating means to do it, you know ;)

Look, if they ever admit that homosexuality is not a choice, their whole argument about the "homsoexual agenda" and "recruiting" of young innocent men falls apart. So does their use of torture in order to "cure" homosexals of being normal, well-adjusted, happy people. They can't have that. Do you know how much vitriol will have been wasted?

I wonder if anyone's done a study looking for any correlation between homophobia in men and penis size. I'm sure that could uncover some interesting data.

Quote: weaselman

Oh, absolutely. There are lots of very important things in this world besides science.

Do you think the way Darwin approached macro evolution would just be considered as consensus for a long time, and should be rejected as science.

Aren't climatologist collecting data in the same way? Or not?

Quote: WongBo

source

Oops

Quote: WongBo

nature?
lol
you are really funny.
list of species displaying homosexual behavior

seems pretty natural to me.
next!

Once again, there is no homosexuality in animals. Animals only have sex when reproduction is possible. How long is your side going to push the "gay animal" nonsense?

Seriously, this board did not have any discussions about homosexuality until a certain member requested a "gay group" some time ago. What that has to do with Vegas I do not know, but the wish was granted. Since then the homophiles on the board seem intent on demanding acceptance for their lifestyle choice. No matter how it is shown to be a choice they reply "is not" like the Monty Python argument clinic. Or bring up the same 3-4 points you see on blogs all over the internet.

You need to quit demanding acceptance. Just say, "It's a choice and a choice I am happy with" and you will get more respect. Saying, "I have no choice" implies you know it is not healthy behavior but you do it because, "hey, I have no choice."

I like good french fries. When I find a place that has them, I eat them. The food police say, "they are not good for you, you should not eat them." My reply is, "so what? I like them and choose to eat them." I do NOT REPLY, "you see, I have this french-fry gene, and I have to eat them. When did you make the choice not to like french fries?"

Until you admit personal responsibility for your actions the discussion cannot proceed.

Quote: rxwine

Do you think the way Darwin approached macro evolution would just be considered as consensus for a long time, and should be rejected as science.

Aren't climatologist collecting data in the same way? Or not?

If Darwin was right, then the "gay gene" should eventually cease to exist, since reproduction amongst those who possess it is impossible.

I didn't know most gays "take one for the team" and have children naturally.

I can't see how a gene at such significant reproductive disadvantage can continue to propagate or, as it sometimes appears, thrive.