Replies

>>If it's credible then what in the article did you not find credible to make the comments you've made<<

Here's the part that immediately got my eye and I must confess, I still haven't read the article with the scrutiny it deserves.

Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.

Here's the part that immediately got my eye and I must confess, I still haven't read the article with the scrutiny it deserves.

You have to read the entire article in context. They are talking about traits, also referred to as gifts. The next paragraph states:

What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.

The next paragraph contains a key sentence:

In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.

The traits/gifts are not underlying factors behind homosexuality (behavior).

It's a complicated issue and not everybody has the time nor the inclination to get better educated on the issue and all the surrounding issues. And when you read someone like myself posting information that just seems to contradict what you already believe on the issue, it's difficult to accept. I can understand that. But I can't understand someone continually spouting the same discredited arguments every chance they get. I'm not talking about you, evad. They know who they are.