Born or Bred?: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic

And YOU have presented nothing in relationship to the article.

I realize you have opinions. To be human is to have them. You don't respect mine, however.

Have you READ the article that this thread is based upon?

What is your OPINION about the facts presented in the article that this thread is based upon?

Have you read the full thread?

If you've haven't accomplished both, then there's nothing to "discuss" with you other than to try to match your pugalistic opinions. I'm not interested.

"If there is no homosexual gene then there certainly cannot be a heterosexual gene. You pretend that anyone that disagrees with you is spouting philosophy while you are presenting scientific fact. You have presented no such thing..."

THE ARTICLE that is quoted here, upon which this thread has developed, presents what it presents. Scientific research into this area of genetics has not identified any "gay gene." The research is extensive and reaches far beyond "opinion" of yours, of homosexuals seeking to insist on nonsense which you mirror in your comments there and previous, on anyone's "opinion" one way or the other.

What are my opinions, however, to you? Why try to target another human being's opinions because they don't parallel yours? Read the article, write to "science" in general, publish your opinions as "research" and then debate the voracity of your argument in a physical world of facts and data.

However, your statement, "If there is no homosexual gene then there certainly cannot be a heterosexual gene," is, in effect, the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA "argument." It relies upon the unsubstantiated assumption that homosexuality is some default sexuality, some "normal" that is parallel and equal to heterosexuality.

Which is, again, not a substantiated assumption and remains one of insistent from generally homosexuals who also insist that they inherited their homosexuality. All of science supports that homosexuality is behavioral, and there is no proof that there is any immutable aspect to homosexuality.

If you don't like or accept that reality, it's no one else's problem. However, writing that others engage in "personal attacks" when you seem to literally be trolling for purposes of arguing your own subjective opinion (as "better" than someone else's) is baseless.

I'd enjoy reading your results if and when you publish your opinions elsewhere, from among medical/scientific research, that substantiates, as you allege, that supports your opinion as to genetics.

Otherwise, I haven't read much here to continue to respond to or about. You accept the homosexual agenda and that induces resentment and anger in you about those who don't, and that's that. You either accept science as an objective issue or you don't accept science.

"I know that a large percentage of the most feminine, beautiful, erotic women I have known have had homosexual brothers."

I agree with you, but I think only that very feminine, small featured women, come from parents who were that way....thus, brothers are not going to turn out macho-macho....they're going to be slight and pretty similar to their sisters.....

I have perfect evidence of this in a related family group.....very beautiful dtrs and grandtrs but with more than one homosexual man in the mix.......and those men are slight and sort of "pretty"......

Consider that your perceptions are encouraging to non sexual children to fulfill what's being indicated as "good" versus "bad" behavior.

The point being that one's perceptions do not make for valid substantiation quantitatively to who will later chose homosexual behaviors.

And that, adult observations of children and various indications from adults to children will and do make for results from children as to how they behave, think, the choices they make, etc.

By perceiving male children as "feminine" and female children as "masculine" and such, along with all the other adjectives that are used for both areas of observation, this reinforces in those being perceived certain behaviors.

Just because a little girl wants guns and a toy truck to play with, climbs trees and is talented with math does not make her sexualized nor masculine in a sexual sense. It just means those are her interests. Same with a little boy who is interested in literature, doing the dishes when asked and perhaps cooking. It just means he's interested in those areas, it has nothing to do with HOW AN ADULT defines "masculine" and/or "feminine." The child just enjoys exploring areas of play and activity and isn't a sexual being in that case, is not aware that the activities are generalized by adults as "masculine" and/or "feminine" UNLESS and UNTIL adults begin applying those terms to the activities. Which then requires the child to figure out an adult application as to sexual and gender definitions that can and are oftentimes then confused in an immature personality.

Also, an adult observation and labelling of what child is "masculine" and what child is "feminine" is intrusive ot a child's development, if when it's done as to the very person of the child and not limited to academic issues.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.