Replies

It's interesting how your zero interest in this subject continues with various posters. You're not interested but you keep talking about it.

Aptly noted. It is always interesting to show people that they don't know what they're talking about, as they seldom do know. Also, I'm not one to walk away from a discussion, since I enjoy a discussion of any kind. Even with you.

Yes, I've called you uneducated in this subject because you continue to demonstrate a profound ignorance whenever you talk about it. Your ignorance is obvious to those who have spent years studying a subject in which you have zero interest. I'm quite secure in what I state here and will continue to point out your obfuscation.

I should warn you: your repeated aggressive reaction is quite telling, especially if you feel the psychological need to restate that you are 'quite secure'. Well, I cannot say that you aren't, but this response is quite telling.

Homosexual activists are the ones pushing the gay gene. That is, the single gene that causes homosexuality.

I don't care about what those people were pushing. This is not about them, this is about you. *You* were attacking a straw man, namely that my statement that it is partly 'genetic' means that a single gene is responsible for this condititoon, and that no credible evidence can be found about a single gene.

In fact, credible scientists have stated environment is the major factor behind homosexuality.

I know environment is a major factor behind many conditions. If you look at how schizofrenia might develop, genes play a very important role, but environment does, too.

You write as if you're familiar with the facts of homosexuality. To demonstrate your familiarity with the facts, point out the flaws in the articles I've presented then we'll have something to talk about. Until then you're just obfuscating.

You can't hide behind articles. Show some courage, my friend, and write something for yourself.

Your Wal-Mart reference is misdirection because you failed to point out the flaws in the articles.

I need not point out the flaws. If you say that the earth is flat, then that casts doubt on your credibility. When you continue to say that 9/11 was caused by the American government, I'll be less likely to put any stock in your second assertion.

I'm glad you realize you're continuing to talk about a subject in which you have zero interest nor any interest in the subject. The more you admit a non interest yet continue to avoid specifics hints of an agenda on your part.

Yes, I'm secure in what I write. You are not which is evidenced by your continued attempts to avoid talking about specifics.

Here is where you point out the specific flaws in any of the articles I've posted.

*You* were attacking a straw man, namely that my statement that it is partly 'genetic' means that a single gene is responsible for this condititoon, and that no credible evidence can be found about a single gene.

I'd ask you to provide a post number to support the above statement but you cannot.

The statement to which you refer was made as a general comment in post 32. And from there you've been pushing obfuscation.