Replies

for the love of pete, I did not say I agree with what is sometimes called “the tipping point” model of homosexuality. I simply pointed out that you cannot rule out a genetic factor from that general condition of homosexuals not reproducing; it doesn't follow given what is known about genetics. I provided a possible explanation on why this is so and linked to an academic study that takes that position. It is position that I don't hold incidentally. But at this time it cannot be ruled out. At no point did I offer an opinion about whether or not homosexuality is a choice (it, at least in certain dimensions, obviously is a choice) nor did I state that homosexual behavior is morally permissible (which it isn't). I rebuked someone for being dumb about science.

Likewise, my comment “born that way doesn't have to mean genetic” (which I offered no opinion on as I am not sure if the conditions that cause homosexual attractions to develop are predominately genetic, environmental or social) was a rebuking of the idea that born that way must mean genetic. the fact of the matter is a person goes through 9 months of development prior to being born; there is evidence that environment factors (mainly the biological conditions of the womb) during pregnancy play a factor (the birth order effect the article I linked to, for example) in homosexual attraction development; if womb conditions do, by far and large, cause homosexual attractions to develop, it would be fair to say that homosexuals are born that way in spite of the lack of genetic influence.

being conservative does not mean I have to gloss over every and any nuance on this topic or any other.

and empathy and kindness come directly from the article I linked too. (which is the main reason I reject that explanation.)