That brain argument was dicounted years ago. Odd that you’re pushing an wholely discredited (even by the original researcher) pro-homosexual agenda argument. Hmm.
You are totally wrong about that theory being discredited. I recently saw a documentary on super memories that suggested the chicken or egg argument is still a valid consideration. As far as your innuendo, I am in Cedar Park, TX. If you are anywhere close let's meet and discuss this further. I think your mind will be thoroughly changed. I greatly resent the implication.
Huh? I'm not pushing any pro-homosexual agenda argument.
Which one are you mistakenly claiming I am pushing?
When the initial hippocampus study was published (what was it, 6 cadavers of homosexuals, by autopsy, not MRI? The rebuttal to it that I wrote* was published the week it came out, but you must forgive me...it was perhaps two decades ago. If that's the one to which you're referrng, I do hope you give me credit for being perhaps the first in print to discredit it. :-)
*The claim was that because they observed different hippocampus volumes in the cadavers of homosexuals, homosexuality must be in-born...something I tore apart on not just study-design grounds (were the results even valid!), but on the idea that environment could have modified hippocampus volume--so even if the results were valid, the conclusion wasn't.
Finally, I pointed out that many lesbians insist that they chose homosexuality. (I saw a great argument between male and female homosexual activists over this--what a hoot!) I believe to this day that research conflating male homosexuality and female homosexuality might obscure some important factors.