[William Terrell]

I find convincing arguments on both sides of that argument although I tend to lean in the 'genetic' direction as to cause.

But, maybe I'm the one that misunderstood. What did you mean by the pro-homosexuality side?

Ok. I'll try to be more clear. The are two sides to the argument, as you say. That means that there is a side that is against the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined. It is anti-homosexual because that side refutes the basis for which homosexuals claim special consideration.

With me so far?

The side that supports that notion, on which the homosexuals claim equal tolerance for lifestyle, anti-"hate" legislation, marriage rights, adoption rights, et cetera, is necessarily pro-homosexual.

Now, which pro-homosexual specific argument do you see as overwhelming evidence for the genetic cause of homosexuality?

[evad]

The side that supports that notion, on which the homosexuals claim equal tolerance for lifestyle, anti-"hate" legislation, marriage rights, adoption rights, et cetera, is necessarily pro-homosexual.

Under that definition, since I do believe there are genetic traits that lead young adults to a homosexual lifestyle, you can put me as PRO.

However, I have no use for, nor do I believe in anti-"hate" legislation, marriage rights, adoption rights, et cetera, or any of the rest of what I consider the homosexual agenda.

What I have said at the very beginning and still firmly believe is as follows:
Although I have no doubts that there are ways to 'reprogram' early stage homosexuals I find it hard to believe that young kids would choose a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one.

Until someone can adequately explain that one I will continue to disbelieve that homosexual is totally behavioral. There HAS to be more to it.