Homosexuality

please dont use the "prove me wrong" argument
that is what religious arguers use

seriously, I AM GOD. prove me wrong.

i am reporting your post for its rudeness.

If sexual orientation is genetic, would not all children born from a gay man and a lesbian woman turn out gay? would not half of all babies born from one gay or lesbian parent be gay consistently?

also, just because they did not choose to be gay does not mean that their sexual orientation was determined by their genes alone.

 

The burden of proof unfortunately rests with you here. YOU are the one who makes the assertion that homosexuality has genetic correlations. Thus, YOU need to prove why you believe so.
Fact: you can't find me one legitimately heterosexual person who chose to be gay. Why? Because heterosexuality is what allows us to reproduce. The only possibly variation from this IS homosexuality; and or, bisexuality (or asexuality...) I didn't choose to be straight. But nature decreed that I should be.
Also; if you studied the theory of evolution and its implications, you would surely understand that IF homosexuality was caused by certain genes - then through the millions of years in which humans have adapted from primates, this gene would have been COMPLETELY eradicated from the global population due to natural selection. Unless you now wish to change your stance into one which considers homosexuality a mutation of genes.
Either way, you still fail to PROVE that genetics has anything to do with homosexuality.

Stop flaming him for making valid points when you yourself have NO such constructed arguments.

 

And Wikipedia IS a viable resource? As far as academics are concerned; NO, so GTFO

 

- argument from absurdity.
You demonstrate logical fallacy to its upmost extent through your posts here...

 

That may be HIS counterargument. Regardless, YOUR argument is fallacious, at best.

 

He was making an example; an exaggerated, yet relevant one nonetheless.

 

fallacious < non-credible source

you have to have a reasonable argument before you need evidence.

 

Ok, this guy is beyond help.

Look at the citations.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Homosexuality/bornorbred.pdf

 

Incorrect.

Fallacious neglects the use of rationale or logic altogether.
Hence a valid and reasonable point; albeit using a non-credible source, is always more relevant.

Might I refer to you that wikipedia is no more credible than that website?
That at least, is the perspective of the majority of tertiary level academics.

 

THIS ^

Footnotes, references etc on EVERY page of the damn thing. Citations from globally and scientifically accepted sources. Published journals, forums etc...

Can anyone argue further, as to whether this is a credible resource?

 

very true

he will be banned soon anyway
i have reported the majority of his posts as rude

citations are scholarly

 

That link is NOT dead. Refer to my most recent post regarding this. It has far more credible references and citations than your measly wikipedia article.
Idiot - viable is VERY different to feasible in their current contextual definitions...
And for FUCKS SAKE
Since WHEN did we PROPOSE that homosexuals CHOOSE to be fucking gay?
We simply stated that it IS NOT A MATTER OF DAMN GENETICS.

 

I'm sorry, but unfortunately for you, I am currently attending university doing a TRIPLE degree at Australia's most prestigious university (arguable).
And who the FUCK are you to dispute tertiary lecturers and academics?

 

http://www.islamawareness.net/Homosexuality/bornorbred.pdf
Soz, the link before didn't work.

I pulled stats out of my arse, just the same way you pulled homosexuality to be genetic out of your arse.

 

What am I proposing?
That IT IS NEITHER. My point of argument is that homosexuality IS NOT THE RESULT OF GENETICS. And where's your proof? Wikipedia? Is that it?
Why not take this debate to a university lecturer? And see which source would be approved then and there?
What makes me feel even MORE disgusted at you is the way you ignore our points of credibility whereas you believe you are entitled to your OWN; disregarding how invalid it may be itself. That is arrogance to the most tempestuous degree...

 

... Do I have to repeat myself?
YOU have the burden of proof because YOU are making the assumption that:
If A, then B.
Where is your EVIDENCE???
You have only found comments and SPECULATION. Where is the ACTUAL EVIDENCE? That is NOT evidence! It's simply just a quote from another person who agrees with you for fucks sake.
Do you even understand what evidence IS???
What you've basically done here is pulled someone elses argument which states, 'I agree with you'.

 

^
LOL dude you fail so hard, it's not even funny.
From what that source states; it is OBVIOUSLY not deductive to any extent.
Again, HOW IS THIS EVIDENCE AGAIN?
I'm actually rofling, almost.

 

i am sure genetics may have a link to being a homosexual
but i am definately sure that it is not the only cause of it.

 

Very true. Genetics may have relevance, but is DEFINITELY not the cause.

 

These are physical attributes which may differ. NOT genetic.
You've missed your own point.
Do not forget that phenotype is the result of genotype being expressed in specified environments.