You're claiming God-like knowledge of a field where even experts on the cutting edge are still clueless as to how most of it works.

 

That's absolutely not true. I said that the indicator isn't there. You can be upset about it. It still ain't there.

Look, I know many of you want to say that homosexuality is something we are born with. I disagree. However, I can say that there are factors that influence folks. That's undeniable. My only point is this, if someone says that it's genetic. That's just not the case. All I'm saying.

 

And I've posted way too much in here. I'll bow out of this conversation and let you folks carry it on.

 

I'm obviously not gonna change any minds and mind is fairly made up and that's okay, that's what makes us great. And that's what makes this board great. We can agree to disagree, respectfully.

That's absolutely not true. I said that the indicator isn't there. You can be upset about it. It still ain't there.

 

Then you know as much as God does, and certainly more than any human scientist.

Then you know as much as God does, and certainly more than any human scientist.

Because you say different. I get it. Good evening.

Because you say different. I get it. Good evening.

 

No. That level of knowledge of human genetic makeup doesn't exist yet.

And for the record, I haven’t made any claim one way or another on the genetic argument. I assume that it is because of how gay persons explain it and because I have sincere doubts as to why a person would develop such an affinity then subject themselves to the cruelty of society for purely hedonistic reasons. Either way, I see no reason to treat a group of people like subhumans and pariahs for living in a way that that they prefer that in no way harms anyone simply because another group doesn’t like it.

And for the record, I haven’t made any claim one way or another on the genetic argument. I assume that it is because of how gay persons explain it and because I have sincere doubts as to why a person would develop such an affinity then subject themselves to the cruelty of society for purely hedonistic reasons. Either way, I see no reason to treat a group of people like subhumans and pariahs for living in a way that that they prefer that in no way harms anyone simply because another group doesn’t like it.

No one in here is doing that. Simply saying that the genetics don't display it doesn't make them less human. Exaggerate much?

No one in here is doing that. Simply saying that the genetics don't display it doesn't make them less human. Exaggerate much?

 

I was talking about the broader view of gay equality.

No. That level of knowledge of human genetic makeup doesn't exist yet.

So what is the difference you saying it does exist but simply hasn't been found yet? Less God like?

So what is the difference you saying it does exist but simply hasn't been found yet? Less God like?

 

I didn't say it did one way or another, as my previous post noted. It might exist. We don't know yet, like we don't yet know a lot of things about genetics.

I was talking about the broader view of gay equality.

Perhaps, but that isn't the case here and in this thread. And painting with that broad brush here is uncalled for frankly.

That's absolutely not true. I said that the indicator isn't there. You can be upset about it. It still ain't there.

 

Come on, now. Any scientist knows that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that it isn't there, just that if it does exist, that is hasn't been found yet.

Come on, now. Any scientist knows that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that it isn't there, just that if it does exist, that is hasn't been found yet.

Like the unicorn, or Santa Claus?

 

In all seriousness, I'm not proving anything. The burden is on the one who wants to prove it is there. And so far it's not. So, should we assume that it's there when it hasn't been proven? Wow, if that's the case, we are gonna have to revisit an awful lot of scientific theory.

Perhaps, but that isn't the case here and in this thread. And painting with that broad brush here is uncalled for frankly.

 

Where is the broad brush? You keep saying that the genetic marker doesn't exist because it hasn't been found. Time and time again, that mindset has been proven wrong. See my Copernican example as a prime example.

 

A genetic marker may or may not exist. If what you say is true about the research (which I don't know...you and BF disagree), then all that can truthfully be said is that evidence doesn't support it, not that it does not exist.

Like the unicorn, or Santa Claus?

 

In all seriousness, I'm not proving anything. The burden is on the one who wants to prove it is there. And so far it's not. So, should we assume that it's there when it hasn't been proven? Wow, if that's the case, we are gonna have to revisit an awful lot of scientific theory.

 

Yeah, again...tell that to Copernicus and Galileo. They hadn't discovered that the Earth orbited the Sun. Heck, it was heretical to even say so, as it went against the church's teachings. Yet, as Galileo put it, "the earth...nevertheless, it DOES move."

 

Again...I am not saying it is there. I am saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."