Replies

You're certainly demonstrating your ignorance on this subject all the while trying to put across and educated position on the subject. And in post 33 you said you don't have any interest in wasting too much time on this subject.

And I reiterate that. I have zero interest in wasting years of my life working on this subject. I'm not obsessed with the issue, I can tell you that.

You're talking to somebody who's spent years studying this issue who also just so happens to have one of the largest databases in the world on this subject. Obviously you're the uneducated fragile one in this discussion, but throw out some more obfuscation!

It's interesting to read your response, and the aggressiveness thereof. For the second time, you have called me 'uneducated'. And while I observed that you seem fragile, which is by no means a definitive statement, you have made a factual assertion about my supposed fragility, and called it 'obvious'. This is not the response of a person who is confident of himself, I can tell you that.

As for you supposed years of study, and your 'largest database in the world', here's what I think: the value of research and reading time depends not on the quantity of what you have read, but on the quality. Some conspiracy theorists spend all their lives reading about conspiracy theories, and fabricating new ones. Yet the quality of what they have read is very low, and so is the quality of your 'database', if the links you have posted earlier are an accurate representation. In fact, they are conspiracy theories. I'm interested in fact, not fiction. Objective, not subjective. And you are sorely lacking in that respect, unfortunately.

Psst. That's the homosexual agenda talking point, not mine. Whoops.

Quite right. However, you responded to my point that it is highly probably that the subject matter is partly genetic, by saying that there is no single gay gene, and therefore, it cannot be genetic in any form or way. Obviously, if you're thinking along, you're realizing your mistake. You assumed that a failure to find a single gene prove that it is not genetic whatsoever, which is not true.

And your reference to Wal-Mart is misdirection.

It is not misdirection. If they're wrong about Wal-Mart, they can be wrong about other things. And they are, often deliberately I think, to aid their own fundraising.

Again, get back to me when you're interested in discussing facts.

I'm not terribly impressed with your lame response.

It's interesting how your zero interest in this subject continues with various posters. You're not interested but you keep talking about it.

Yes, I've called you uneducated in this subject because you continue to demonstrate a profound ignorance whenever you talk about it. Your ignorance is obvious to those who have spent years studying a subject in which you have zero interest. I'm quite secure in what I state here and will continue to point out your obfuscation.

Homosexual activists are the ones pushing the gay gene. That is, the single gene that causes homosexuality. Yet not a single credible scientist supports that statement. In fact, credible scientists have stated environment is the major factor behind homosexuality. If you read the How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together article I previous posted you'd begin to get an education on the subject. After that, try The Gay Gene? for background information.

You write as if you're familiar with the facts of homosexuality. To demonstrate your familiarity with the facts, point out the flaws in the articles I've presented then we'll have something to talk about. Until then you're just obfuscating.

Your Wal-Mart reference is misdirection because you failed to point out the flaws in the articles. The AFA articles referenced are supported by the information found here. Search for GLSEN and you'll find more than enough to support the AFA articles. You'll read a lot of information similar to:

These books are in middle and high schools around the nation.

"Doing it: Gay men...Many people don't know the anus is not only an organ to remove waste. It's very sexually exciteable...Your first few times having anal sex might be a little hard. You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good. I sure did." (pg. 81)

Unfortunately, there's too much information there for somebody with zero interest in the subject.

And don't forget the APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction. The activists and liberals in the APA are losing the ill-gotten ground they grabbed in the 70s.