Philosoft said:
Just how many of these people do you think there are?
I've answered in the previous posts, of how much that degaid person knows. And I can't give you a number, again I see through that trap of yours, if I give you a number, you'd say I have no statistical proof backing my statistics. If I don't give you an answer, you'd say I have no idea and hence the other statistics are true.
In light of that, this is my answer...the truth is out there, but no one is willing to count it properley, rather count the results they only want to hear.
Philosoft said:
I suppose no one is born 7lb 15oz because there's no single gene that codes for body weight either.
That dosen't fit into any arguments of homosexuality, mainly because it's a chemical or genetic reaction that gives a distinctive characteristic of mental disability, of them to be unable to co-incide with a female.
Philosoft said:
Large-scale brain development, and chemical alterations thereof, begins in the womb and continues through early childhood. The onset of puberty is of precisely zero assistance in understanding when a particular development occurred.
Gibberish Gibberish Gibberish, if you copied that from a website, give us the full report, not just part of it. Have no idea what you talking about there, I can see some relations to the arguments presented, but again have no idea unless I see the full picture.
Philosoft said:
When I say "gene sequences," I'm talking about the presence of multiple genes that cause some phenotypic change. Polygenetic traits, if you will.
And hence the homosexual genes and chemical influences is a genetic trait of self-destruction, and hence we should leave them as they are until all the gay genes of the gene pull are eventually wiped out?
Which is something I personally won't comment on, but I'd rather see humans procreating rather than destroying.
Philosoft said:
Well, really only a handful of our genes differ from a chimp's in function and location.
Exactly, hence if people used genetics to prove homosexuality, then it's seriously BS. It's not just genes but also chemical reactions...but more importantly, no one is born gay.
Philosoft said:
Can I ask you to stop assuming your conclusion? It's an annoying and fruitless activity.
Well, no because my conclusions are my opinions. And my opinion is that homosexuality is a choice. My justification is explained in these posts, and so far the challenges I've had in the previous arguments, where people argue whether it was right to change, whilst I was arguing that homosexuality is a choice. I've seen it happen and thats what I'm basing it on.
Unless the whole forum places this gay person, lower than the other gay people of this society, in his right to talk of his experience, then I think this argument is flawed and swayed into biasing.
Christianity cannot accept homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, because it's plain sinful.
Philosoft said:
I have obviously missed where you have "proven" anything.
Same can be said for you as well.
This forum from what I can see, isn't about changing people. There is no doubt that everyone else is trying very hard to change my opinion, but it's not working because it's just not credible.
Philosoft said:
Really, what is the point of this? Can you show me a married bachelor?
Bending the rules of understanding of what's unknown. Not definitions...
geez, I'm finding it harder every year to convey my correct message out to people without themselves manifesting some crazy interpertation.
I should laugh at them from now on, does give me a bit of relief.