drfeelgood said:
ROFL
This is too good to pass up. You're pounding on poor kitty for nothing.
Not really. She doesn't seem to understand that the discussion is valuable to the educational process - especially since the discussion covers all the same material.
I'm not going to go back and discuss my arguments for you, they pretty much speak for themselves.
I don't blame you for abandoning a sinking boat.
Hence why I didn't bother with you before.
No, you didn't "bother with me before" because I signed off last night and went to bed.
In the meantime, you were busy grasping at straws for 10 full pages of the discussion - in other words, you had your hands full and couldn't handle any more.
In any event, you asked for sources - I provided a bucketful. Go for it.
However, this can't go unnoticed. You are trying to compare lefthandedness with homosexuality. That is the only links I saw in that thread, some off-topic study of handedness to try and make an already flailing case. You're trying to make a rudder out of a cardboard box.
Nope. I already explained this to Durango:
The lefthandedness argument comes up all the time as a proper corollary to sexual orientation. And if you check the comment here the original poster first provided the link, you'll see exactly what I mean. Because that's exactly how that person brought it up.
In addition, there are other links in the thread that deal with phenotypical expression of traits being sourced in multiple genes. Do they deal with homosexuality? No, but genetic expression of traits is also a part of this same "homosexuality is genetic" discussion.
Sorry, but there's no connection between the two, really.
Actually, there is. For more than one reason. Left-handedness:
1. is not "normal" or average, in the sense that it is expressed by the majority of the population;
2. affects a similar proportion of the population;
3. was once thought to be evil or wicked, but now in the modern age, no sensible person thinks so;
4. has no ill effects on the person in question;
5. has been used as a proper corollary to the orientation question.
In fact, one of the links I provided has a side-by-side chart of some interesting similarities.
A couple of years ago the press (BBC, it's linked in this thread) issued a release that although they are hunting for a homosexual gene, they will probably never find one.
Sources, please.
Let's also remember that the issue isn't whether or not you are attracted to other men through genetics. Nobody cares. The issue is the conscious choice to act on it. Stay focused.
Actually, the topic of the thread had diverged down several paths. So complaints that my comments are off the topic don't really work. A discussion is an organic thing, that changes, flows and grows. And, of course, if you would stop raising non-relevant issues, that would certainly go a long way to keeping everyone "focused", as you say.