Originally posted by midnight Target
Hortlund, why do you continually ignore replies to your posts that truely contradict what you say?
What happened to your contention 4 & 5.....did you decide to drop the issue under the weight of your misconceptions? Or what about your contention that homosexuality cannot be genetic because the genes cannot be passed on? Did it crash to earth on the wings of flawed logic.
You continue to lawn-dart and ignore it. Reminds me of the Black Knight in MP's Holy Grail. "Its just a flesh wound!"
LOL
Apologies for the delay. I figured I'd go to a movie yesterday instead of spending the evening educating you heathens. I was not aware of the fact that I was ignoring any replies, and once again I apologize if that is the impression you have gotten.
Lets look at 4 & 5 again before we start.
4) Studies show that children in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
5) Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
Your reply (as far as I can tell, please let me know if I have missed something) was a quote from APA. Problem is that the article you quoted from APA seems to deal more with sexual orientation, or rather how the individual chooses to define his/her sexual orientation than anything else.
It is clear to me that before we can discuss this further we need to define the words homosexual and bisexual.
I suspect this will not be done easy, because here is your real chance to turn this debate from the issue we were debating (whether kids growing up in homosexual relationships runs a higher risk of developing homosexual tendencies) to another debate, that simply cannot be won by either of us (define homosexual). The problem with question nr 2, the one you want to steer us into is that scientists and psychologists have been debating that one for years, and they have not reached any conclusion. The APA seems to be gunning for this definition of sexuality:
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum.
The problem with this definition is that it isnt really a definition at all. Its more like "psychology-talk". If one were to accept the APA:s definition of sexuality we could never label anyone as either homosexual or heterosexual because
a) we dont know what goes on in other peoples heads, and
b) according to the APA definition, it doesnt matter anyway since sexuality changes constantly
The APA definition is thus a dead end. We now have two options. Either we try to find a better definition of homosexuality, or we can agree on an assumption to use in the discussion.
How about this: Instead of using a definition where we need to try to peer into the head of the individual, how about if we instead take a look at what the individual actually has done of his own free will? Will you accept this definition, or method?
1) define sex
2) do a gender check on the person you are having sex with
Now, depending on that gender check,
your actions are either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. The difference between the last two is only the frequency of same sex encounters you want to put yourself through. Or in other words, any person putting himself through a same sex-sexual encounter is
at that moment engaged in homosexual behavior. And, the frequency of such same sex encounters is what decides his orientation. It is impossible to take any consideration to his/her own opinion. We
must use a definition that is objectively verifiable.
Ok, back to 4 and 5. You cannot possibly have any problems with 4, since you are the one who posted that one in the first place…correct? Thus, your problem must lie in 5, Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
I'll try to walk us through the reasoning here. Please shout out where you are of the opinion that I'm wrong.
1) We need to define the words heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. For the purpose of this debate I suggest we use my definition I described above.
2) You yourself have pointed out, that children raised in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Now that means that while those kids are "experimenting" they are in fact having same sex encounters, and thus "are gay". Should they decide that they hated the whole experience, they probably wont repeat it, and spend the rest of their lives having sex with girls. In such a case they went from being gay to being straight.
Over to the genes thing.
There seems to be a failure in our communication here somewhere.
Lets try it again shall we:
I still maintain my view that the link you quoted is completely irrelevant to our present discussion because
a) even in that link there are no evidence of genetic heritage of that disease, and
b) I simply pointed out that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic, and the entire notion is flawed.
To this you reply:
If you really need proof as to the genetic heretige of Tay-Sachs then please research it yourself. It is extremely well documented and I don't feel like reinventing the wheel.
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I decide not to embark on a career in medical research devoting my professional life to prove positive the genetic heritage of various diseases. Since neither of us can prove anything regarding this genetic issue, I propose that we drop it and agree to disagree on that?
On a related issue, you wrote that "Disease - Trait, no difference in terms of the genes ability to continue its existence." While I'm not sure that is 100% true, I'd like to ask you this question: Do you agree that if homosexuality was genetic, it would matter a great deal if it was proven to be a genetic disease, or a genetic trait?
