I’m aroused.
That’s because you’ve chosen to be a deviant. A little bit of fire should fix that for you…
No worries. My comment was a bit cryptic.
I must say, this pitting of Clothahump has been quite entertaining.
That would be “snickering in derision”. Not the same thing.
Now:
-
The norm for humanity is right-handedness. It’s how the species functions so it reproduces into the next generation and it doesn’t get any more fundamental than that. Biology 101.
-
There is no medical evidence to date of the existence of a “lefty gene”, although people are frantically trying to find one.
-
What we are left with, then, that left-handedness is learned behavior which deviates from the norm and is engaged in by choice. The only other explanation is that it is a mental aberration of some sort. I tend to go with the simpler explanation.
Rejoice, Clothy. Once DOMA is repealed, and Prop 8 vanquished, and marriage equality is the law of the land you’ll be just as free to hate and fear whatever you like as you are today.
I have not engaged much with this character before, but what a fucking idiot. Concern troll is dead on.
Step 3 is your biggest problem. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There are good reasons to believe that homosexuality has a genetic component. As just one example, identical twins are much likelier to both be gay than fraternal twins. It also shows up in other species, including species that are totally devoid of culture. Both phenomena are difficult to explain if you eliminate the possibility of a genetic component.
Indeed, such evidence provide the impetus to find genetic components of homosexuality: we’ve got pretty good reasons to think they’re there, even if we haven’t found them yet.
If you notice in the news, we’re all the time finding genetic markers for various traits. Do ou assume that there’s no genetic component of a condition until we actually find it?
[Moderating]
Clothahump placing editorial comments inside of a quote box attributed to another poster is a violation of the board rules. Please avoid this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Who are you arguing at?
[nitpicky]There’s evidence there are congenital components to homosexuality, including sexuality among identical vs fraternal twins.
That it’s genetic is much more tenuous, especially as homosexuality doesn’t appear strongly linked to family history. Worse yet, the chances a random male is homosexual increases as you have more kids, definitely indicating congenital factors but not necessarily genetic factors.
It’s one of my pet peeves that people tend to use “genetic” to stand for any/all biological factors and outcomes. [/nitpicky]
:smack: Sorry, quoted wrong person. Clothahump, of course.
Missed edit window:
That’s not to say genetic factors don’t exist. There IS some evidence they may be there. But other congenital factors certainly appear to have at least as strong, if not stronger, influence.
Could you elaborate on this difference you’re describing? I vaguely understand the difference between “congenital” and “genetic,” but don’t know how “congenital and not genetic” factors could explain the difference between fraternal and identical twins in this regard.
I have read that fraternal twins are more likely to both have the same sexual orientation than non-twin siblings, which suggests that something in the pre-natal environment is a factor, but also that identical twins are more likely to both have the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins, which suggests that genetics are also a factor.
A quick look at Wikipedia indicates that while different twin studies have found different results, “A meta-study by Hershberger (2001) compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ [monozygotic, or identical] twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ [dizygotic, fraternal] twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.”
Perhaps one of these days, you might learn that ad hominem responses are an open admission that what was said originally was correct. You can’t refute it, so you attack the person saying it. Thank you for supporting my viewpoint.
Well, most of the people howling like broke-dick dogs are doing so because they disagree with the fact that I am conservative, not from any basis in fact or logic. Only one person has asked me to explain my point of view. I did so. That’s all.
Bottom line is that the train has jumped the tracks. This is NOT about my viewpoint. It’s about a theory that I am hearing from more than one source and I asked for opinions on it. So far, the run of the mill response is that I am stupid because [del] I am conservative [/del] I posted the question in the first place. The ad hominem responses are showing me that the question must have some validity because no one can refute it or answer it, so they attack me for asking it.
Look up there at the top of the page, f’wit, see where it says “> The BBQ Pit” ? I think you even started this thread in this section, do you even understand what the Pit is for? If you want level-headed debate according to Bob’s Rules of Order, try a thread in an appropriate section, such as, OIDK, “Great Debates”. If you do not want people venting your own noxious fumes all over you, I would suggest you avoid the Pit, because that is what it appears will happen to you should you again venture hither.
Nah - sometimes ad hominem responses are an admission that you know the person you’re dealing with and realize no amount of reasoned discourse is going to sway them from their shit-fuck stupid beliefs, so it’s just more fun to PALATR. Thank you for supporting my viewpoint by ignoring all the reasoned responses in this thread.
I thought that Frank’s question was the most appropriate one but you didn’t answer it. So I’ll try: assuming that being gay is most likely a personal choice, so what?
Seems odd that you’d claim that insults signify that your questions are valid in the same post where you use the phrase “broke-dick dogs” and evade a question.