Not on Tuesday, which is your day in the barrel.
It doesn’t matter. I’m sure other people have explained it to her before.
You’re right that it’s irrelevant whether it’s a choice or not, but you haven’t brought any evidence for the bizarre assertion that being gay is volitional, so that portion of your argument is nonsense.
When I started Catholic school in 2nd grade and got a look at the girls’ uniforms. 
-Joe, pervert
No I do not believe it is a choice, but I do not actually believe you are born into it. I believe it could be something in how you where raised, that’s possible I suppose. But to just say “You where born like that” has no scientific standings as of yet. Eventually it may change. I was simply pointing out the error in lumping racists and homophobes into the same batch. (Even though in my own experience a lot of them are one and the same, they are both racist and homophobic)
There have been many threads on this board discussing the evidence that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental components. I think it’s oversimplification, if not a flat-out mistake, to boil the latter of those down to “something in how you were raised.” Search for some of those.
You haven’t done it yet.
I needed to look up volitional but I will try to go from what I assume you mean. And it’s simple, if there is no “gene” then you are not born that way. If there is a gene you are. Pretty simple. There is no known gene that says homosexual, so erm where is the nonsense? Though I agree that there not being a gene hurts in some of the arguments against homophobes, it shouldn’t. If today my son said check out the ass on that man, I may get shocked, and probably say “Yeah he must work out” I wouldn’t care. If it is a gene I wouldn’t care, if it was a choice I wouldn’t care.
If you think it’s either “genes or choice,” your research wasn’t very good.
The nuns at my Dad’s Catholic school might have thought otherwise, but virtually no one today would claim that behavioral laterality, a.k.a. “handedness” is a chosen trait; yet there is no definite genetic link, such that we could point to a gene or genes, and say “left-/right-/ambidextrous-handed”. There were some claims a while ago that genes involved in body axis development (such as pitx2 and lefty) might have something to do with this, but those hypotheses have lacked any strong evidential support. Other studies implicate sex hormones, gonadotropins, even leptin. AFAIK, there’s no clear answer except that laterality is probably a complex, polygenic trait with likely non-genetic prenatal developmental factors contributing. A lot like sexual preference.
You’ve never heard of people “passing” for white?
And if she were suing to overturn an actual ban on “hate speech,” she bloody well ought to win. But not on the grounds of religious freedom, rather on the grounds of free speech. “Hate speech” codes are odious monstrosities and I loathe them, and if she were suing to strike it down as an infringement of her right to free speech I would be on her side, despite her being a nasty little creep. But she’s claiming that it’s a religious freedom issue and that’s bullshit.
But the rub is that it appears there is no such speech code at the school. I wish the Times article specified exactly which section of the code she’s suing to overturn, because a cursory review of the Code of Conduct doesn’t show a section on “hate speech.” It prohibits harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If this dumbass thinks that preaching or merely speaking her ill-informed opinion on homosexuality rises to the level of “harassment” or “discrimination” then she’s an idiot. But then we already knew she was an idiot.
Does this mean she is upset that all those gay guys and lesbian girls are having sex together? Isn’t that what she wanted?
You don’t know much biology, do you? There’s lots of theories about why some people are gay. It certainly doesn’t boil down to a single autosomal dominant “gay gene”, but plenty of genes have been shown to be far more common among gay people than among straight people. Prenatal environment has also been brought up; there’s theories about how that may play a role, since (for instance) if a mother has more than one male child, later ones are more likely to be gay.
This is a complex matter and by saying “there’s no gay gene” you’re indicating that you aren’t at all familiar with the biological research in question, because there’s far more to it than just a single gene. Further, asserting that it’s a choice makes no sense - as has already been pointed out, it’s not really a likely choice when growing up to say, “I’m going to substantially limit my ability to find significant others later in life, and subject myself to discrimination, potentially from my own family, besides.”
When you’re making an assertion, you have to justify it. Your assertion is one that’s going to be rather tough to justify, as it makes very little sense.
Right – so the argument is that gays choose to be gay, and therefore Christians should be allowed to be prejudiced against them.
I’ll buy that argument, if they allow us atheists to say that these fundamentalist Christians choose to be bigots – that there isn’t a Christian bigot gene – and therefore it’s permissable for us to hate them for being fundamentalist Christians.
No actually it was a report on groups using medical lit to mislead the public for causes. Cannot remember much, it had to do with groups using a early 1990’s scientific paper to claim a “gene” where there was not one actually found. It had nothing to with actually finding the cause or anything else.
And the bigger question once again IMHO why should it matter? Do some people need scientific backing to allow them to think something someone does is acceptable?
Why did you bring it up, since you’re not actually willing to do the research needed to support your argument?
Where when where when was someone claiming it was okay to be prejudiced against homosexuality??? If you are referring to anything I said, I suggest you re-read my posts. If it was toward someone I missed, then shame on them.
I actually agree with you, if your only objection to racism is that race is genetically determined and people can’t help being the race they are. While that’s certainly one very good reason to oppose racism, it’s hardly the only one, and it doesn’t quite cover all the reasons racism is bad. As a hypothetical, let’s say genetic science advances to the point where it becomes possible to change one’s race. At that point, race is a choice. Does this mean that racism is now acceptable?
Personally, I oppose racism because race is simply not an indicator of behavior, moral character, or intellectual capabilities. On a functional, pragmatic level, race is entirely meaningless, and to pass moral or value judgements on someone because of that factor is asinine. Homosexuality is similarly useless as a predictor of those traits, and so judging people on that basis is similarly asinine. As such, I do not have any problem lumping racists and homophobes together. They’re both idiots who are making moral value judgements on a trait that has no bearing on morality or individual value.
It’s simple, there is no known homosexual gene. See how simple that research was?
It’s simple, eye color is not genetic because there is no single gene that determines eye color.