No, what I said was that racially lines are created by humans. Gender lines aren't anywhere near as ambiguous and don't really compare to race.

i have lost count of the number of times this stupid line has been pushed on this site. you have been presented the information you want. so have people far more qualified (and most likely far more intelligent) than you and they have read it, understood it and reached an informed decision.

repeating the same myth to yourself over and over might make you feel better, but all it does is let you wallow happily in the past while the rest of the world leaves you behind.

I've lost count on the number of times I've heard that bullshit. Tell ya what. If you can go to any post on this thread and produce a post that scientifically supports homosexuality and connects it to physiology that indicates humans are supposed to be gay, I'll never post on this subject again. Otherwise you are a damn liar. I'll wait.

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w266w85204w4g635/

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-did-homosexuality-evolve.html

Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation: by Jim McKnight

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html

granted, these references are new to this particular thread, but they have all been posted on this website in the last few weeks and directed to you.

You'll excuse me if I skipped to the conclusion. It's a nice theory. Plenty of those. When it's tested and proven. post the results.
That's only a study dealing with prevalence. Prevalence doesn't tell me why it happens, just how often. And the first line 'homosexuality is a common occurrence" made me pause. Common by what measure? And the genetic link hasn't been proven yet.
So what happened. That link said less than nothing.
Once again starts with homosexuality and works backward. You can do that with any number of behaviors. Not quite gonna cut it for something that is innate like sexual orientation.


Here's a critical review. Not very flattering.
You gotta be kidding me.

When? I don't remember them. But even if they have, it wouldn't have mattered. None of that is anything but unproven theory, nothing presented as fact. You can find concise heterosexual physiology from hormones, to glands to organs in any physiology book. Presented as fact. Until then, to me, homosexuality is a socially viable but aberrant human sexual behavior deviation. Along the lines of the "other" deviations that society frowns upon.

I'm not gonna go through those until tomorrow. But I would think if any concrete information was out there to present, it wouldn't take this long in a thread to talk about it. Somehow I doubt that ANY of those links will present a fundamental biological cause, purpose and physiological link with the urge as heterosexuality has. For example I'll start with the first one.

She starts with homosexuality and works backward. Any dumbass can do that. Especially if you ignore the fact that we have an example of a sexual orientation that "works" and has a purpose. I bet if we look at the spurious sexual antics of dogs humping a guy's leg, and ignore that legs are for walking, you can come up with a justification for dogs humping legs. Especially if you also ignore physiology and just concentrate on the mental urge itself. Reproduction, respiration, digestion, and sensory needs all have a system designed for them. They are acutely evolved for the job they are to perform. Now you can bullshit yourself that humans born with aberrant urges that oppose anything that normal humans have evolved organs and systems for, and you can follow that Roughgarden crap too, unfortunately, I don't. I'd like my science to be able to justify itself from all directions. 360 degrees. Not just the ones that are convenient and easy.

I got 4 hours tomorrow to check out the rest.

What about me? The last time you asked me to provide scientific evidence, I posted the following on another thread. But you never said a word in response. So perhaps now would be a good time:

These are just a few abstracts from recent scholarly articles. The authors and date of publications precede each abstract. If anyone would like to receive a full reference to these articles, please message me, and I will send them to you.

Santtila, Sandnabba, Harlaar, Varjonen, Alanko & Von der Pahlen /2008:
We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings, finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p <0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior.

Schwartz /2008:
The author examines the complex relationship between homosexuality and biology. As scientists learn more about the human body there is a perception that parents could determine whether their child is gay before it is born. The author asserts that if there is a gene that makes one gay, then it cannot be deterministic in the way that eye color is. The human genome contains about 30,000 genes, which suggests that a majority of the differential development in individuals results from combinations of genes and interactions between gene expression and environmental factors.

Ellis, Ficek, Burke & Das /2008:
The present study sought statistical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals for four traits that are known to be genetically determined: eye color, natural hair color, blood type, and the Rhesus factor. Using a sample of over 7,000 U.S. and Canadian college students, we found no significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding eye color or hair color. In the case of blood type and the Rh factor, however, interesting patterns emerged. Heterosexual males and females exhibited statistically identical frequencies of the A blood type, while gay men exhibited a relatively low incidence and lesbians had a relatively high incidence ( p < .05). In the case of the Rh factor, unusually high proportions of homosexuals of both sexes were Rh− when compared to heterosexuals ( p < .06). The findings suggest that a connection may exist between sexual orientation and genes both on chromosome 9 (where blood type is determined) and on chromosome 1 (where the Rh factor is regulated).

Let me know what you think.

Which thread was that? I'd like to see it. You only have 26 posts, I'll check.

Found it. Excuse my omission. I don't know why I didn't answer your post then. It wasn't intentional.

I found out why...That was right around the time the FLDS raid caught my attention. I really don't know why that has me so pissed off, but that might be why I didn't want to devote the time to that long post. I apologize.

I'm not looking for prevalence studies. Especially prevalence of behaviors. Prevalence doesn't tell me what I need to know. I need to know "why" they do it. Not that they do it. There are a LOT of pedophiles too ya know. I wonder does the prevalence justify it as normal?

I'd need to see the results and a link. That's a theory unsupported by anything I have ever seen. The "hormonal mistake" theory makes more sense and is replicated in other species. That's a theory, not anything I should consider as "proof" of anything. There are MANY theories.

And when they find out that the "connection" isn't some kind of defect along with any of myriad other human maladies, let me know.

Nice collection of ifs, maybees, and could bee's. And when they can compile them into a concise dissertation that brings together the need, instinctual urge, and the evolved physiological facilitation, like we can for everything else, get back to me. In fact, the posting of theories as fact only makes me even more resolute that homosexuality is just an f'up. I mean if the advocates can't support it with compelling and easy to find information, what the frack is the dispute?

It should be obvious to anyone on here by now that NO facts or studies that ANYONE could ever bring up will ever get fx to change his mind. He has a deep and true prejudice against gays, just like some people have a deep prejudice against blacks and you could never convince such a person that they are not inferior just because of the color of their skin.

That said, though, why do we even HAVE to prove that being gay is natural or biologically relevent in order for them to marry? That's like having to prove that women are able to vote or that blacks can drink from the white fountain.

It should be just as obvious that those studies don't exist that would do so anyway. I know if I were gay, I'd have that in my bookmarks and tell it to anyone who would listen. Your default to talking to an unseen entity about how mean and cruel and hateful I am is just bullshit. Present the information that you form your opinion from or STFU and stop talking about "me".
What you are asking me to do is not think critically and just be a lemming like everyone else. Not gonna happen.

Actually I disagree. I say that it is akin to a disability. And changing the standard of "marriage" for a specieswide disability would be like requiring all humans to ride in wheelchairs because paraplegics are jealous. My ass. Or maybe they should remove all bathrooms from facilities because of those of us with renal failure. Whatever.

once again, fxashun comes up with a fallacious analogy.

in his scenario, people who can walk would be denied the right to walk - or others might have their right to use bathrooms removed.

I don't believe anybody is advocating the revocation of the right for straights to marry once gays are granted the same equal right.

analogy is pointless and misguided