^you know a while ago i wondered if God could create them with such urges as he creates a blind man as a test. We get all sorts of disabled births, but i'll leave this upto wiser people.

Whatever the case is, i believe it to be a forbidden act, one which should be struggled against

How do you know?

Clearly then we have to define homosexuality. To me, unless you've committed sodomy, you're not gay.

Could you say the same for one's sexuality (at the very most, genes can aid in predisposition - this I readily accept)?


Why do I need to scientifically back up a biologically and psychologically proven statement? If homosexuality could be passed on, we'd have no need for a member of the opposite sex. It's clearly something that prevents passing the genes on and so you cannot pass it on unless you are heterosexual which would mean you aren't homo. Unless you committed sodomy then had intercourse with a member of opposite sex and therefore passed on your genes. In which case, you'd require a dna sample and a brain scan before and after the act of sodomy and intercourse (to ascertain whether or not that person could be categorised, on a genetic level atleast, as homosexual or heterosexual). As of yet, I've heard of no such tests being done so as far as I am concerned, you cannot be born gay.

Although, this premise relies on my definition of homosexuality as someone who has committed sodomy (since I do not believe you can be called a homosexual based solely on your thoughts and have yet to see or hear of any evidence that suggests one can be).

This particular research study cannot be used to prove the existence of a being born gay.

It's common knowledge that nails & hair continue growth for a while after death, that does not mean it's true.

We have to back up what we say, not simply pass it off as "common knowledge". Perhaps the west's greater acceptence of it now means what your claiming is wrong. Perhaps not. Either way we need to show what we say is backed up!

So you're saying sexual orientiation cannot be determined until one's had sex?

Can I refer you to the beginning of our debate:

Without actually hitting the reverse gear and defending the "definition" of "Gay". Can you back that statement up with just 1 single peer reviewed paper????? many thanks.

No, I'm saying I define a homosexual as one who has commited the act of sodomy. Sexual orientation is determined by a number of things (namely proximity, familiarity and so on and so forth)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm - indicates there is no gay gene.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html A very interesting article on the alleged gay gene.

http://www.geneticfutures.com/astron...nfo/sheet1.asp Thoughts on the gay gene by an alleged homosexual. Also raises a question about female homosexuality

All 3 of those links indicate there is no gay gene.

Edit:
refutation on being born gay

The "gay Gene" is a misleader and I suspect you know this too. Additionally, your sources are dated no earlier than 1999. Nearly 10 years ago, Genetics has come along way since then. Science does not take the position of a single gay gene, rarther a multiple of factors including genes.

Your statement that it is genetically impossible to pas gay genes is flawed

aamirsaab, isn't your argument a bit like saying no child could be born infertile because it *must* be passed on from the parents?

I've done some research on this matter - though nothing recent. It seems that the X chromosme from the mother apparently leads to homosexuality (though this is balanced by the Y chromosome from the father which leads to heterosexuality!) In which case, given that humans by default have an amount of attraction from birth (neccessary for us to survive as a species, else we wouldn't trust our own gender nor would we have any aspirition to adopt their characteristics aka role models), you are not born with a definitive sexuality. You're given equal amonts of homo and hetero predisposition. Your upbringing/environment will ulimately sway you to 4 possible outcomes; hetero, homo, asexual and bi.

So technically speaking, we're both right.


edit: Sort of except I would place homosexuality as something one has a control over (again, this uses the definition of someone committing sodomy to be counted as a homosexual) whereas infertility and other diseases are something one does not have a choice with.

OK, I see, but I think using the term homosexual causes a little confusion, since it's apparent that noone is born a practicing homosexual and the term is generally used to denote sexual preference as much as sexual acts.