Joey, the problem is absolutely to do with the way to present your argument. You were insulting to Intricks and presented your argument as solid fact. That is why people got so wound up. Look...
Joey said:
My thoughts in bullet form:
- Homosexuality is both genetic and environmental and everything in between. Different people are homosexual for different reasons, and combinations of reasons.
- Children brought up by homosexual parents would be more likely to be homosexual themselves, because they would be more open to the idea amongst other factors. That is not the same as "all children brought up by homosexuals would turn out gay" or "only homosexual parents cause kids to be gay". Logical fallacy.
Being gay is NOT a choice, it is something you are born with, and I'm not going to argue about it.
- Define "choice".
- Show me scientific evidence.
At the end there, you ask to be shown "some scientific evidence". Above you state your belief that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. Yet you lay that out as a conclusion to your thought process, yet back it up with no evidence.
Even worse...
Joey said:
I do not know what causes homosexuality, and frankly, I don't care.
Yet you're willing to strongly assert a point of view, and insult somebody who has a differing opinion to you when you actually have no idea. Then you accuse others of black and white thinking and having fallacious arguments, when your have a foundation of water. I was deliberately facetious with my argument to point out how yours has no standing in any form of scientific data or studies.
You have a "belief" Joey. You're entitled to your belief, but don't start yelling at people who disagree with you taking the "argument high ground", especially when their foundation is stronger.
a = hetero male, b = hetero female, c = gay male, d = gay female.
We know (using rough figures from studies) that around 15% of the population is gay. In terms of couples bringing up children, we know that:
a+b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
a = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
We have no other evidence at all. You're suggesting (for example) that:
c + c = 80% a/b and 20% c/d
d + d = 80% a/b and 20% c/d
What we would expect though is that if parental factors caused sexual preference changes, above we'd see:
a+b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
a = 80% a/b and 15% of c/d and 5% of a who never really have a sexual preference.
b = 80% a/b and 15% c/d and 5% of b who never really have a sexual preference.
Okay, the numbers are made up, but that is the logical kind of play through of your theory. We should see variations depending on parental upbringing, but we don't have figures to support any of this, yet we do know that the majority of people have a sexual preference that is inherent from when they are incredibly young. Whatever the sexuality switch is, it's turned on very early.
Of course, we do have evidence that you can't "reverse" sexuality. Programs designed to turn gay men to heterosexual ones invariably fail, and the ones that succeed are due to psychological and sexual repression rather than "removing gayness". No evidence points towards a psychological environmental factor creating sexual preference.
Absolutely, there could be environmental factors in terms of particular chemical releases or interactions at specific times of physiological development, but that's just chemistry and biology at work, and it's a switch that once activated, can't be turned off - like calcification of your teeth, or your likelihood of developing depression. There's no evidence to support anything beyond either genome or biological factors in the development of sexual preference.
Unless of course there is, in which case present it and I shall happily change my mind
