Alan B.: Look, everyone who's been here for any length of time knows what you're like with rational agruments. But just this once we will please try to understand and think a bit about the implications of what you're arguing.

I can't make the argument against your use of genetics as a defense for homosexuality any clearer than what I already said, but for your sake I'll repeat it and *hopefully* you will understand it this time.

YOUR argument amounts to saying that if a behaviour has some level of genetic basis then it must be OK. Now the probable with this is that many other generally accepted non-desirable behaviours also have genetic influences, eg: pyschopathy. So this means that YOU YOURSELF must condone these other behaviours by the same style of reasoning if you want others to accept this argument when applied to homosexual behaviour.

By-the-way: It should be obvious (at least to normal intelligence) that I'm not stating it is the same genes that cause both homosexuality and violence, psychopathy etc. It should be obvious, for example that in the case of male violence it would be different genes I'm talking about (since male violence across species is extremely common but homosexual proclivity is not that common). Nothing I've ever said should allow any normally intelligent person to draw the conclusion that I'm saying that it is the same alleles of some given set of genes that cause all these behaviours - although you have, but how your brain works(?) is a mystery to me.

//and probably three more and found near the lower end of the DNA double helix spiral!//

Sorry, what?

For starters, what sort of real biologist would feel it necessary to specify that DNA has a double helix structure when this is common knowledge? And what sort of idiot would call it a spiral when it's a helix?

Secondly, which particular chromosome? You realise we have more than one, right?

Thirdly, DNA does not have a 'lower' and 'upper' end. Discrete strands of DNA (e.g. chromosomes) necessarily have ends, and I can't for the life of me remember what the proper technical jargon is for them, but I know that 'lower' and 'upper' is about as meaningful to biologists as referring to them as 'charm' and 'strange'.

Fourthly, as far as I remember the limited amount of biology I've studied... a gene's locus has no bearing on it's functionality. I could be wrong on this one. Any biology nerds out there?

Finally, if you want to mount a scientific argument... it helps to have a clue what you're talking about.

//And stop expecting others to do your research for you!//

I wouldn't trust you to do my research in million years, mate. All your 'facts' are risible nonsense.

hmm, just re-read my last post and noticed slight typo:
"But just this once we will please try to understand and think a bit about the implications of what you're arguing." should be-
"But just this once will you please try to understand and think a bit about the implications of what you're arguing.

----

Toni Lavis: your point about a cell's DNA not being just one long thread but stored in multiple chromosomes I've pointed out to him before. Also I pointed out the fact that a strand of DNA doesn't have an up/down direction. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19376&page=0#344556)

But you know what he's like- there's little point trying to tell him anything factual that doesn't correspond with his pontifications. And he'll keep repeating/regurgitating what he's said over and over and over ad nauseam, regardless of being corrected many times previously.

//But you know what he's like- there's little point trying to tell him anything factual that doesn't correspond with his pontifications. And he'll keep repeating/regurgitating what he's said over and over and over ad nauseam, regardless of being corrected many times previously.//

Yep, it's a pretty clear-cut diagnosis of 'Runner's disease'. The constant repetition of previously debunked nonsense, combined with the vitriol and abuse directed at those who do the debunking, both clearly point in that direction.

It is a fact of life that a significant portion of society hates religion with a vengeance. Some expressions of this can even be seen here, in the above posts. Those who do, would use any means they can to break the back of the religious and make them suffer in any possible way.

It is a pity that this discussion deteriorated to be about homosexuality, because homosexuality just happens to be used as a pretext to make the religious suffer.

Specifically, those who hate religion want to use "anti-discrimination" or whatever else they can get hold on, to sever the children of the religious from their parents and instead brainwash them with secularity - and for that, they want their own people to infiltrate religious schools.

It is not homosexuality that they wish to expose religious children to - it is sexuality in general they wish to tempt them with: their tactic is that by exposing children to the temptations of the flesh, to the anguish of their parents, they will become more interested in the world and forget about God. The problem with so-called "gay" people is not their attraction to and sexual-activity with their own gender, but rather that they consider the pleasures of the flesh as paramount. There are other homosexuals, even religious homosexuals, who do not belong to the gay movement and do not consider sexuality to be that important.

In my estimate, the underlying reason for this hatred, is that religion is viewed as a "fun killer" that especially chastises care-free promiscuity. Those who hate religion, essentially do not like to be reminded that there is something wrong with their attitude that prioritises fun as supreme.

I certainly do not agree with the religious trying to tell others how to live and how to educate their children, yet this is exactly how the anti-religious wish to harm the religious.