Anonymouse

Don't act surprised. You have repeatedly dodged the point of how homosexual parenting can influence children. And now you make it seem as if I am changing the subject when I have never denied the possibility of genetic predisposition. It is entirely you who has argued that homosexuality is genetic and homosexual parenting doesn't affect anyone. Unlike you, I do not create a myopic intellectual Berlin Wall. You have not even read the study I referenced. To get an idea of how much politics influences any study I will post links to this study. In the following link, the website claims, "SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF PARENTS FOUND NOT TO INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF CHILDREN". However, it goes on to include snippets of the following: Then it goes on to state this: Then downplays it a bit: Then comes back with this: On the surface the link would seem to suggest that there really is no difference or impact by homosexual parenting. However, upon closer inspection there is. Furthermore, Fox News ran this story in that year and here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html DISCLAIMER: Lest any of you lefty social butterflies pounce on the fact that this story is not credible because it is from Fox News, I assure you, I do not like Fox News anymore than the next Che Guevera t-shirt wearing hippie, however, to get a certain point across I will use the resource. The link to the actual study is here: http://www.apgl.asso.fr/documents/stacey.pdf

By observing Western civilization, and because of that it seems to have been the case in Western society, is the same as Foucault saying that prior to the nineteenth century, homosexuality was not considered anything more than an aberration, a behavior and a tendency, as reflected by names such as sodomy, or by societies such as the damn Greeks. The only thing you have been correcting is your own self-grandeur of thinking you actually know what you have read about Foucault. And lest you are confused, no one has ever used Foucault as the authority, but certainly a. The only reason I even raised Foucault was to combat what you and other proponents of homosexuality exclaimed as the modern idea of the homosexuality as reflected in identity politics, such as homosexuality being a fixed identity, and the scourge of "alternative lifestyle". I only quoted Foucault to show that society at someone point did not consider it as such and it is entirely a modern fixation. This is still the case, despite whatever you may believe or state to make yourself believe. The only one ignoring details is yourself, which is why we are still on the topic of Foucault because you not only a) misunderstand Foucault, but you also misunderstand my position on why I quoted him, and c) you intentionally obfuscated the truth to have something to argue about. This is the cliche liberal-egalitarian position of "blame everything on the white man". Do you actuall still believe that the WASP is the dominant cultural and political force in America that it once was? If you do, you know nothing about America, nor about "dominant political system". Strangely enough, the dominant political system in any Western society revolves around such conventional wisdom as: We are all equal, there are no racial differences, homosexuals should be tolerated and granted all rights because they are a fixed identity, evolution is truth, religion is evil, global warming is gospel, and government welfare is a must. So while you made a faint attempt at trying to define the "dominant political system" as white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, you are mistaken because it only shows you have no idea what the dominant political system is, which I will tell you, is about as far from WASPS as Pluto is from Earth. The mighty sociologist and psychologist is not always right. What makes you say that? Did I say that? Or did you intentionally manipulate what I said to make it seem as if I said that? I think it's the latter. That homosexuality occurs in one of the most repressive countries is irrelevant. No one is disputing that, and no one is disputing that homosexuality may have genetic predisposition. I think you are so stuck in your ideological prism that you cannot even see beyond this. Whether homosexuality is mainly a behavioral phenomenon or a genetic one is irrelevant, don't you get it? I am not arguing for one or other. The point is, that there is no general consensus, and while it may be genetic it can also be behavioral is all I have ever said. But it has been you and vahan and domino that have thrown emotional tantrums about how I am wrong, and you are all right and homosexuality is entirely genetic. This has nothing to do about being scared. And we know it's entirely behavior either so it's irrelevant. No one is saying homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. However, homosexual marriage and parenting is going beyond mere demands of letting them be, and it actually amounts to "give them inch, and they take miles". There are serious issues with homosexual marriage and parenting, which we have not even begun to get into because of emotional tantrums thrown by many here. That is untrue. I have never said that or implied it. That is entirely your interpretation and proposition. Why does it have to be an all or nothing deal? This is untrue for several reasons I have already pointed out one of them being is that the white Anglo-Saxon protestant males are no longer the dominant cultural force in America, and two I am not Anglo-Saxon, nor Protestant so therefore that effectively rules me out, which pretty much means that here you display nothing more than an emotional tantrum. So when push comes to shove, and you cannot handle a discussion you resort to making things personal and attacking me, and now you accuse me of being the one who makes arguments not based on logic or facts. What a strange world in which the victors can do no wrong.

Very well kind sage. I will behave.

Ahh so this is what was lurking in the stomach of nairi. She wanted to make this personal and I can do that. I have apparently driven her to such a point that her distaste and intolerance of me came out full swing. Notice how I have maintained at least modicum of cordiality here to not let things get too heated, but apparently my continued expression of my views has earned me the ire of the Dutchess from Holland, who from time to time likes to pretend she is the most Armenian of Armenians because she has read more Armenian literature than anyone else, and can actually type in Armenian font online! Hooray! The rest of us are only fakes, fools and knaves. And you use my name in such a way as if accusing me of hiding. From what I am only left wondering. My friends and foes use my name. You are neither. You are not a friend, and you do not even have the respect of being my foe. You my dear, are nothing more than the insignificant urchin of Armenians. All you have ever done and accomplished in your life is always getting the last word in internet discussion forums because all you have ever amounted to is sitting in your room, in front of the computer all day. No matter what time of day I post, you are there with your itchy finger on the buzzer with a reply. It's as if you sit there with your mouse on the "quote" and "reply" buttons waiting incessantly for that darn ole rascal Anonymouse (read Arman) to post his intolerant and rigid views so that you can have some tiny fragment of meaning and excitement in what is a very dry, lonely, nihilistic and defeatist life. You yourself like to pretend and come off on the moral high ground of all things, the enlightened savior, the bastion and beacon of tolerance and those like me are the archenemy of all that is goodness and light in the world. You like to pretend you are so unique and misunderstood, but you have in reality closed yourself off from the world. You like to think you are so unique and that customs and respect do not apply to you. You even refuse to go to a wedding because you cannot wear your jumpsuit. You claim you are misunderstood, but one wonders, how would that even be, if you are not even willing to show a tinge of respect to someone to dress approprtiately on their wedding. Not everything in life revolves around you maa'aam. So here you are in your mid-30s, socially isolated, in the same league as other feminazis that have graced these and other forums over time, such as Stormig the Stormtrooper and other variants, in control of their men (when they do not themselves look like the men), and riding out the years as dried fruits, getting all worked up by the replies of some intolerant yokel called Anonymouse (read Arman). And is this the excitement in your life? Is this the ebb and flow which you have anticipated since in the womb? Please tell me otherwise!

Thanks for the links, but it doesn't look good for you to dodge the issue I raised about homosexual parenting. Consider the study published in The American Sociological Review in April of 2001 titled "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by USC professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz. But look at how fixed you are in your position and stance of intolerance to not even consider that homosexuality can at least potentially be induced by environment. Notice, I have not discredited nor denied the biological aspect, but you seem to entirely rule out the nurture aspect. Not very tolerant and open minded of you.

That Foucault considered, or considers if he stuck in a time warp, is no difference. The point was that in relation to the modern identity of the homosexual, all previous generations and societies had considered it as a tendency, a behavior, referred to it as an act, as the Greeks did, called it sodomy, etc. You still have no ammo here except mutating and morphing little words here and there to come off as somehow proven a point. What I have said before and now, is quite apart from what Foucault himself said, so if you are intentionally going to manipulate who said in a 'he said/you said' prism you may as well retire from all human contact and conversation. This is all a hodge podge of unsubstantiated assertions and innuendos that have no bearing on anything I have said. You, like vahan, have repeatedly twisted my positions in an effort to have some ammuniation in a discussion. You make a bold claim of me supporting the "dominant political system" (without defining whatever that is, and whatever it may be), nor do you offer evidence of how I tie in to whatever this "dominant political system" is. Furthermore, you go on to claim that I cannot handle "difference" because I said I personally do not like homosexuality. How does expressing a personal preference translate to not handling differences? It beats me, but apparently in the warped minds of the tolerance police that's what it means. I have repeatedly stated I support a homosexuals right to be a homosexual and live as a homosexual. I have even stated numerous times against the case in Iran where they hung those homosexuals teens and am against sodomy laws. So for you to sit here and intentionally obfuscate the truth to somehow appear on the moral high ground on the internet so everyone in your internet community of allies who support homosexuality can see is desperate at best. This is another perfect example of twisting what I have said. You will of course ignore this along with the myriad of other intentional distortions. In debates this tactic is referred to as assigning certain positions or arguments to others which they did not make and it is often done in the case of interrogations and questioning. These methods have been used by Soviets, Nazis, Americans, and it is a form of question that is ironically also used by lawyers when they question their clients or witnesses to get as much truth and light on a case as they can. First, there is nothing I am hiding about saying certain rights are handed out to homosexuals. That is merely stating a fact. Because the State has a monopoly on violence and the rule of law, therefore it does hand out laws, such as granting homosexuals civil unions. So I see no point in you pretending as if I am stating something that somehow supports your argument so much that it makes mine moot. Second, you have no idea of what libertarianism is or the philosophical underpinnings of that concept, by stating "everyone do as they wish". That is not what libertarianism is about, but it is relevant since it shows your ignorance as well as derails the thread even more. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I posted a study about this which was ignored. I kept raising it again only to fall on blind eyes. And now you state that somehow I am the one that ignored this point. Just what "answers" were given before Oh Mighty One. What you believe is irrelevant, for numerous sociologists and psychologists have referred to the phenomenon that occurs in prison as homosexuality, by virtue of engaging in such an act. That you personally find a problem with it because it offends your enlightened and eclectic tastes of tolerance has no bearing on anything. And even though many of those inmantes would want to bone a woman the first chance they got, they could still be labeled as "bisexual". However, this still misses the point because homosexuality is homosexuality. People at that moment (regardless of whatever circumstances) express a desire and some even develop a desire for the same sex. Who are you to say they don't? Earlier you argued for desire and could it not be possible that these people based on environment develop a desire? We are not mind readers so don't pretend to be. And this would also fall in line with how certain lesbians parents raised children who are more likely to consider homosexuality. Yes, I am afraid homosexuality will take over and I will become one myself. Such silly insults do not even merit a serious response. You, much like vahan, have proven time and again that you cannot separate emotions from any discussion because liberal/egalitarian positions often are interwoven with emotional tantrums and often involve going from the subject and making the other person the subject.

Yes I have always leaned more toward nature than nurture, however, I have never closed the door on it. With regard to race I have leaned more toward nature than nurture. The way people here like vahan, or phantom and nairi are posting is that it's all nurture and nothing else. At least nairi was a bit reasonable enough to acknowledge the possibility that it may not entirely be nature. And as I said, which no one has yet addressed this point, even if we assume nature plays a significant role, then how does one explain the study of homosexual parents influencing children? Silence speaks volumes. Really? Could you source that please? And what about the study I posted which concluded differently and said homosexuality can be influenced? Can these be reconciled? Can you admit that at least, just maybe, there is some portion of homosexuality that may be influenced and is not entirely genetic? I think you and nairi are missing the point about Foucault. I only used Foucault to illustrate and that which he himself acknowledged that homosexuality was just considered an act or something one engaged in at one time. This was in reference to the bromide you and others posted about how homosexuality is this fixed identity or this modern idea about an 'alternative lifestyle' that homosexuals represent and are a fixed group identity as common as race and gender. Now you and nairi would like to believe there is something more to it than there appears. Certainly Foucault himself isn't right about homosexuality because he is a homosexual, but that sure goes for something more than what you and I can say, doesn't it.? You keep rehashing the assertion that I make implicit assumptions. Just what assumptions do I make? Give me examples. Before one could speak of others' intellectual limitations one should himself heed the supposed advice he offers to others because you certainly did a fine job of dodging all the points I've raised thus far and compensated for that by resorting to silly insults and references about how I make assumptions without giving me evidence. Every reply to me you have made me the subject. That is not a wise tactic as it highlights your inability to hang in a discussion. Who said I want you to be a certain way? It's always common any debate or discussion that one side will always resort to the following tactic of how they alone know the world and the answers and the other side is 'blinded' to the reality. It's a bit Marxian in its effrontery but it will pass muster. And of course we are 'governed by a system.' Even the family is a governing system. That is not the point and you are derailing the thread now into unchartered waters. Your 'the current world is controlled and we have no choice' defeatism is not appealing at all and in fact, incorrect to many degrees. So because I disagree with homosexuals demanding marriage and all sorts of rights, that means I adhere to the dominant political system? Oh how do you folks make these connections, the mind may never know. These people can voice their opinions all they want. However, at some point they go beyond that and when you give them an inch, they take miles.

I never said Foucault believed anything. I said Foucault stated that homosexuality was considered to be nothing more than an act, and in several interviews of his you could even gather that he is saying that the phenomenon is nothing deeper than it is. In other words, people are trying to find a meaning of why homosexuality exists, and he said something along the lines of it's just a supeficial practice. You misread it because you came out completely denying it. This is irrelevant to anything being discussed. I merely raised this to point out your double standards. You have no idea of what human rights are. In your socialistic understanding of the world you believe rights are only afforded to people by governments, and that we should only seek to plead with governments to grant us rights, i.e. rights are not derived from something greather than the State. And with that said, just what "rights" are being denied to the homosexuals? The right to marry? The right to have children? Marriage has never been about a right and up until the inverted age of identity politics all civilizations have considered it an institution to be safeguarded, including the damn Greeks who were really into young boy love. My definition is fine. Care to point out what your hang up is with it?

For example, in The History of Sexuality, Volume I, from page 43, he refers to how homosexuality was simply an act before the 19th century, such as sodomy, or a principle of power and pleasure, such as with the Greeks. But only in modernity is homosexuality seen as an identity, specifically to be 'cured'. In The Foucault Reader, on pages 340 and on he talks about sexuality, and specifically homosexuality in reference to the Greeks and to the idea we have of homosexuality now, and all it says are refernece to acts of power and pleasure and with the nineteenth century and onward, this changed from such act to an actual subject that must be treated and be a matter of references and institutions. Who cares about your ex-boyfriend? This isn't about you, your ex-boyfriend, or whatever other single examples you can make. This is about large samples and statistics. A single exception to the rule does not disprove the rule. Earlier I reference a study done by a Sociologist at USC, which made exactly the finding that I claimed. They set out to prove that homosexuals parents, such as lesbians, are normal and whose sexuality does not impact their children, but it ended up finding exactly what they were hoping it would not find. I am right that you are being hypocritical and inconsistent. When dealing about race, any genetic evidence that shows racial differences in certain things, are automatically rejected and the proponent dubbed a racist. But when dealing with homosexuality, anything that is genetic that would favor the establishment of homosexuality as an 'unchanging identity' must therefore be preferred. What we have here is an interesting play on ideological prisms. The one large ideological prism that is prevalent in America and Europe is the left-leaning prism of the liberal/egalitarian persuasion. It goes as follows: "All the races are equal. There are no differences between any races and all cultures are equal. Any evidence from genetics that claims to disprove this proposition is racist and discriminatory. Therefore since we are all the same, it doesn't matter and we should all mix. People should be treated equally. Women and men are equal. Therefore, any evidence in genetics that even remotely raises hints of actual biological differences and inequalities, should be ignored because it would lead to discrimination and lower pay for women, etc. Homosexuals should be treated equally, they have no control of being that way as genetics indicates and we should tolerate them, so therefore we should be accepting of them and their behaviors because they have no control." Notice that in this big web of egalitarian fiction there is a collective fraud of inconsistency. It is purely a position based on fallacy and emotion, and not a true reflection of the way the world is, but rather the way the world 'ought to be'. I have nothing against people who want to experiment. You are again either intentionally manipulating what I said to mean something other than what I said, or you are again reverting to selective reading. The only reason it was brought up is to show precisely that what you advocate is horsepucky. Oh no, homophobes, racists, and sexists! What a better place the world would be if we could just eliminate those people. Then there would truly be the liberal egalitarian utopia of tolerance called Tolerantania!

So you completely deny and lie through your teeth that there are people who have merely experimented or gone in and out. Moving beyond that, you even dodge the point of homsexual parental impact on kids. And move even beyond that, you go on to claim that the pro-biology argument is more feasible. And even if we assume it is more feasible, it still doesn't explain why homosexual parenting can and does have an impact on children. And it is quite an oddity for a liberal hippie egalitarian such as yourself to now rely on biology and genetics for an explanation of homosexuality, but when we talk about racial differences, such as intelligence, or other factors between races, you are quick to harp on those who use genetics as a basis. So the implication is that when genetics favors your ideological prism, you will use it, but when it doesn't, you will not use it. Consistency it seems is not the hallmark of the hippie.

Actually, you are incorrect. It seems you haven't even read the work since you are confusing the whole thing. Foucault explicitly argued that all sexuality is socially constructed (I have not argued this at all, in fact this all his argument), and specifically he stated that homosexuality was simply a superficial matter of practice which only became deeply embedded in society in the nineteenth century, and the modern homosexual identity is a modern fabrication (such as the alternative lifestyle crowd that compares homosexuality to blacks or women, and demands rights like marriage). In other words, he specifically stated in The History of Sexuality that homosexuality was just an action or something one did which changed especially in our century with identity politics. In other words, for Foucault, homosexuality in the way know it, cannot exist outside of this cultural context, and it is quite apart and different from homosexuality in, say, the 18th century. Your problem in trying to prove your point is that you go to great lengths to prove your point, and it often times overshadows any attempt at attempt at substance.

But isn't that the problem? There are people go in and out of these sexual preferences like tic tacs. And so now you admit homosexuality is not an 'alternative lifestyle'? As much as you and other self-styled liberal egalitarians like to believe that homosexuality is some genetic thing that everyone is born with, there is nothing conclusive. When I say behavior, I mean it as it is manifested in our every day world. Is it not a certain behavior that homosexuals engage in? Homosexuality is not contagious per se, but it can have tendencies of such in modern society. For example, allowing homosexual parenting, as certain studies have indicated, can have an impact on the young. This is the whole point. You can name call me all you want and resort to every form of emotional appeal, but it remains that the only argument you have is one of emotion and nothing else.

So you're using yourself as the evidence for the entire subject eh? So even genetic studies have not reported conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, but you yourself in your high horse know the answer with absolute certainty and thus the debate should end here because phantom22 knows it all!

Armenian musulman? Oxymoron. Islam is the least philosophically advanced of the 3 monotheistic babbles of religions. I agree with the famous economist and political philosopher, Ludwig von Mises when he said that Islam is a despiritualized religion that has never had an idea of a separation of church and state, it has never known about the idea of a free market, or the right of the individual. "The religion of Islam has not changed since the days of the Arab conquests. Their literature, their philosophies continue to repeat the old ideas and do not penetrate beyond the circle of theology. One looks in vain among them for men and movements such as Western Christianity has produced in each century. They maintain their identity only by rejecting everything foreign and ‘different,’ by traditionalism and conservatism. Only their hatred of everything foreign rouses them to great deeds from time to time. All new sects, even the new doctrines which arise with them, are nothing more than echoes of this fight against the foreign, the new, the infidel."

This is all fine and dandy, but you are again making references to blacks. Blacks have no control over being black. Homosexuality is nebulous and often is hard to pinpoint or define since it is a behavior. Therefore, saying it's the same as "Blacks can marry so should we LOL1" is an error.

You suffer from the same thing most women suffer: selective reading. I never said homosexuality is a social construct. I said the idea we have of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' or that it is some 'fixed identity' in the age of identity power politics is a modern creation, as Foucault himself (even if you disagree with him) aptly pointed out. Otherwise, homosexual behavior is as real as a flat tire. You seem to propose an all-or-nothing deal, and sadly it doesn't work that way. It still does not put to rest the confused of the bunch, i.e. bisexuals. When did I argue that homosexuality is entirely a learned behavior to comment on how it's possible for it to occur in the most oppressive cultures? In fact, I repeated several times there are situations of both nature and nurture. Why is this so difficult to understand? And why do you and vahan continue to attach arguments to me that I did not make?

Beats me. Do you know? Discrimination is a natural part of life. Humans, by the fact itself, discriminate everytime they act and make choices. Every form of law discriminates against something. Discrimination is the cognitive process of differentiation. Society cannot function without it. It used to be that discrimination in this society was more positive than pejorative. When someone would say "You have a discriminating mind", it was more of a compliment on a keen sense of judgment than a smear label meant to ostracize. Only in the inverted age of hippies and liberals have things changed. Everytime I choose something over something else I am discriminating. If I choose dolma over hamburgers I am discriminating. If I choose to drive a Ford I am discriminating against a Toyota. If I prefer to hang around Armenians or marry an Armenian I am discriminating against all those that are not Armenian. You can never stop or dictate what private individuals will feel or not. Earlier you said I could be intolerant, but here it seems you want to eliminate intolerance against homosexuals by putting in the framework of discrimination and implying that there 'oughtta be a law' against it. Homosexuals can be homosexuals. No one has argued against anything else. I don't know where you get these assumptions. It's just when it's shoved down my throat, I have a problem with it.

First, there is no such thing as 'equality'. 'Equality' is a chimera. There is nothing in this world that is equal. There are differences between races and individuals and in their temperaments, characters and capacities. And any legislation that is premised on such fallacious things as equality always creates unintended consequences as some are more equal than others. Have you not read Animal Farm? The reason I have not explained why homosexuality is only valid if it is nature and not nurture, is because I never argued such a thing. This is yet another one of your presumptions. And no where have I argued about the validity or invalidity of homosexuality. Why do you assume so many things? Is your argument cursed without it? As I already answered this question. I never defined culture by race or ethnicity. Although, since we are on the subject, all culture is an emanation and projection of the people that create that culture. I merely used it analogous to the claims brought up by those like you, when you compared homosexuality to fixed identities such as race, ethnicity or gender. And as I said, a nebulous concept like homosexuality and homosexuals which are premised on a behavioral phenomenon and unstable sexual preferences, cannot be compared to fixed identities and that somehow based on that, demand rights and things. Okay. So why are you justifying yourself to me? This is the last refuge of the illogical: when the must resort to emotional appeals. I have never sought to suppress free speech, nor can you find evidence of such. I have only expressed distaste for those parades, but I never said they shouldn't do it perhaps on their own streets or whatever, or at least it shouldn't be broadcast on mediums like television. Nor have I said anything about homosexuals conforming to heterosexuals, nor can you offer any evidence of such. This is simply a childish appeal to emotions when all else fails. And as far as your rights or your friends' rights, what rights are being infringed? Please, stop the emotional appeal as if homosexuals are the most persecuted minority in the world and are suffering a fate worst than poor Africans in Darfur. Get over yourselves.

This isn't the gay and lesbians and whether they feel love or not thread. In fact, one can make an argument that it is precisely love that is absent from homosexual relationships. Not to pounce on Alex and his love and stuff, but homosexuals are the most promiscuous group engaging in the most random and copious amounts of sex, hence higher rates of HIV. The point it is, this isn't the point. Well, nothing much bothers you except your libertine preferences.

Precisely, and which is why this point is irrelevant since we are not mind readers to be able to quantify who did or did not have these desires or drives. The fact is, the phenomenon occurs and that was the point. If by homosexuality we are talking about the idea of an 'alternative lifestyle' and a 'gay culture' and all that comes with the modern identity politics, then yes, that is a modern invention. However, the act of homosexuality is certainly not an invention, no more and no less than heterosexuality. Who knows? The point is, it matters.

What do you call your post?

So now the very act that defines homosexuality, when it occurs in prison, is not homosexuality? Jesus. It seems there is nothing that you folks will not make elastic to have something to argue with. Next you will be telling me that we are all gay and we just don't know it! Strangely enough, the study published in The American Sociological Review in April of 2001 I believe, titled "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by USC professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz claimed that homosexual parents do have an impact on children.

Thanks dear. I believe the avatar I had when I first met you was Billy Mays! Excelsior!

Yes sir! I am taking your words very carefully, but since most of my time is spent in the library rooms and stuck in books, I am afraid I may not be able to abide by that ethic sir. What shall I do? Am I confined forever to a life of regret? Or must I stop school and go traveling? Either way, it all seems so surreal.

You just proved my own points. By acknowledging that homosexuality occurs in prison, regardless of the reasons, you just admitted that homosexuality can occur based on social circumstances. And how do you know that homosexuals in prison do not "get off"? After years of no women, I would imagine some of these felons would become pretty desperate for a blowjob for gods sake. And you also admit that there is no full proof explanation of homosexuality, aside from the fact that it is a behavioral tendency and phenomenon which does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. Nowhere have I stated I lean on nurture entirely. I have admitted that there may be a genetic basis for certain people who have a predisposition for homosexuality. However, what I have said is that it does not account for a full ranging explanation. On the contrary, it has been proponents on your side, such as Vahan, that have been making bold yet unsubstantiated assertions that homosexuals "have no control", thus implying that somehow it is an all or nothing deal.