Because I choose to carry on a conversation over the subject that makes me obsessed? Interesting logic. Or this another one of those "you sound insecure" pot shots that only distract from the point? Just because you don't like to acknowledge my evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Two same sex individuals are physically incompatible with each other. That's damnable evidence people choose to ignore time and again in favor of studies they don't even have a full understanding of "I'm saying it wouldn't take much for you getting hit in the face." And I'm sure you'd approve of that. "I believe I read something earlier about you ''Having enough experience observing gays around you to make educated claims..." REALLY? THAT is you background that makes you an expert on the subject. I'm sure Hitler ''knew a lot about Jews'' Perhaps you should pull up a direct quote. I didn't say that. Being a sexual being myself who has the power as observation, I'm just as educated on the issue--if not moreso--than anyone else here.

@Smokescreened That's all well and fine, but that doesn't address my commentary on your assertion that these conditions are spawned from hormone imbalances in the womb. All you've done, yet again, is repeat to me what you feel. But what you feel has little to no value as a form of evidence.

@Raphy "The very next one stated how complicated this was and how we made the case of homosexuality." It didn't contradict what you said though. It just says it's complicated. That doesn't magically undo your statement. If you were mistaken, just say so and rescind your comment.

@Raphy "If it's there, it's THERE but you can't tell until later." That is NOT what you said. You made a very clear argument about homosexual preference being subject to the state of one's chromosomes, the combination of which is formed in the womb. According to that reasoning, with enough technological advancement, doctors could use that to assign the label of "homosexual" to a newborn.

@Raphy "Conventionally, this explains that x is attracted to both x and y but y only to x, hence xy(straight men) are only attracted to women, while xx(women) are more 'naturally' attracted to both sexes." Those were your exact words. If the issue was too complicated for you to comment on, you just would have said it was too complicated, but instead you made this argument. And NOW you're trying to backpedal. "Freedom of speech....is a freedom so long as it does not interfere with others' freedoms. in this case, other's freedom to live free of your total lack of respect." I speak. You choose to listen. I have not physically assaulted you nor have I insulted you. You, on the other hand, have insulted me and threatened me with violence. What does that say about the mentality that you and your ilk keep?

@Smokescreened84 "Homosexuality and Trans-gender are nothing alike, they may both be a born aspect of the person, but they are both very different. " Yeah, you've been pitching that tune for a while now, but the process by which the two alleged form is....exactly the same according to your camp. That would suggest that there's no difference between the two. The only evidence you're trying to use to distinguish them is your own assertion about what you feel and how you developed.

@Demanufactur DNA modification? I was pointing out the absurdity of Raphy's claim that sexual preference is decided according the chromosomal combo that someone is born with. If this were the case, all a doctor would have to do is look at their chromosomes and decide whether or not they're homosexual according to that standard. It's monstrous.

@Smokescreened I never said you didn't have a right to exist. That's a strawman. I've simply argued that homosexuality is a developed behavior that can be categorized similarly--if not exactly--to transexuality. That's all I've done. "Those who are born trans-gender are not homosexual only, their attraction to others differs on the hard wiring they are born with, I am bi-sexual, others like me may be attracted to women or men or both, it all depends on the born hard wiring that develops considerably more as they enter puberty and become an adult over the years." The problem with this explanation is that it really doesn't assign any solid evidence to such a process beyond your own feelings. The way you describe it is very abstract and incomplete.

@Raphy "I explained how xx and xy chromosomes were the most basic indicators of someones sexual orientation and how their composure altered in the case of homosexuality." And I addressed the absurdity of that statement here: "So, for the record, you're going to tell a person who has a certain chromosomal combo that isn't living a homosexual lifestyle that he or she is gay and he or she needs to stop kidding his or herself? Good luck with that. That kind of Gattica mentality does not help the "born that way" crowd. It only paints a more morbid and sickening portrait of the future." According to you, it's only a matter of time before doctors start assigning sexual preference to newborns based on their chromosomes. That's monstrous. "It's very cowardice of someone to post what will easily be considered hate speech" And there you have it. It only took a day, but it's finally surfaced: the accusation that everything I say is hate-speech purely because it dissents with the majority. I've made every effort to be civil and not use derogatory language and yet you still make such a claim--and you even threaten me with violence. This is a sign of the times to be sure; freedom of speech is dying.

@Smokescreened I could castrate myself and pump my body full of estrogen until there's no testosterone left. My body would become more feminine and I'd definitely become more emotional, but that's not going to change my sexual physiology. Hormones don't transform your interior makeup whether you get an overdose of them inside of the womb or not. That's not the nature of their function. In fact, what I find so odd about your contention is that it's the exact same argument put forth by others here for the endorsement of homosexuality as a "born that way" condition. Geitenvla quoted a study earlier that posited how an asymmetry in hormonal reactions between heterosexuals and homosexuals made that case. Wouldn't that suggest that transexual behavior is just a strain (for lack of a better word) of homosexuality? Or are you going to forsake that study now that its bitten you.