@Spahettificator "Then kindly explain exactly and clearly how you believe homosexuality develops." Through time and gradualism. As is the case with any developed affinity or infatuation. Everyone develops emotional attachments. That's true of us all. For some reason, homosexuals think their case warrants distinction. Attraction, or just general infatuations with anything are developed over time. Increased exposure to an idea, place, or thing or a particular interest sparked by a subject for a particularly profound reason at a particularly influencing moment can define someone. It's difficult to neigh impossible to really define the process of developing attraction, but Occam's Razor suggests that it's an environmentally based phenomenon. For instance, with homosexuality's increasing tendency to saturate the media as a "born that way" social group, there will be an inevitable spike in the number of "born that way" homosexuals. If the "born that way" argument were true, there would be no such spike.

@Spahettificator Again, you are misdefining "common sense." It's not a general understanding of what facts are. It's an analysis of the self-evident based on empirical facts; two people of the same sex cannot couple since their anatomies are incompatible. Based on this fact, it is empirically evident that something's wrong under the hood. Whether it's mental or gene-based will not change that, however there is nothing proven that speaks towards the idea that it's genes as opposed to an infatuation. Scientific study is not conducive to evidence or proof. I've pointed this out multiple times. I repeat: On one hand, if I were to entertain the idea that they're right, it would simply mean that a wire is crossed in the brains of homosexuals since their attractions run counter to the nature of their own bodies. On the other hand, if I identify that it's a disorder, it's STILL a crossed wire that just involves a different field of medicine. "I pointed out that Aristotle could have confirmed his suspicions with a very simple experiment." Again. That is not the point. He assumed confirmation without actually having evidence of confirmation. That is not common sense. By your logic, the truth would have never been discovered. Two people of the same-sex are sexually incompatible. That is common sense. No amount of time passed or pseudo-studies on hormones and microbiology is going to change that. Please, by all means, try and tell me that-that incompatibility is not common sense.

@rat-fish "You seem to believe homosexuals are not born the way they are." Throughout this discussion, I've made it crystal clear that-that is my point of view and have gone at length to explain why. I think this is the third or fourth time you've asked me to reiterate my position.

"Ah, the old "I will ignore evidence contrary to my beliefs" method of debate. " Not ignoring it. I've just seen it all before. And I've addressed the whole 'biological makeup' numerous times throughout this thread explaining the fallacy behind identifying these studies as empirical evidence when they haven't actually proven anything or even dispelled the fact that homosexuals go against the grain of their own physicality. On one hand, if I were to entertain the idea that they're right, it would simply mean that a wire is crossed in the brains of homosexuals since their attractions run counter to the nature of their own bodies. On the other hand, if I identify that it's a disorder, it's STILL a crossed wire that simply involves a different field of medicine. You on the other hand, have been going out of your way to avoid commentary on anatomical correctness...Running scared really. If you wanna discuss something, then fine. But I'm not gonna play a game of copy/paste just because you can't argue the principle implications of homosexuality.

@Spahettificator "Anybody could have tested Aristotle's theory" Which has nothing to do with my point. Aristotle was missing factors he hadn't considered. You, on the other hand, are inventing abstract factors that you can't confirm and can only assign credibility to by quoting credentials. "I think that unless you have scientific evidence supporting your point" In other words, you are incapable of arriving at your own conclusion because you know that common sense speaks against the idea that he's growing up in a balanced environment. Let the record show that I offered you a scenario to mull over and you completely ignored it.

@Spahettificator Post as many articles as you like. None of them have actually proven that hormones have anything to due with sexual attraction or gender identity. It is just as easily applied to a mental issue due solely on the merit that their attractions run counter to the nature of their own bodies. That fact alone makes the "born that way" argument irrelevant as it completely ignores the issue of how the behavior goes against their basic physiology.

@Ralphy 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 picture of future. I didn't watch your video. If you can't put your point into words, than a video isn't going to do it any better. "Unique" perspectives are not generally correct ones. You're only assuming that because the child is put in the middle of an unorthodox relationship that it's given 'the whole story and then some' on both sexes. But that's a counter intuitive point to make since the child only has confirmed long term exposure to one of the sexes. Essentially, it attempts to argue that the outlier scenario is MORE typical than the typical scenario--which is utterly absurd. Even if you find an instance where this is the case, based on the itinerary you cannot assume it's somehow better than a dual sex interaction.

@Spahettificator You are completely misdefining common sense. It has little to do with how long a certain perception is held and more to do with what you perceive and can confirm. For example: Aristotle made the judgment call that the heavier object would fall faster based on the fact that things descend and that people are weighted down by heavy things. However, there was no self-evident means for him to prove this. The reality is that he just made an assumption as a scholar and everyone just rolled with it, not finding a debate to be relevant--same with the earth: people only thought it was flat because they hadn't yet traveled a certain distance around it, in which case it would be common sense that it's not flat. Common sense essentially requires that you have all the factors in the decision making process. If you want to apply it to what you're talking about, you're assuming the mere existence of factors we can't actually see solely because your argument needs to rely on the more abstract and unconfirmed aspects of biology to be accepted as credible. "Also, your "explanation" lacked any actual scientific evidence." A boy grows up exclusively around women. Never meets or spends a prolonged amount of time with a man. You think he'll grow up with a proper and balanced understanding of his own sex?

@Zeketra "Well of course im angry at you for thinking my existence is wrong, why do you find it so hard to believe that??" It's not that I believe you're existence is wrong. I believe that your behavior is wrong and that you're under the false impression that you have no hand in behaving this way. That's been my push for the past 15 pages. Your existence and your behavior are mutually exclusive. @yoda4928 "...Except that theres examples of it in nature, don't believe me? Look it up." There's also examples of cross-species attempts to breed in "nature" as well. Does that mean we should approve of bestiality or say that it doesn't work against nature? The phrase "work against nature" refers to the fact that the practice doesn't actually yield any results. Not that other animals haven't been seeing doing it. Animals, after all, have disorders as well.....Or they're just really desperate for sex. I'll never understand why people try and use the animal kingdom to justify the practice of homosexuality in humans. It only works against them.

.....WCK619, I get the feeling that you're taking this opportunity to sound offended and go on a diatribe simply because you can. You really have nothing else to add here, but you're paranoid about not getting a final word in. I mean.....Really?