[blah blah blah]
So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no *** or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality.
[blah blah blah]
So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.
Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.
a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can.
b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.
I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a **** who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a *******, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.
But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.
And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.
There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.
"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough *** people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]