Actually Term, I said there is no gene for sexual orientation. Then had you even bothered to read my later posts, I went on to explain how genetic and biological are two different things. Here, I am now saying heterosexuality is biological. Nowhere did I say it was genetic. I have NOT contradicted myself, nor lost credibility. If anyone lost credibility here it is you for your lack of reading comprehension and your misunderstanding the difference between genetic and biological (although DDD has lost a lot of credibility as well for holding to the ignorant notion that all human law is based on productivity).
I did read your posts and that's where I found your contradiction. I understand what I read and I have found the contradiction. You stated that it's biological and not genetic. I didn't disagree with you. But then you stated that it's genetic. Which is it??
It's right here:
interesting theory, but too bad there does not exist a homosexual gene. you can't really call it genetic then can you?
I like how without any reason whatsoever you just dismissed a topic that to this day is still vastly researched within the scientific community.
lolwut?
The human genome has been mapped.
There does not exist a sexual orientation gene. Where is the debate? I simply stated a scientific fact.
Where did I state that heterosexuality wasn't biological? I merely asked you to define it. I expected you of all people to respond according to what I wrote Ohio

You failed me
I was referring to your statement when K said parents are male and female and your response to that was that that argument pointed to environment not biology. So I did respond to what you wrote, but since I came in long after you had addressed me and the discussion had shifted by the time I got here, I decided to respond to the current discussion rather than a stale one. You asked if there is no gene for homosexuality, then how is heterosexuality biological. I just explained how it was.
There are many genes for male and female. Clearly heterosexuality is in our genes.I didn't argue what was written in the bible Ohio. I merely stated that there are probably (and I've taken a gander) a number of statements in the bible which most people would consider ludicrous and not follow in this day and age. Therefore, people have decided that some of God's word is not relevant, but how can you pick and choose? How can you choose to believe what has been said about homosexuality, but not what is said about grapes for example?
Hate to break it to you, but I believe all of the bible, in it's proper context, is still relevant today. So I would agree with you that people who pick and choose from the bible what to follow and what not to follow are hypocrites. So your point is lost on me.
And in terms of interpretation, you, being a lawyer, can't honestly state that there is no interpretation required. We are supposed to take all statements in the bible at face value? I'm curious to hear your answer on this one.
Ah, but I didn't say no interpretation required, but rather it isn't open to private interpretation. That means there is only one right way to read it and all others are wrong. It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation. The bible says what it means and means what it says. I don't know why you are so curious to hear that answer. It is so basic. I believe every word of the bible is truth. It is the word of God, and as such is without error.
So while you may try to use the argument that many people who claim to believe the bible but don't really in order to make a point, it will get nowhere with me. I am not one of those people.
I bolded the two statements for you so that you could read and hopefully comprehend your two contradicting statements.