Okay, let me break it down for you guys. Geneticists have proven that there is in fact, NO kechua GENE. Given that fact, we can deduce that sexual orientation is NOT genetic bt is in fact influenced by societal/ environmental factors.

/thread/

This is exactly what Ohio stated and then he went on to state that even though heterosexuality isn't genetic, it's in the genes because we naturally need a woman and man to procreate.
@Ohio, I never stated that homosexuality was genetic. I never stated that heterosexuality was genetic. I haven't re-read my posts in the last hour but I don't remember making any statements about nature vs nurture. I was just asking you questions. This whole conversation started because YOU stated that sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) was not genetic. Then you stated that heterosexuality was in the genes. Definite contradiction. You were purposely trying to lead the reader to believe that heterosexuality (even though you stated it wasn't genetic) was more genetic than homosexuality, which supports your beliefs because you don't like homosexuality. Then you tried to back it up by deducing that heterosexuality was more genetic because you need a man and woman to procreate. One has nothing to do with the other. Therefore, your deductive reasoning is flawed, which means your statement about "in the genes" can only mean that it is genetic. That's what my deductive reasoning joke was showing you. Just because you don't have a dog it doesn't mean you are kechua.
So, since your logic is flawed (which I pointed out before) your contention that "in the genes" is not the same as genetic is incorrect. You have no valid logic to back up your argument. That's why the contradiction still exists. Feel free to provide valid logic and stating your beliefs is not valid either.