This whole conversation started because YOU stated that sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) was not genetic.
and this is why this has lasted this long.
Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (hom- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic. I said there was no sexual orientation gene. Big difference. No wonder you continue to argue, becuase you completely missed what I said.
LOL you are clueless man. I stated male and female is genetic. Do you deny that? I sure hope not, it is called an x and y chromosome. Since my argument that heterosexuality is the natural way, then there is no contradiction. You make me laugh at your inability to reason this out. I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic. Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic. I state that it is not, but that those things that show heterosexuality as natural/biological CAN be found in our genes. Then now you are all confused thinking there is a contradiction when there is not. I still contend that there is no gene for sexual orientation. I also contend that heterosexuality is natural and biological. I also contend that our makeup of male and female IS genetic. There is no contradiction there. Sorry you can't read.
And then to address you point on Leviticus 20. I will give you a pass since you yourself stated you know very little about the bible. But the book of leviticus is a book of law given by God, to the nation of Israel. It is the establishment of national law. Nowhere is leviticus 20 purporting that God is to carry out those punishments. Those are laws given to the government of the nation to carry out. Much like America's death penalty. Those laws are for our system to carry out accordingly. Not any individual, and not God. God stated many times in the bible that vengeance belongs to him and that he is longsuffering with sin until the day of judgment. None of the declarations of death penalty in the hebrew law were ever to be carried out by God in this life. They were for establishing law and order within the nation of Israel. God's judgment comes later.
um, right. Try again maybe.....This is just one example. Ready to agree on the contradiction yet?
^Correctamundo.
/thread?
And everybody already knows that you are an idiot

LOL, thanks for proving how dumb you are....and stubborn.
You are attempting to find out where I said, and I quote, "sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality is genetic"
And here is the quote you provided:
I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic. Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic. I state that it is not,
Are you really dumb enough to say those are equal statements?
If so, this discussion is beyond over. In fact, the statement you quoted to attempt to prove your point is the OPPOSITE of saying "sexual orientation is genetic". This quote says it is NOT genetic. LOL
Way to go moron.
OMG you are stupid. Read the make sweet sensuous lovein quotes Ohio:
Your last quote:
"Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (hom- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic." You state that YOU NEVER said that homo- and heterosexuality was NOT genetic. Right, can you understand your own statement? It's a double negative dummy.
Your previous quote:
"I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not)
therefore homosexuality is not genetic. Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic. I state that it is not,"
You clearly state that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Then you state that heterosexuality is NOT genetic.
Are you make sweet sensuous loveing blind? I wasn't trying to show where you stated it WAS genetic because that would agree with your double negative. I showed where you stated that it WAS NOT genetic, which is the OPPOSITE of your double negative.
Can you follow that yet? Do you need a lesson on double negatives in a sentence?
So, clearly you contradicted your previous statement. You see, if were half the expert you contend to be on the matter you would not be contradicting yourself all over the place. Holy make sweet sensuous love, you can't read your own IRS, you can't understand a double negative, how the make sweet sensuous love are you gaining respect here when you IRS all over everyone else for their ability to understand what has been written. You are beyond make sweet sensuous loveing stupid. You have dug such a deep hole that you have no idea how to get out of it.
Do you see it yet? Huh? Do you? un-make sweet sensuous loveing-believeable!
lol your ignorance baffles me.
the quote you used, "I NEVER said sexual orientation was not genetic" was a response to you saying that I said "sexual orientation was not genetic". Go back and read the tread. As such, all I said was that I never said that quote. It is not a double negative, just a singe negative saying I didn't say what you claimed I said.
Leave it to you to attempt such a lame argument to attempt to put words in my mouth. But can I expect more from someone who has yet to put a quote in its context before analyzing it?
So let me start over for you briefly so your brain can catch up to the context.
1. I said there is no gene for sexual orientation.
2. This massive argument took place because you're a douche.
3. You then attempt to claim that I said "sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) is not genetic."
4. I respond by saying that I NEVER said what you claimed I said because stating "there is no gene for sexual orientation" and saying "sexual orientation is not genetic" are not the same thing.
5. Now you try to take that quote out of context and act like YOUR quote that I had to respond to, is mine.
See yet that you are an idiot?
The problem we have here is that you still don't understand #4 above. I am convinced you think those two quotes mean the same thing. And that is why this argument continues. If you could grasp the fact that those two quotes mean two different things, you would be able to comprehend that there was no contradiction.
But I am done arguing with you about it. If you aren't bright enough to get it yet, you never will be. I have made it as simple as possible. You just can't grasp the concept. It is what it is.