And now I tire of this. Let it be the last post.

This whole argument has been about your debating homosexuality as a biological element. I swear, you're dense as **** and can't spell.

This from he who has yet to produce any proof, conclusive or otherwise.

Homosexuality is as natural (and as much a choice) as being born with black skin, or red hair.

Then why is it you keep referring to their reaction to men as either classic or operant conditioning.

Then if it's biological, why would you claim homosexuality is a choice?

Biological differences, pheromone differences, just differences between men and women in general?

Disprove what? The whole damn wiki page?

Yes, please display all the proof you never show.

Fine. I acknowledge a folly on my part. But answer me this: How could the male brain be trained to react to certain pheromones if homosexuality was actively discourage throughout history?

EDIT: Actually, I'm going to call you out on your bull****.
I am familiar with Parlov's dag. It's an excellent example of psychology at work. It is not, however, in any way supportive of your argument. It goes back to classical conditioning, the training of someone to react in a certain way to a certain stimulus. You still haven't explained what could have trained homosexual men to react in a certain way, especially in a society that condemns same-sex acts.

It only remains unconfirmed due to the results of the female tests being "complicated."

Now, disprove something.

Exactly as I said, instincts changing based on consequences.
Same thing. If homosexuality was caused by either form of conditioning... it couldn't be, since it was regarded as obscene up until recent history. Unless your definition somehow holds more truth than the actual one, please feel free to correct me.

And I was not aware that the study mentioned female subjects. How is it you can hold back that which does not exist? So feel free to explain it in a way that the nuts of the world will accept.

The conditioned sexual response would be for a man to experience that type of reaction around a woman, since that is what we groom them for. Were we conditioning them to be gay, households would be much different. So no, not classical or operant conditioning. Were homosexuality at all the result of operant conditioning--well, it wouldn't exist. Until recently, it was taboo and obscene.

And I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that scientific studies were inconclusive, especially the ones that have results.

The scientific world would have a load of fun with you.

And it does prove something. It proves that homosexual men respond differently to men than straight men do on a biological level.

Yes I will bring it the **** up. There is no conclusive evidence as to how the universe was created, yet it is discussed all the time. Would you ban the topic, simply because it lacks conclusive evidence?

Strange, I don't recall mentioning lesbians in that message.

Tell me, are you a moron? Illiterate? Do you remember my pointing out it wasn't conclusive? But here, proof that the brains of homosexual men react differently to different pheromones. Different, but not unrelated.

Then perhaps you should go back and read where I mentioned that one aspect of your sexuality is decided at birth.

Same could be said of you.

There is no conclusive evidence, but for something like homosexuality, there hardly needs to be. One simply needs to ask the question: Would you choose to be gay in a world that seeks to oppress you?

I brought it up fully aware that it was inconclusive, only that it presented one of the possibilities. Homosexuality as a choice is supported by the religious community, not the scientific one.

Oh the irony. He who never presents proof is critical of others who are aware the proof they are presenting is not conclusive.

Read it again.

I brought up that homosexuality is decided in part by hormones.

Then I misinterpreted.

Then it would appear you did not read my previous message.

That ended in my favor. Only one comment I made could be interpreted otherwise.

And you possess even less of a chance.

But I'm glad to be done with it.

Good day.

Women do not have to be physically aroused in order to participate in sex. That role belongs to the men.
I was not talking about sex..........

I am apparently the only one who read it.

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic,

From the page Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual


Some are born with the idea killing is okay. If they are born with it, like lets say homosexuality how is it "unnatural"
You "forgot" this one

You've yet to shut down any of my points, .
Really?Wwhat happened to ignorance and irony?


You do realize we are pointlessly going back and forth for nothing really.
Its just a signature and i was joking. Get over it, or whatever we're arguing about now. Cause you cant win.......no seriously, you cant.