Richard Miller wrote:

I have never claimed that my statement has evidential significance.
However, it drew attention to facts that everyone can and does observe
for themselves, namely that the backgrounds of homosexuals are many and
varied, which fundamentally undermines any suggestion that environment
is a significant factor in someone being gay.

No you didn't!

Yes I did.

Look again (above) "I have never claimed that my statement has
evidential significance ..."

[Answer] "No you didn't!"

If you are going to enter into discussion with someone, at least do
them the courtesy of reading and thinking about what they say!

However, read it:

"We are how we are born, straight or gay. Environment seems to have no
bearing on it whatsoever"

It embraces a gigantic assumption of fact.

No it doesn't. It embraces an obvious observation that everyone can
make, which I spelt out in a different post when it became clear that
you had proved unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly obvious: namely
that the infinitely varied environments from which gay people emerge
prove that environment is not a determinative factor. If you can point
to something other than genetic make-up or environment that might cause
people to be gay, please do feel free to share it.

Homosexuals come for the same environment as the rest of us.

It's
ludicrous to suggest that our environment has no consequences for our
eventual behavioural outcomes. It is just as ludicrous to suggest that
a particular behavioural trait will emerge unless the individuals
concerned pass through a very similar enviromental experience. Let's
take for instance violent and abusive behaviour. Individuals reared
within a violent abusive environment show a statistically significant
tendancy to become violent and abusive. A large number of studies come
to that same solution. However, those who understand the notion of
statistical significance will be the first to tell you that statistical
signficance is not synominous with inevitability. There do exist
individuals (in fact most) who have been reared in such an environment
who do not exit such traits. Similarly there are some (though not many)
who exhibit these traits who have not suffered such a background. It
might appear that, on the one hand wider social experience has
compensated for unfortunate circumstance and on the other the product
of a fortunate situation has been corrupted.

As I see it there seems to be no reason at all why this argument cannot
be expanded to cover all aspect of social behaviour.

There is no study I know of that in fact can point to any factor
whether genetic, social or pschological that can be described as the
prime determinant of homosexual behaviour.

I point to this link that seems to illustrate this position admirably.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html

But if you are challenging what I have said, then by definition you must
believe that it is incorrect.

Yes but only by virtue of, as I have said, the fact that it stands
unsupported.

In the meantime, you are ignoring the fact that gay people come from
every conceivable environment, from the permissive to the deeply
homophobic, so that background does not appear to have any impact on the
issue. Why do you disagree?

First I would suggest that such a continuum as you appear to suggest to
be almost completely facile. I cannot see the question of homosexuality
being of prime concern in all or even many families.

Second if it were as simple as that then there would be no issue.

It clearly is not determined by environment. If it did, there would be a
common element in the environment of all gay people that you could point
to, and there certainly isn't, so what do you think does cause it?

Unfortunately the same could be said for your genetic argument which,
unfortunately you go a long way towards destroying that when you say it
is matterless (I paraphrase) whether our parents (and presumably any
genetic antecedent) in relation as to whether that person is gay or
not. Surely we can agree that every genetic characteristic we possess
we acquire from these people.

There's a gaping hole in your argument there.

But if " We are how we are born, straight or gay. Environment seems to
have no bearing on it whatsoever" held true then the sexual orientation
of the parents would indeed be of relevance.

How, and why?

Because, presumably, homosexuals like anyone else take 50% of their
genetic inheritance from each parent.

I did present a view a little time ago challenging the oft stated a
priori assumption that all too often is presented in arguments on these
matters that homosexuals are born such. My challenge was supported on
the pretext or otherwise that man is a learning animal and so such a
notion is in itself controversial since essentially all behaviour
including sexual behaviour must as a consequence be learned.

Further if homosexual behaviour were in fact genetically predetermined,
then it would be unlikely that it would be confined to a single species
and so should be easily observable in nature. I suggested that overall
(a word that seems to give trouble to some) homosexual behaviour would
seem to be entirely absent in the natural context.

As regards you teaching, this would be an active process. I don't go as
far as that but, of course I don't exclude the possibility either.
Learning however, is not necessarily a product of teaching.

Now if the notion that "homosexuals are born" is "based on fact" then
it would seem as though I have missed something along the way. To say
something so definite there must be some definitive study somewhere
that has passed me by.

I would be anxious to be brought back 'on track'

In message <1169373569.041324.230760@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
thedarkman <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> writes

I was waiting for a train at Kings Cross the other night and these two
faggots kissed each other goodbye on the lips. Some of these people
have no shame.

I don't hold with the stereotypes of homosexuals that some people do
but I wish they'd get back in the closet instead of shouting the "love"
that dare not speak its name from the rooftops.

No, it is certainly not right that they adopt; this would inevitable
lead to kids being indoctrinated into the "gay" lifestyle.

Alex, virtually every gay child is brought up in a heterosexual
environment. If your claim had any basis in fact, there would be no gay
people. We are how we are born, straight or gay. Environment seems to
have no bearing on it whatsoever.

I was waiting for a train at Kings Cross the other night and these two
faggots kissed each other goodbye on the lips. Some of these people
have no shame.

I don't hold with the stereotypes of homosexuals that some people do
but I wish they'd get back in the closet instead of shouting the "love"
that dare not speak its name from the rooftops.

No, it is certainly not right that they adopt; this would inevitable
lead to kids being indoctrinated into the "gay" lifestyle.

shouting the "love"
that dare not speak its name from the rooftops.

I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination)

When I see g*ys on the street, holding hands and kissing, I want to
vomit on the pavement.

With their 'two daddies' mincing around the house, slapping each others
bottoms, spreading AIDS everywhere...

What is far more dangerous is world
being over-run by AIDS infected butt fucking queers.

I am not homophobic (by any stretch of the imagination)