Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Also, don't you think he's getting so much less attention than John Paul did? It's like everyone is waiting for him to die so we can see the smoke blow again.

I've been told he's what's commonly called a 'transitional Pope', which is why he's so old. Basically, he's there to hold the reins for a while until the Catholic Church has time to pull itself together and pick its new, serious leader.

But I'm not an expert on Catholicism and I wouldn't venture the person who told me this is either.

Originally posted by Whobdamandog
Clearly you want to get into a game of semantics, even though you've been proven wrong multiple times on this subject. Regardless of what government we're referring to..whether it be the "exiled government" the occupational government..etc..its clearly apparent..that both "governments" clearly classify Buddhism as a RELIGION my friend.
Doesn't matter what your "God" the Dalai Lama thinks..unfortunately..on this earth, his opinion does not out weigh that of the those who govern him. End of that discussion.

We'll pretend for a moment that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of state of an exiled Tibetan government (which is a non-secular government, obviously).

Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.

I'm sure you would disagree.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Clearly you want to get into a game of semantics, even though you've been proven wrong multiple times on this subject. Regardless of what government we're referring to..whether it be the "exiled government" the occupational government..etc..its clearly apparent..that both "governments" clearly classify Buddhism as a RELIGION my friend.
Doesn't matter what your "God" the Dalai Lama thinks..unfortunately..on this earth, his opinion does not out weigh that of the those who govern him. End of that discussion.

How either government classifies Buddhism is irrelevant because:

[list=1][*]No government is an authority on a belief system.

[*]Neither government is a "Buddhist government."[/list]

Originally posted by Wanderer259
We'll pretend for a moment that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of state of an exiled Tibetan government (which is a non-secular government, obviously).
Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.
I'm sure you would disagree.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
They don't contain logical errors Adam..you just have little ability nor substantive evidence to rebut them.

Refer to the above.

More mumbo jumbo..refer to the above. The fallacy was used correctly, but regardless, that's really not the topic of the thread. Your only reason in continuing this minor argument is to take away from the fact that your points on Buddhism, Homosexuality have been so sorely whipped. But do carry on with this argument if you must..everybody's gotta feel good about something

Really? In the past 5 pages you have managed to commit at least one of each of the following logical errors: Hasty Generalization, Irrelevant Conclusion, incorrect use of a logic fallacy, Slothful Induction, Ad Hominem Abusive, incorrect facts, False Dichotomy, false premise, unsubstantiated claim, and Appeal to Authority.

🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I know your not going to like this..but the Ol lexicographer from the dictionary don't agree with you again..
I don't see anything about emotions or psychological in the defintion buddy.

One's sexual orientation is something that is clearly related to "the desire to perform sexual acts"..not emotions my friend.

let me guess what's going to come next Adam..oh I know..

Logic fallacy of appeal to authority..the lexicographers are not more qualified than the Dhali Lama or Adam Poe..

Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority and recognizing it before it is pointed out to you. In case you need further explanation, lexicographers define words by their usage, not by their meanings. This means that a dictionary is only an authority on how words are used within a language.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
We'll pretend for a moment that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of state of an exiled Tibetan government (which is a non-secular government, obviously).
Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.
I'm sure you would disagree.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I don't know much about the study..perhaps you could go into detail and let us know exactly what their conclusions were..etc. giving chromsome numbers does little to nothing in substantiating your argument if you don't give us all the information..it just makes it seem as if you are leaving information out.

I went so far as to not only indicate the University that conducted the study, but to identify the exact chromosomes they identified in their study. How much more specific does it need to be before it is acceptable to you?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Again, you show that you chose to ignore logic and facts. The article doesn't need to point out that the bird didn't just climb on the back of another female bird, and hump it...but it needs to say that the two female birds made passionate sexual gestures over and over in a hot freenzy of lesbian bird love? Please, you're ridiculous. Not only does it point out their behavior, but it says that these events take place during their mating seasons...and they ignore opposite-sex mates. Maybe now you should post a link to one of your religious websites that says that science makes up the facts that support it's argument.

Facts are facts jack, and in spite of them, you stick your head in the sand and pretend you don't understand or refuse to accept that you're wrong. And that you have been proven wrong on almost every topic in which you chose to take part.

My best friend's dog used to like to put crap in it's mouth and eat it. It also liked to lick urine off the ground, and howl at the moon, and chase cars that drive by. Am I to equate human activities..to these type of behaviors as well? I don't think so.

Dominant and coupling among animals..is not new information. It's just re-interpreted information. The major problem is that "facts" are interpreted many different ways. It hasn't been until recent years, that "observed" sexual behavior in animals was even deemed "homosexual." Many scientists today..have grown up in a different cultural age..and let their own "personal views and biases" conflict with what's objectively observed.

Still..equating animal sexual behavior to human behavior is beyond the point..there is no conclusive scientific evidence which even supports homosexuality as being "genetic" in humans. This is a fact my friend.
Stating that you saw a female bird stand on the back of another female bird, does not make "homosexuality" anymore a genetic condition in humans.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
I've been told he's what's commonly called a 'transitional Pope', which is why he's so old. Basically, he's there to hold the reins for a while until the Catholic Church has time to pull itself together and pick its new, serious leader.

But I'm not an expert on Catholicism and I wouldn't venture the person who told me this is either.

It's interesting that people are posting pictures of the Pope, as if it's going to affect my argument. Personally, as I've stated in many other threads. I don't believe in Roman Catholicism being true "Christianity."
Nor do I believe the Pope as being the Supreme "authority" of Christian doctrine. Many ritualistic/paganistic practices adpoted by Roman Catholicism were taken from the ancient Romans..including the "deified" Kingly priests, praying to saints, confessing sins to a priest, etc.

These practices go directly against scripture. Still Roman Catholicism..in my humble opinion, did serve but one good purpose. That being the start of the Protestant Reformation..which allowed the true spoken word of God to be spread to people all over the earth.

We'll pretend for a moment that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of state of an exiled Tibetan government (which is a non-secular government, obviously).

Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.

Silly logic bud. Adam Poe's argument has been that only the Dalai Lama can determine what his belief system can be defined as. That's a silly argument. The Dalai Lama's spoken word has no authority over other's interpretation of what his "belief system" can be represented as. Simple as that.

Anyway..I believe you all are missing the point a bit here. Aside from the multiple definitions I've given you all that support the Buddhsim being a religion. (ie the Dictionary, the very Tibetan government webstie..are obviously authoritative sources) All religions..are just philosopies"..or ways that individuals live their lives. It's that simple. When one starts following a "life philosophy" with zeal and devotion..it becomes a religion. Not hard to understand.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How either government classifies Buddhism is irrelevant because:

[list=1][*]No government is an authority on a belief system.

[*]Neither government is a "Buddhist government."[/list]

So the exiled Tibetan government is not a "Buddhist government"..lol..🙄..give it up bud. You are clearly making yourself look more foolish with this argument. Taken from the Tibetan government's own website..and Office of "his holiness" the Dalai Lama.

This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.

Under Tibet's Kings and the Dalai Lamas, we had a political system that was firmly rooted in our spiritual values. As a result, peace and happiness prevailed in Tibet.

"his holiness" is not a term used to denote the leader of a "secular" government my friend. Neither is the term spiritual Wonderer at least conceeded to the goverment being "non-secular." I have no idea why you refuse to do the same. But it is funny that you continue to argue this point..even though you are arguing against the very "God" you worship...😆

Really? In the past 5 pages you have managed to commit at least one of each of the following logical errors: Hasty Generalization, Irrelevant Conclusion, incorrect use of a logic fallacy, Slothful Induction, Ad Hominem Abusive, incorrect facts, False Dichotomy, false premise, unsubstantiated claim, and Appeal to Authority.

🙄

What a childish and poor rebuttal. Your response in this post is equivalent to a little child plugging their ears, humming a little song and stating.."I can't hear you..I can't hear you...🙄

Continuing to mis-use debate logic, in a vain attempt to give yourself some credibility is silly, but as I stated before..continue on. It's the only thing you have at this point.

Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Appeal to Authority and recognizing it before it is pointed out to you. In case you need further explanation, lexicographers define words by their usage, not by their meanings. This means that a dictionary is only an authority on how words are used within a language.

So is the Dalai wrong as well Adam. Not only do you have a problem with the dictionary's lexicographers..but you also have a problem with what's written on "his holiness's" own website? Again bud, you're being silly.

I went so far as to not only indicate the University that conducted the study, but to identify the exact chromosomes they identified in their study. How much more specific does it need to be before it is acceptable to you?

Well Adam..the idea is for you to explain as to how the chromosonal references, link an individual to being deemed "gay." You haven't done this yet my friend. You just threw out some random information..without going into specifics. Go for it buddy. The floor is now yours.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
My best friend's dog used to like to put crap in it's mouth and eat it. It also liked to lick urine off the ground, and howl at the moon, and chase cars that drive by. Am I to equate human activities..to these type of behaviors as well? I don't think so.

Dominant and coupling among animals..is not new information. It's just re-interpreted information. The major problem is that "facts" are interpreted many different ways. It hasn't been until recent years, that "observed" sexual behavior in animals was even deemed "homosexual." Many scientists today..have grown up in a different cultural age..and let their own "personal views and biases" conflict with what's objectively observed.

Still..equating animal sexual behavior to human behavior is beyond the point..there is no conclusive scientific evidence which even supports homosexuality as being "genetic" in humans. This is a fact my friend.
Stating that you saw a female bird stand on the back of another female bird, does not make "homosexuality" anymore a genetic condition in humans.

Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of the Straw Man. No one stated that the occurrence of homosexuality in nature is proof that homosexuality is genetic. What was stated is that the occurrence of homosexuality in nature is proof that it is natural. Stop misrepresenting arguments.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
It's interesting that people are posting pictures of the Pope, as if it's going to affect my argument. Personally, as I've stated in many other threads. I don't believe in Roman Catholicism being true "Christianity."
Nor do I believe the Pope as being the Supreme "authority" of Christian doctrine. Many ritualistic/paganistic practices adpoted by Roman Catholicism were taken from the ancient Romans..including the "deified" Kingly priests, praying to saints, confessing sins to a priest, etc.

These practices go directly against scripture. Still Roman Catholicism..in my humble opinion, did serve but one good purpose. That being the start of the Protestant Reformation..which allowed the true spoken word of God to be spread to people all over the earth.

According to you, Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity? What qualifies you as an authority on who is and is not a true Christian?

Since you believe Dictionary.com to be the ultimate authority on all things, you would be interested to know how Dictionary.com defines "Roman Catholic":

Dictionary.com

Ro·man Cath·o·lic n.

[list=1][*]a member of the Roman Catholic Church

[*]The Christian Church based in the Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy.[/list]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Silly logic bud. Adam Poe's argument has been that only the Dalai Lama can determine what his belief system can be defined as. That's a silly argument. The Dalai Lama's spoken word has no authority over other's interpretation of what his "belief system" can be represented as. Simple as that.

Nice evasion. Answer the question:

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.

I'm sure you would disagree.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..I believe you all are missing the point a bit here. Aside from the multiple definitions I've given you all that support the Buddhsim being a religion. (ie the Dictionary, the very Tibetan government webstie..are obviously authoritative sources) All religions..are just philosopies"..or ways that individuals live their lives. It's that simple. When one starts following a "life philosophy" with zeal and devotion..it becomes a religion. Not hard to understand.

None of the definitions you provided are authoritative.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So the exiled Tibetan government is not a "Buddhist government"..lol..🙄..give it up bud. You are clearly making yourself look more foolish with this argument. Taken from the Tibetan government's own website..and Office of "his holiness" the Dalai Lama.

"his holiness" is not a term used to denote the leader of a "secular" government my friend. Neither is the term [b]spiritual Wonderer at least conceeded to the goverment being "non-secular." I have no idea why you refuse to do the same. But it is funny that you continue to argue this point..even though you are arguing against the very "God" you worship...😆[/b]

The fact remains that the People's Republic of China is the presiding government of Tibet, and it is a secular government.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What a childish and poor rebuttal. Your response in this post is equivalent to a little child plugging their ears, humming a little song and stating.."I can't hear you..I can't hear you...🙄

Continuing to mis-use debate logic, in a vain attempt to give yourself some credibility is silly, but as I stated before..continue on. It's the only thing you have at this point.

You claimed that your arguments are not illogical, so I listed all the logic errors you have made in the last five pages. Now you are simply plugging your ears and saying, "Are not!"

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So is the Dalai wrong as well Adam. Not only do you have a problem with the dictionary's lexicographers..but you also have a problem with what's written on "his holiness's" own website? Again bud, you're being silly.

The last time you resurrected this argument in a thread to challenge my credibility and to distract from your inability to effectively argue, you could not supply a single legitimate quote from the Dalai Lama in which he claims Buddhism to be a religion. Stop presenting half-truths.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well Adam..the idea is for you to explain as to how the chromosonal references, link an individual to being deemed "gay." You haven't done this yet my friend. You just threw out some random information..without going into specifics. Go for it buddy. The floor is now yours.

I cited the results of the study, and that was not adequate; I explained the results of the study, and that was not adequate; I can further explain the science of the study, but I suspect that will not be adequate either, because it will not produce the result that you want. If you want to challenge the findings of the study, do your own research.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one stated that the occurrence of homosexuality in nature is proof that homosexuality is genetic. What was stated is that the occurrence of homosexuality in nature is proof that it is natural.

And the "naturalness" of "homosexuality" has been refuted by these simple points.

[list]
[*]The natural functions of the anus, rectum, and mouth. As well as the inability humans have to reproduce using these organs.
[*]The subjectivity of what is deemed to be "homosexual" behavior in animals.
[*]The lack of conclusive evidence linking homosexuality to genetics.
[*]Evidence which cleary relates homosexual behavior to one's environment and social history.
[*]The choice one makes..each time they engage in such an act.
[/list]

Most of this is common sense stuff bud.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
According to you, Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity? What qualifies you as an authority on who is and is not a true Christian?

Since you believe Dictionary.com to be the ultimate authority on all things, you would be interested to know how Dictionary.com defines "Roman Catholic":

And you accuse me of strawmanning..😆😆

I never stated that Roman Catholicism was not technically "classified" as Christianity Adam. Read the post again. Carefully.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Personally, as I've stated in many other threads. I don't believe in Roman Catholicism being true "Christianity."
Nor do I believe the Pope as being the Supreme "authority" of Christian doctrine. Many ritualistic/paganistic practices adpoted by Roman Catholicism were taken from the ancient Romans..including the "deified" Kingly priests, praying to saints, confessing sins to a priest, etc.
These practices go directly against scripture.

"Personally" means that something is of my own "opinion." Many Protestants actually share my views. Technically speaking however, it is classified as Christianity.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Nice evasion. Answer the question:

I did answer the question..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.

In this particular scenario..not only do we have the government classifying it as a religion. But we also have DICTIONARIES and ENCYCLOPEDIAS classifying it as a religion!!!

Making you look even more foolish, is the fact that the DALAI LAMA'S OWN WEBSITE REFERENCES BUDDHISM AS A RELIGION.

I truly commend your tenacity..but I believe you are letting it delude you from using the God given "common sense" we are inherently instilled with. Then again, far be it from me to make assumptions about the gifts that God has given to you..it could be that "common sense" is something that he never instilled you with...😆

Originally posted by Adam Poe
None of the definitions you provided are authoritative.

The fact remains that the People's Republic of China is the presiding government of Tibet, and it is a secular government.

Again "His Holiness"..the DALAI LAMA..has most of this information relating to the "spirituality" of his government on his website. Take your arguments up with him.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
You claimed that your arguments are not illogical, so I listed all the logic errors you have made in the last five pages. Now you are simply plugging your ears and saying, "Are not!"

Adam you're strawmanning and making false/silly allegations, because as always..your arguments have little to stand on. Really..is this the best you can do to rebut my arguments on the topic of HOMOSEXUALITY. If so..then this is quite pitiful bud. You only make yourself look more pathetic with each attempt to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
The last time you resurrected this argument in a thread to challenge my credibility and to distract from your inability to effectively argue, you could not supply a single legitimate quote from the Dalai Lama in which he claims Buddhism to be a religion. Stop presenting half-truths.

Adam..I was in no way attempting to detract from the initial topic bud. This actually all started with Backfire/Tpt..attempting to "damage my credibility" regarding the use of debate logic. I simply just gave BF an example, of how debate logic is mis-used for those who have poor argumentation skills.

You both haven't made any real substantive points against any of my positions on HOMOSEXUALITY. The only things you have done, however, is diverge from the initial topic of the thread. Sad thing is..you've both been proven wrong multiple times during these "strawman" arguments, and the only credibility you've damaged is your own.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
I cited the results of the study, and that was not adequate; I explained the results of the study, and that was not adequate; I can further explain the science of the study, but I suspect that will not be adequate either, because it will not produce the result that you want. If you want to challenge the findings of the study, do your own research.

You have given no indication/background information of how the study was conducted.

You have given no indication as to what the results revealed in relation to Homosexuality.

You have given no indication if the study even involved humans!!!

And I doubt you will bud...because you're just trying to mislead and confuse the masses..which is what "people" like you do best. You never put anything credible on the table..you just throw out a few random numbers/studies to support your "personal/moral agenda", and then pray to your "Gods" in hopes that no one will catch you in a lie. Truly pathetic my friend. If this is the best that you can come up with..then I definately will have pity for you..when you've revealed the worst.

Adam..I was in no way attempting to detract from the initial topic bud. This actually all started with Backfire/Tpt..attempting to "damage my credibility" regarding the use of debate logic. I simply just gave BF an example, of how debate logic is mis-used for those who have poor argumentation skills.

You both haven't made any real substantive points against any of my positions on HOMOSEXUALITY. The only things you have done, however, is diverge from the initial topic of the thread. Sad thing is..you've both been proven wrong multiple times during these "strawman" arguments, and the only credibility you've damaged is your own.

Did you not even read my last post directed at you? I told you how your "points" and "evidence" regarding homosexuality being a choice were flawed. I'll go over then again, though.

And I've provided evidence. As mentioned in the previous post.

-Functions of the anus, colon, and mouth.

None of these have anything substantial or directly to do with Homosexuality. You trying to relate them directly to homosexuality is in no way sound, it's irrelevant. And they certainly aren't "evidence" of homosexuality being a choice. This is evidence of anal sex, and oral sex being a choice, neither of which are exclusive to homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex, it's not JUST the act of sex.

-Scientific studies which were inconclusive regarding homosexuality being related to "genetics."

Once again, this statement commits the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. A lack of proof for one side of an argument is not evidence of the opposite. You should know this since 5 posts earlier you attempted to call someone on this fallacy. Of course, you chose to ignore this earlier when I pointed it out, so I'll assume you'll do the same here.

-those who engage in homosexuality having experienced child/emotional/sexual abuse. As well as coming from broken homes.

This is simply strange. It's a grand assumption as well as a generalization. You just lump them all together as if they've ALL experienced some sort of abuse during their life, which is simply a lie. There's more people who have been abused in the ways you've listed who have ended up straight. Thus, I could say, using your logic, that heterosexuality is caused by abuse, broken homes, ect. There's also many homosexuals who have never experienced abuse and came from a very loving home.

Again, none of these is evidence for homosexuality being a choice. One is evidence that oral/anal sex itself is a choice and nothing more. Another is evidence that perhaps it isn't genetics that is the reason for homosexuality, of course, that doesn't automatically mean it's a choice, and the last one is evidence of nothing, it's just a flawed and factually incorrect generalization.

Also, I didn't need an example of how debate logic is misused during an argument, there was an example in this thread already with your flawed use of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You claim we've been proven wrong multiple times. Truth is, there is no proof in this thread. You've proven nothing and simply saying "I've proven this" doesn't make it so and is just a lazy and desperate attempt to try and give yourself some credibility. You've proven nothing, if you had truly proven something you would not even need to say that you've proven something, it would be clear for all.

You also claim that I've committed "strawman" arguments (a term you seem to love to use). Please point out specific instances where I've committed the Strawman fallacy, or else stop making lazy and silly blanket accusations at me.

"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom."

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."

"There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks."

"The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category."

"Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

"Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual."

"Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield."

"Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal."

"For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added."

-I don't see any mention of eating feces or licking up piss....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom."

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."

"There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks."

"The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category."

"Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

"Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual."

"Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield."

"Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal."

"For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added."

Applying animal examples to humans is somewhat flawed.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Dominant and coupling among animals..is not new information. It's just re-interpreted information. The major problem is that "facts" are interpreted many different ways. It hasn't been until recent years, that "observed" sexual behavior in animals was even deemed "homosexual." Many scientists today..have grown up in a different cultural age..and let their own "personal views and biases" conflict with what's objectively observed.

Still..equating animal sexual behavior to human behavior is beyond the point..there is no conclusive scientific evidence which even supports homosexuality as being "genetic" in humans. This is a fact my friend.
Stating that you saw a female bird stand on the back of another female bird, does not make "homosexuality" anymore a genetic condition in humans.

It's beyond the point now, that you have been proven wrong.

The genetic debate is not what you were asking for eveidence of, yuou asked for instances where homosexuality occured in nature. It has been provided. You just pretend you don't understand.

I believe in my last post, it sais that these birds you claim just "stand on each others backs as a sign of dominance" were in fact, engaging in behavior that, if observed in human females, would be X-RATED.

Re-interpretation of facts is not relevant either. Sex is sex is sex. Gay sex is gay sex is gay sex....and these animals are participating in gay sex. Not only gay sex, but the "gay lifestyle"..building homes together, rearing young together....

You've been owned

FIN

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Applying animal examples to humans is somewhat flawed.

Why is that? One person in the article I posted agreed with your point. Do you truely believe, that our intelligence removes us from nature, the animal aspect of our history? We are all animals, flesh and blood animals.

Do I enjoy having to compare myself to an osterich to justify myself and others like me? Hell no! I find it insulting. But, he wanted to know what animals display homosexual behavior. He got his answer, and chose to ignore it.

Now, certain animals pair for life. Six years on, those penguins are still together.... hum? I wonder what kind of abuse they suffered at the flippers of their parents? FFS, six years is a hell of a lot longer than any of my relationships.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And the "naturalness" of "homosexuality" has been refuted by these simple points.
· The natural functions of the anus, rectum, and mouth. As well as the inability humans have to reproduce using these organs.
· The subjectivity of what is deemed to be "homosexual" behavior in animals.
· The lack of conclusive evidence linking homosexuality to genetics.
· Evidence which cleary relates homosexual behavior to one's environment and social history.
· The choice one makes..each time they engage in such an act.
Most of this is common sense stuff bud.

Originally posted by BackFire
None of these have anything substantial or directly to do with Homosexuality. You trying to relate them directly to homosexuality is in no way sound, it's irrelevant. And they certainly aren't "evidence" of homosexuality being a choice. This is evidence of anal sex, and oral sex being a choice, neither of which are exclusive to homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex, it's not JUST the act of sex.

Once again, this statement commits the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. A lack of proof for one side of an argument is not evidence of the opposite. You should know this since 5 posts earlier you attempted to call someone on this fallacy. Of course, you chose to ignore this earlier when I pointed it out, so I'll assume you'll do the same here.

This is simply strange. It's a grand assumption as well as a generalization. You just lump them all together as if they've ALL experienced some sort of abuse during their life, which is simply a lie. There's more people who have been abused in the ways you've listed who have ended up straight. Thus, I could say, using your logic, that heterosexuality is caused by abuse, broken homes, ect. There's also many homosexuals who have never experienced abuse and came from a very loving home.

Again, none of these is evidence for choice.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And you accuse me of strawmanning..

I never stated that Roman Catholicism was not technically "classified" as Christianity Adam. Read the post again. Carefully.

"Personally" means that something is of my own "opinion." Many Protestants actually share my views. Technically speaking however, it is classified as Christianity.

I never accused you of stating that Roman Catholicism is not classified as Christianity. Take your own advice and read the post again carefully:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to you, Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity? What qualifies you as an authority on who is and is not a true Christian?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I did answer the question..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.

You did not answer the question:

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet? If so, according to your own definition, if the United States and all the other nations that house Christians created a mandate that Christianity wasn't a religion, it would no longer be.

I'm sure you would disagree.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
In this particular scenario..not only do we have the government classifying it as a religion. But we also have DICTIONARIES and ENCYCLOPEDIAS classifying it as a religion!!!

First, dictionaries and encyclopedias are not authoritative sources. If you were to cite a dictionary or encyclopedia in a research paper, your professor would fail you.

Interestingly, you believe dictionaries and encyclopedias to be the ultimate authority in all things, yet you do not believe Catholics to be Christians even though both dictionaries and encyclopedias define them as such. Not only does that mean you are committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction, but it also makes you a hypocrite.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Making you look even more foolish, is the fact that the DALAI LAMA'S OWN WEBSITE REFERENCES BUDDHISM AS A RELIGION.

I truly commend your tenacity..but I believe you are letting it delude you from using the God given "common sense" we are inherently instilled with. Then again, far be it from me to make assumptions about the gifts that God has given to you..it could be that "common sense" is something that he never instilled you with...

By all means, prove it. Provide a single legitimate quote in which the Dalai Lama claims Buddhism is a religion.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam you're strawmanning and making false/silly allegations, because as always..your arguments have little to stand on.

By all means, point out where.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Really..is this the best you can do to rebut my arguments on the topic of HOMOSEXUALITY. If so..then this is quite pitiful bud. You only make yourself look more pathetic with each attempt to prove me wrong.

Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive. You cannot defeat my arguments so you resort to insults. Who looks pathetic again?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam..I was in no way attempting to detract from the initial topic bud. This actually all started with Backfire/Tpt..attempting to "damage my credibility" regarding the use of debate logic. I simply just gave BF an example, of how debate logic is mis-used for those who have poor argumentation skills.

You both haven't made any real substantive points against any of my positions on HOMOSEXUALITY. The only things you have done, however, is diverge from the initial topic of the thread. Sad thing is..you've both been proven wrong multiple times during these "strawman" arguments, and the only credibility you've damaged is your own.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, I didn't need an example of how debate logic is misused during an argument, there was an example in this thread already with your flawed use of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You claim we've been proven wrong multiple times. Truth is, there is no proof in this thread. You've proven nothing and simply saying "I've proven this" doesn't make it so and is just a lazy and desperate attempt to try and give yourself some credibility. You've proven nothing, if you had truly proven something you would not even need to say that you've proven something, it would be clear for all.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You have given no indication/background information of how the study was conducted.

You have given no indication as to what the results revealed in relation to Homosexuality.

You have given no indication if the study even involved humans!!!

And I doubt you will bud...because you're just trying to mislead and confuse the masses..which is what "people" like you do best. You never put anything credible on the table..you just throw out a few random numbers/studies to support your "personal/moral agenda", and then pray to your "Gods" in hopes that no one will catch you in a lie. Truly pathetic my friend. If this is the best that you can come up with..then I definately will have pity for you..when you've revealed the worst.

What questions do you have about the methodology of the study?

Researchers identified genetic determinates of homosexuality on specific chromosomes, what do you mean, “You have given no indication as to what the results revealed in relation to Homosexuality,”?

What part of “researchers combed the entire human genome for genetic determinates of sexual orientation,” leaves any question that the study was conducted on humans?

Slinging insults and espousing rhetoric does not discredit the study. Try again.

ermmm...

you know what?
on the physiological (sp) point of view
it is neither genetic nor chosen, it depends on the hormones that are getting to the foetus
as everyone knows, the gender of the kid is determined immediately... but the gender of persons brain (or to be more exact the kind of sexual centre in brain) can be developed by hormones
when a boy is getting more estrogens than testosterone, his brain is coding informations about liking boys...something like that anyway

😖mart:

Originally posted by BackFire
Did you not even read my last post directed at you? I told you how your "points" and "evidence" regarding homosexuality being a choice were flawed. I'll go over then again, though.

None of these have anything substantial or directly to do with Homosexuality. You trying to relate them directly to homosexuality is in no way sound, it's irrelevant. And they certainly aren't "evidence" of homosexuality being a choice. This is evidence of anal sex, and oral sex being a choice, neither of which are exclusive to homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex, it's not JUST the act of sex.

Once again, this statement commits the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. A lack of proof for one side of an argument is not evidence of the opposite. You should know this since 5 posts earlier you attempted to call someone on this fallacy. Of course, you chose to ignore this earlier when I pointed it out, so I'll assume you'll do the same here.

This is simply strange. It's a grand assumption as well as a generalization. You just lump them all together as if they've ALL experienced some sort of abuse during their life, which is simply a lie. There's more people who have been abused in the ways you've listed who have ended up straight. Thus, I could say, using your logic, that heterosexuality is caused by abuse, broken homes, ect. There's also many homosexuals who have never experienced abuse and came from a very loving home.

Again, none of these is evidence for homosexuality being a choice. One is evidence that oral/anal sex itself is a choice and nothing more. Another is evidence that perhaps it isn't genetics that is the reason for homosexuality, of course, that doesn't automatically mean it's a choice, and the last one is evidence of nothing, it's just a flawed and factually incorrect generalization.

Also, I didn't need an example of how debate logic is misused during an argument, there was an example in this thread already with your flawed use of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You claim we've been proven wrong multiple times. Truth is, there is no proof in this thread. You've proven nothing and simply saying "I've proven this" doesn't make it so and is just a lazy and desperate attempt to try and give yourself some credibility. You've proven nothing, if you had truly proven something you would not even need to say that you've proven something, it would be clear for all.

You also claim that I've committed "strawman" arguments (a term you seem to love to use). Please point out specific instances where I've committed the Strawman fallacy, or else stop making lazy and silly blanket accusations at me.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And I doubt you will bud...because you're just trying to mislead and confuse the masses..which is what "people" like you do best. You never put anything credible on the table..you just throw out a few random numbers/studies to support your "personal/moral agenda", and then pray to your "Gods" in hopes that no one will catch you in a lie. Truly pathetic my friend. If this is the best that you can come up with..then I definately will have pity for you..when you've revealed the worst.

I believe a variety of reasons and combinations of reasons exist for homosexuality as for most things no one answer will be right for every example.

Originally posted by BackFire
Did you not even read my last post directed at you? I told you how your "points" and "evidence" regarding homosexuality being a choice were flawed. I'll go over then again, though.

Good. So I can clearly show you that once again..your points are incorrect.

None of these have anything substantial or directly to do with Homosexuality. You trying to relate them directly to homosexuality is in no way sound, it's irrelevant. And they certainly aren't "evidence" of homosexuality being a choice. This is evidence of anal sex, and oral sex being a choice, neither of which are exclusive to homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex, it's not JUST the act of sex.

Finding someone "attractive." Is different from actually being "sexual attracted" to them. Let's look at the definition of "sexual orientation" again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual%20orientation

Taken from Dictionary.com

def Sexual orientation

The direction of one's sexual[b] interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

def Sexual

1. having or involving [b]sex

2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

If you are sexually attracted to something..you are attracted not just to the person..but to an actual sexual ACT.

To be sexually attracted to an activity involving the anus/rectum regardless if one is homo/heterosexual..is UNNATURAL. Pure and simple. Why is this so? Because as I've stated many upon many times..the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of the anus, rectum etc..are for the purpose of sh*tting, not reproduction. Why can't you understand this?

In addition to this..being attracted to someone of the same sex..is also UNNATURAL. Why? Because same sex unions do not produce offspring. This is a simple truth. Thus Homosexuality/Lesbianity are UNNATURAL behaviors. Simple as that.

Once again, this statement commits the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. A lack of proof for one side of an argument is not evidence of the opposite. You should know this since 5 posts earlier you attempted to call someone on this fallacy. Of course, you chose to ignore this earlier when I pointed it out, so I'll assume you'll do the same here.

IT would be classified as Argumentum..IF I hadn't provided my own evidence to go along with the argument. My position was not just.

I am right..because you have no evidence..it was

I am right..because I have this evidence..and you have provided none to the contrary.

BIG Difference. I gave examples of my position. You have given no examples supporting yours. In fact..this entire post has been centered around proving my arguments wrong and how I allegedly misused "debate logic", as opposed to actually proving your points right. Once again..like Tpt did in his post, you've given us yet another example of "Argumentum" my friend.

Do you understand the definition of Argumentum ad Ignoratium now? If not, then please let me know if want me to explain it to you one more time...😄

This is simply strange. It's a grand assumption as well as a generalization. You just lump them all together as if they've ALL experienced some sort of abuse during their life, which is simply a lie. There's more people who have been abused in the ways you've listed who have ended up straight. Thus, I could say, using your logic, that heterosexuality is caused by abuse, broken homes, ect. There's also many homosexuals who have never experienced abuse and came from a very loving home.

And I will state again, neither genetics nor environment are completely responsible for an individuals behavior. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own choices in life.

There is evidence, however, that links many people who have been abused/neglected, to be more likely to engage in "abnormal sexual behavior."

There is also a evidence, that has linked over-nurturing..loss of parent of same sex, divorce, and other traumatic social issues to "abnormal sexual behavior." Regardless of your opinions on these subjects, it doesn't change them from being true.

Again, none of these is evidence for homosexuality being a choice. One is evidence that oral/anal sex itself is a choice and nothing more. Another is evidence that perhaps it isn't genetics that is the reason for homosexuality, of course, that doesn't automatically mean it's a choice, and the last one is evidence of nothing, it's just a flawed and factually incorrect generalization.

Also, I didn't need an example of how debate logic is misused during an argument, there was an example in this thread already with your flawed use of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You claim we've been proven wrong multiple times. Truth is, there is no proof in this thread. You've proven nothing and simply saying "I've proven this" doesn't make it so and is just a lazy and desperate attempt to try and give yourself some credibility. You've proven nothing, if you had truly proven something you would not even need to say that you've proven something, it would be clear for all.

You also claim that I've committed "strawman" arguments (a term you seem to love to use). Please point out specific instances where I've committed the Strawman fallacy, or else stop making lazy and silly blanket accusations at me.

😖leep:

So basically the same argument you stated above. No evidence for either so it's probably "genetic." "Argumentum" again bud..😉

Anyway..We have both agreed that all sexual acts that one engages in are determined through their own choices. In addition to this, I have also demonstrated, that the functions of certain body parts are not meant for procreation, which goes against the whole "homosexuality is natural" arguement. You have provided no evidence suggesting that the anus, rectum, or mouth are used for sexually reproductive purposes. Provide more scientific evidence to support your arguments BF. As I've state to both you and Tpt many times..attempting to prove me wrong, does not make your point right.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It's beyond the point now, that you have been proven wrong.

The genetic debate is not what you were asking for eveidence of, yuou asked for instances where homosexuality occured in nature. It has been provided. You just pretend you don't understand.

I believe in my last post, it sais that these birds you claim just "stand on each others backs as a sign of dominance" were in fact, engaging in behavior that, if observed in human females, would be X-RATED.

Re-interpretation of facts is not relevant either. Sex is sex is sex. Gay sex is gay sex is gay sex....and these animals are participating in gay sex. Not only gay sex, but the "gay lifestyle"..building homes together, rearing young together....

The problem being..like those who conducted the studies..you're interpreting the behavior..based on your "own personal agenda." You want to have an excuse for the way you are, instead of being responsible for the choices that you've made.

Sexual behavior in animals..is not the same as sexual behavior in humans. It's like comparing apples in oranges. Animal act on instinct. They kill weaker animals that are part of their pack for "survival." They eat defication.

The bottom line is that we are not animals my friend, and our behaviors can't be equated to theirs. We don't run around in the wild playing around with our feces..and rubbing our asses against trees. You failed to provide how the rectum, anus, and mouth are reproductive organs my friend..and thus..you've failed in proving your argument of anal sex, oral sex, etc..being natural HUMAN behavior.

Fin

Finding someone "attractive." Is different from actually being "sexual attracted" to them. Let's look at the definition of "sexual orientation" again.

I'm aware of the definition, and it has nothing to do with anything I said. You are simply adding filler to your argument by referencing definitions that have no relevence to anything I said.

If you are sexually attracted to something..you are attracted not just to the person..but to an actual sexual ACT.

Again, irrelevent. I never claimed otherwise. I said that homosexuality is more then just the act of sex, you've actually cemented that with the above statement, glad you could admit that it's more then just a sex act, as you've insinuated elsewhere in this thread.

To be sexually attracted to an activity involving the anus/rectum regardless if one is homo/heterosexual..is UNNATURAL. Pure and simple. Why is this so? Because as I've stated many upon many times..the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of the anus, rectum etc..are for the purpose of sh*tting, not reproduction. Why can't you understand this?

Again, another sloppy and lazy generalization not necessarily having to do with homosexuality. You're again trying to fallaciously related anal sex to homosexuality, as if the two are exclusive and immediately related. This statement has to do with anal sex being unnatural, not the sexual attraction to people of the same sex. I never claimed anal sex was natural. Where did you get the idea that I did? Just curious, because I never said that. Homosexuals often aren't attracted to anal sex, why do you keep bringing it up? It's a moot and irrelevent point.

In addition to this..being attracted to someone of the same sex..is also UNNATURAL. Why? Because same sex unions do not produce offspring. This is a simple truth. Thus Homosexuality/Lesbianity are UNNATURAL behaviors. Simple as that.

That is a very subjective view on what is and isn't natural. If you feel that way then that's fine, just know not all agree with that. It also is a bit questionable because there are many other unions, male and female, that don't result in offspring. If someone is unable to get pregnant, and she is in a relationship, does that mean that relationship is unnatural for the reasons you listed above? Same logic, same reasoning, but a different circumstance.

Many feel, since homosexual acts have been observed in nature, that this immediately thwarts the idea of it being unnatural. Something that happens in nature, without any tampering, is natural.

IT would be classified as Argumentum..IF I hadn't provided my own evidence to go along with the argument. My position was not just.

I am right..because you have no evidence..it was

I am right..because I have this evidence..and you have provided none to the contrary.

BIG Difference. I gave examples of my position. You have given no examples supporting yours. In fact..this entire post has been centered around proving my arguments wrong and how I allegedly misused "debate logic", as opposed to actually proving your points right. Once again..like Tpt did in his post, you've given us yet another example of "Argumentum" my friend.

Do you understand the definition of Argumentum ad Ignoratium now? If not, then please let me know if want me to explain it to you one more time...

Here's what you said, no tampering, just a straight quote -

-Scientific studies which were inconclusive regarding homosexuality being related to "genetics."

You did not say what you claim you said. You did not say "I am right..because I have this evidence..and you have provided none to the contrary." You gave no evidence to support it in that instance, you simply said that your evidence that it is a choice is that there no evidence for it being genetics. This does commit the fallacy.

I have not been trying to prove your arguments wrong, my friend. I originally simply pointed out that you used a fallacy incorrectly. I never claimed that you are wrong because of a lack of evidence. Nor did I claim that another alternative was true because of it. I've admitted that I don't pretend to know what causes homosexuality, no one does, yourself included. You have your beliefs, and you're welcome to them, however, they are nothing more then that.

So basically the same argument you stated above. No evidence for either so it's probably "genetic." "Argumentum" again bud..

Once again, you are attempting to put words into the mouth of your opponent. I never said that I believed it is "probably" genetics, nor did I use the lack of evidence in your statements to back up my point of view on the matter. I simply used your lack of evidence as evidence that you have a lack of evidence.

Anyway..We have both agreed that all sexual acts that one engages in are determined through their own choices. In addition to this, I have also demonstrated, that the functions of certain body parts are not meant for procreation, which goes against the whole "homosexuality is natural" arguement. You have provided no evidence suggesting that the anus, rectum, or mouth are used for sexually reproductive purposes. Provide more scientific evidence to support your arguments BF. As I've state to both you and Tpt many times..attempting to prove me wrong, does not make your point right.

Once again, I've never claimed any of those acts are natural, nor did I ever claim or even insinuate that I felt the anus, rectom or mouth are sexually reproductive purposes. More attempts at putting words in my mouth and to try and paint my points in a completely different way then what they actually are.

I'm not attempting to "prove you wrong", I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your statements and the lack of any real evidence.

My thoughts have always been that it's not a choice, I don't believe that people can outright choose to be gay, they can't choose who they are sexually attracted to. I think this because I can't do it and the idea of being able to choose who you're sexual attracted to doesn't make sense, and no one else I've encountered can do it. You seem to think they can, so I ask you, as Tex did, when did you choose your sexual orientation? You've dodged this question twice, perhaps the third time is the charm. And if it is a choice, then go ahead and choose to become aroused by gay pornography to the point of orgasm. If it's a choice, this shouldn't be a problem.

The last and weakest of the three rebuttals. Not only did you once again dodge most of the points with abuse of debate logic..you failed to even directly respond in your own words to most of what I posted. Most of what you've taken..is just cut and pasted stuff from Backfire, Wonderer, and several others. Oh well..you did your best, that's all that counts..shall we begin?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I never accused you of stating that Roman Catholicism is not classified as Christianity. Take your own advice and read the post again carefully:

You made the assumption that I claimed myself as being an authority on Christianity. I never said such a thing. I just gave my own personal opinion. Real silly point anyway..as it had nothing to do with the actual topic. And once again, demonstrates your inability to debate with me about said topic.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You did not answer the question:

Question:

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Would you claim then that the People's Republic of China or a similarly secular government has every right to decree Buddhism as a science if it so desires, simply because it has current control over Tibet?

Answer:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I did answer the question..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.

Now you answer my question Adam..(please do so with your own words)

Are the Pope, Dalai Lama supreme authorities as to what is/isn't classified as a Religion?

Originally posted by Adam Poe
First, dictionaries and encyclopedias are not authoritative sources. If you were to cite a dictionary or encyclopedia in a research paper, your professor would fail you.

Interestingly, you believe dictionaries and encyclopedias to be the ultimate authority in all things, yet you do not believe Catholics to be Christians even though both dictionaries and encyclopedias define them as such. Not only does that mean you are committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction, but it also makes you a hypocrite.

The dictionary does not equate to being the highest Authority on way thing are defined..neither is the government for that matter. But based on all the evidence provided within this thread, how the hell does the Dalai Lama?

You sound like a fanatical religious nut Adam. Only someone who indoctrinated with in some sort of cult like "religion"..would believe that a little man in a funny robe and hat, is the Supreme authority when it comes to defining things. Another question for you bud..who gives the Dalai Lama his "authority" Adam?

(note* If you answer "He does" then you'll only prove my point about you being indoctrinated)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, prove it. Provide a single legitimate quote in which the Dalai Lama claims Buddhism is a religion.

http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/budintro.html
Buddhism became Tibet's state religion only later.

www.tibet.com

This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.

Simple stuff to understand bud..you are truly begin to worry me here bud. The site is approved by the Dalai Lama!!! If he didn't believe that Buddhism was a religion. He would not have allowed them to put that in his own damn website!!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, point out where.

You want examples of your silly arguments..refer to your above rebuttal. As well as the last few pages you posted on. You are clearly delusional if you are still unable to accept Buddhism as being a Religion. 😆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive. You cannot defeat my arguments so you resort to insults. Who looks pathetic again?

You do. It's quite sad, with each post, you continue to set yourself up to look foolish again. Stop posting..while you still have some time to save face.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What questions do you have about the methodology of the study?

Researchers identified genetic determinates of homosexuality on specific chromosomes, what do you mean, “You have given no indication as to what the results revealed in relation to Homosexuality,”?

What part of “researchers combed the entire human genome for genetic determinates of sexual orientation,” leaves any question that the study was conducted on humans?

Slinging insults and espousing rhetoric does not discredit the study. Try again.

Rhetoric? This is coming from a guy..who has argued in two threads against the way a word is defined in a Dictionary..lol..anyway..moving on..

Could you provide the name and lead researcher of said study?

Good making progress..now to the "evidence" that you have given.

Were the chromosomes found in both homosexuals and heterosexuals? If so how often were they found in both?

What were the conditions of the study?

Was the study just done in males, or did females participate in the study as well?

Did any of the individuals suffer from any type of abusive emotional or sexual histories?

Did any of the individuals suffer from any type of genetic conditions?

These are all relevant questions Adam..please anser them.