No doubt the paramecium can't be defined as asexual, either, can it?
This is where the dysfunction takes place. Science has never defined homo sapiens as anything other than hetero.
All political interest groups at one time or another masquerade their views as scientific.
If you don't know how to recognize bias, you can more easily be suckered.
The first half of your question has nothing to do with the second half.
20 years from now, your desires will be different. That's an indication that being gay is behavioral.
(My neice went from hetero to gay to hetero in the space of 7 years. Her status as--physically--a hetero female...
For this, I have to refer you to the biology lessons I've already given above. We are defined by science as hetero. Gays can't make a claim for scientic support of being gay unless they first change the fundamentals.
Bias always poisons your conclusions. There are no exceptions. You either...
No.
You were demeaning them when you posted their behavior here without giving them a chance to speak for themselves, asking me to judge them.
When my appeals for decency and morality to gays so often fall on deaf ears, as they are with you, how should I judge you?
Your desires are not the defining factor.
Your status as a member of a hetero species is determined by the physical attributes. Your desires are substantially impacted by your environment, culture, your experiences, etc., all of which help define behavior and norms.
Of course I'm ignoring them. They're usually driven politically, not scientifically.
That actually doesn't matter to me. On a fundamental level, ANY science that must redefine fundamentals of nature just to survive is not a science. From a scientific point of view, such a science is dysfunctional.
I can't carry on a rational discussion with you if you're willing to demean your co-workers behind their backs. Group guilt disgusts me. If you're capable of that, how can I possibly trust your other posts or your judgment in sources?
You're demonstrating the propensity for prejudice that...
If I have to explain to you what those organs are for, how they're used, and the result, based on a biology lesson, and you still don't see the science in my response, why should I waste my time?
All gay people have the capacity to produce a baby heterosexually. Reason: they were born hetero...
This was your response:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/144744-what-causes-homosexuality-50.html#post3632019
Not surprisingly, in a discussion involving gay rights, the Christian (me) is the only one making appeals to human decency. The rest of you have the "pile on"...
You have hetero organs between your legs. Their purpose is hetero reproduction.
Sorry to play the "science" card, but it's the quickest way to clear up your confusion. If you're born hetero, gay can be nothing else but behavioral.
And I'm not going to be able to appeal to your decency, am I? It seems you prefer Phil to be guilty until proven otherwise. All bigots exhibit this quality.
Based on these events, the LGBT community declares that conservatives have no right to free speech.
For you to say it backwards is an indication of your bias.
If he expresses a religious belief, does that make it somehow different?
Are religous beliefs fair game for retribution? Surely you don't think A & E was right to fire him on the basis of religion?
I'm also appealing to you to be a decent and humane person.
If you think you deserve a source, ask it of those who want Phil demeaned. Why would you give them a pass in the claims THEY make about him?