Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
{{sigh}}
The poll is dopey. The topic is dopey. The fake "concern" is dopey.
And while I don't support that proposed piece of legislation, I do find the lolberal Democrap position to be pretty fucking stupid too: to wit,
Modern American "liberal" Democraps believe that, by law, employers should be required to forego their religious beliefs entirely to accommodate the "liberal" views and orthodoxies. You know the drill. In the world of liberal Democraps, 1st Amendment rights are for them, not for others.
The bubble you live in is dopey, and of your own making.
Thanks for your utterly baseless and completely worthless, but still asinine input, fuckwit.
I'm not the one who lives in a bubble. Shitballs like you hear "Tea Party" and wet your panties because you are far too ignorant to grasp the purpose the Tea Party ever came into existence, and far too narrow-minded to comprehend why their position is ultimately in your benefit.
Nevertheless, to get back to the actual topic (something you avoid), there are real-world, concrete examples that make the proposed legislation even begin to seem necessary.
Post nominated for the most déclassé comment of the month.
Where's you evidence? And it's you who cannot read. Seems to be isn't evidence and the pros in the field are not all on board. Like I said, you're a liar.That isn't what it says! He said he thinks so, that means there isn't evidence. Hello? You ignored everything else because you are a dishonest militant homosexual asshole. And that's a life choice. 'Seems to be' isn't evidence.Hey asshole. What does this have to with NARTH? Put your dildo down and go start another thread. You are full of shit, you wanted one, you got one:Strawman alert. You made a claim all scientists agree people have no choice. I called you on it now you want to drag NARTH into your cellpool.
LOL.
NARTH is not credible. They have been universally panned by the scientific community.
Snake oil salesmen are not pharmacists. See a real doctor.
But hey, by all means, post your studies that prove being gay is a choice.
Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality | BU Today | Boston University
Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal twin brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality. They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Pillard and Bailey’s findings have been debated in the intervening decades.
Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say? And the answer is: not a lot.”
You didn't read through the whole thing you posted did you?
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
And since you brought up twins:
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers
Sexual orientation is not a choice. The only choice is in acting upon our natural inclinations.
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych
While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].
You really should read completely through everything you link to:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
Also, try something that has come out in the last, oh five years. Your link is over a decade old.
You can stuff your opinion where it doesn't shine. You are not god. Many people don't agree that government isn't imposing itself onto others, of course it is!Public Accommodation laws do not equate to the government "taking over people's lives". Again, we've had PA laws since the 60s, Rip Van Winkle. You are just now waking up to them because in a few places they ALSO protect gays?
And this law that these Presidential candidates are supporting would allow government services to be denied gays.
Where's you evidence? And it's you who cannot read. Seems to be isn't evidence and the pros in the field are not all on board. Like I said, you're a liar.That isn't what it says! He said he thinks so, that means there isn't evidence. Hello? You ignored everything else because you are a dishonest militant homosexual asshole. And that's a life choice. 'Seems to be' isn't evidence.Hey asshole. What does this have to with NARTH? Put your dildo down and go start another thread. You are full of shit, you wanted one, you got one:NARTH is not credible. They have been universally panned by the scientific community.
Snake oil salesmen are not pharmacists. See a real doctor.
But hey, by all means, post your studies that prove being gay is a choice.
Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality | BU Today | Boston University
Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal twin brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality. They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Pillard and Bailey’s findings have been debated in the intervening decades.
Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say? And the answer is: not a lot.”
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
And since you brought up twins:
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers
Sexual orientation is not a choice. The only choice is in acting upon our natural inclinations.
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych
While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].
You really should read completely through everything you link to:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
Also, try something that has come out in the last, oh five years. Your link is over a decade old.
I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
You can stuff your opinion where it doesn't shine. You are not god. Many people don't agree that government isn't imposing itself onto others, of course it is!Public Accommodation laws do not equate to the government "taking over people's lives". Again, we've had PA laws since the 60s, Rip Van Winkle. You are just now waking up to them because in a few places they ALSO protect gays?
And this law that these Presidential candidates are supporting would allow government services to be denied gays.
You need to wake the fuck up. Many cases are current and homosexuality has been added in many locales, not all. That's recent so you lie when you say it's been on the books for oh 60 years. Added because it isn't a constitutional matter. Lie lie lie, that's all you have.
{{sigh}}
The poll is dopey. The topic is dopey. The fake "concern" is dopey.
And while I don't support that proposed piece of legislation, I do find the lolberal Democrap position to be pretty fucking stupid too: to wit,
Modern American "liberal" Democraps believe that, by law, employers should be required to forego their religious beliefs entirely to accommodate the "liberal" views and orthodoxies. You know the drill. In the world of liberal Democraps, 1st Amendment rights are for them, not for others.
LIE ability is a classic curmudgeon, as well as a punk. He hits and runs, makes bets and won't pay, and when he loses and hereturns as a dirty smelly sock. That said, his post is an echo of GMU. Anyone who echos a dumb shit .... drum roll please ... is a dumb shit too.
I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
I did not know that National Report was a satirical site. Thanks for the info.
Also Sharia Law does not forbid women to drive.
We are not Saudi Arabia where it is forbidden and that law over there is not based on their religion.
Where does biblical law allow refusing service? Is that what Jesus would have done? Nope...he's bake the gay cake and turn their water into wine.
In Saudi Arabia, they interpret Sharia law to do just that. From wiki:
Many conservative Saudi women do not support loosening traditional gender roles and restrictions, on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to an "ideal and pure Islamic nation," and under threat from "imported Western values".[12]
Among the factors that define rights for women in Saudi are government laws, the Hanbali and Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam, and traditional customs of the Arabian peninsula
So stop dodging. Why should this law allow a bigoted clerk not to issue a marriage license to gays, but not allow a Muslim to deny driver's licenses?
Maybe if you could actually find a Muslim American who would want to deny drivers licenses to women.
I don't know of any do you?
It would more likely apply to all Christians, Jews and Muslims who's religion teaches that homosexuality is sinful, than it would be for not wanting women to drive.
You are passig a law that says Muslims in the government are allowed to put their religious beliefs above the law. Forget about drivers licenses for now. Can a Muslim refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a jew or mixed faith marriage?
Can a Christian refuse a wedding license to a bride that is pregnant?
Is that the country you are proposing?
Christians have never refused marriage to a bride that is pregnant.
Haven't you ever heard of shot gun weddings?
I am proposing laws that are equal for all, not give rights to one that takes away rights of others.
See...even you admit it's all about hating gays. Premarital sex is a sin.
You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Where does biblical law allow refusing service? Is that what Jesus would have done? Nope...he's bake the gay cake and turn their water into wine.
In Saudi Arabia, they interpret Sharia law to do just that. From wiki:
Many conservative Saudi women do not support loosening traditional gender roles and restrictions, on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to an "ideal and pure Islamic nation," and under threat from "imported Western values".[12]
Among the factors that define rights for women in Saudi are government laws, the Hanbali and Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam, and traditional customs of the Arabian peninsula
So stop dodging. Why should this law allow a bigoted clerk not to issue a marriage license to gays, but not allow a Muslim to deny driver's licenses?
Maybe if you could actually find a Muslim American who would want to deny drivers licenses to women.
I don't know of any do you?
It would more likely apply to all Christians, Jews and Muslims who's religion teaches that homosexuality is sinful, than it would be for not wanting women to drive.
You are passig a law that says Muslims in the government are allowed to put their religious beliefs above the law. Forget about drivers licenses for now. Can a Muslim refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a jew or mixed faith marriage?
Can a Christian refuse a wedding license to a bride that is pregnant?
Is that the country you are proposing?
Christians have never refused marriage to a bride that is pregnant.
Haven't you ever heard of shot gun weddings?
I am proposing laws that are equal for all, not give rights to one that takes away rights of others.
See...even you admit it's all about hating gays. Premarital sex is a sin.
Nope not what I said at all.
I said it should be where both have laws that gives each their rights.
Maybe if you could actually find a Muslim American who would want to deny drivers licenses to women.
I don't know of any do you?
It would more likely apply to all Christians, Jews and Muslims who's religion teaches that homosexuality is sinful, than it would be for not wanting women to drive.
You are passig a law that says Muslims in the government are allowed to put their religious beliefs above the law. Forget about drivers licenses for now. Can a Muslim refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a jew or mixed faith marriage?
Can a Christian refuse a wedding license to a bride that is pregnant?
Is that the country you are proposing?
Christians have never refused marriage to a bride that is pregnant.
Haven't you ever heard of shot gun weddings?
I am proposing laws that are equal for all, not give rights to one that takes away rights of others.
See...even you admit it's all about hating gays. Premarital sex is a sin.
Nope not what I said at all.
I said it should be where both have laws that gives each their rights.
You don't realize that's what you did, but you also didn't realize that Sharia law hasn't actually been instituted in the US either.
Premarital sex is a sin and yet no Christian refused to bake a cake for such a sinner have they? That proves it's not about the sin and all about hating gays.
They are they lamely pandering and The FADA is unlikely going to become law. It was introduced six months ago and nothing has come of it.
But that won't stop them for continually trying to push it down our throats.
No doubt. This pledge is simply throwing a little red meat to the religious right.
Quite frankly, I would love to see state and federal public accommodations laws scrapped almost entirely.
You would like businesses to be permitted to deny service to you based on the fact that you are gay?
I would like businesses to be permitted to deny service to any person and for whatever reason. If people find those business practices have objectionable than they will take their duckets elsewhere. If their business fails then they have no one to blame but themselves. I wouldn't to give my money to that business anyway.
What about those who live in remote rural areas? Places that are hundreds of miles from the nearest next town?
Areas that have only one store. That one store won't allow you inside to buy food just because you're gay.
Where are you going to get food or the necessities of life?
Or say the gas station? They won't let you get gas because you're gay. Where are you going to get gas?
Even though your tax dollars paid for the streets that the store owner uses for trucks to bring food and other life necessities to his store to sell. Even though your tax dollars is paying for the police and fire department that serve that store.
Or the private company that owns the electricity or natural gas that is used to electrify and heat homes? Is it fair that they deny you electricity or gas just because you're gay?
Do you think it's fair for someone to deny you food or gas or anything just because you're gay and you have no other place to get those things?
Where's you evidence? And it's you who cannot read. Seems to be isn't evidence and the pros in the field are not all on board. Like I said, you're a liar.That isn't what it says! He said he thinks so, that means there isn't evidence. Hello? You ignored everything else because you are a dishonest militant homosexual asshole. And that's a life choice. 'Seems to be' isn't evidence.Hey asshole. What does this have to with NARTH? Put your dildo down and go start another thread. You are full of shit, you wanted one, you got one:
Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality | BU Today | Boston University
Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal twin brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality. They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Pillard and Bailey’s findings have been debated in the intervening decades.
Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say? And the answer is: not a lot.”
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
And since you brought up twins:
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers
Sexual orientation is not a choice. The only choice is in acting upon our natural inclinations.
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych
While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].
You really should read completely through everything you link to:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
Also, try something that has come out in the last, oh five years. Your link is over a decade old.
You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
So now your argument is with Kosh? Scientists don't believe children's environment plays a role? Which ones? Which scientist raised a set of children in a lab? It's psychologists that examines their lives and I posted a source that disagrees with you. People don't take you seriously because you are incredibly dishonest and prolific. You lie all the time. You ARE a lie.You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Great response....almost on par with a Kosh response.
From the first link you provided:
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
From the 2nd:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
So, no, scientists do not believe that how a child is raised has anything to do with their sexual orientation. They do believe that environmental factors in the womb can be a factor. You are confusing environmental with socially acquired. Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth. (chemicals ingested by a pregnant woman, etc.)
So now your argument is with Kosh? Scientists don't believe children's environment plays a role? Which ones? Which scientist raised a set of children in a lab? It's psychologists that examines their lives and I posted a source that disagrees with you. People don't take you seriously because you are incredibly dishonest and prolific. You lie all the time. You ARE a lie.You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Great response....almost on par with a Kosh response.
From the first link you provided:
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
From the 2nd:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
So, no, scientists do not believe that how a child is raised has anything to do with their sexual orientation. They do believe that environmental factors in the womb can be a factor. You are confusing environmental with socially acquired. Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth. (chemicals ingested by a pregnant woman, etc.)
So now your argument is with Kosh? Scientists don't believe children's environment plays a role? Which ones? Which scientist raised a set of children in a lab? It's psychologists that examines their lives and I posted a source that disagrees with you. People don't take you seriously because you are incredibly dishonest and prolific. You lie all the time. You ARE a lie.You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Great response....almost on par with a Kosh response.
From the first link you provided:
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
From the 2nd:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
So, no, scientists do not believe that how a child is raised has anything to do with their sexual orientation. They do believe that environmental factors in the womb can be a factor. You are confusing environmental with socially acquired. Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth. (chemicals ingested by a pregnant woman, etc.)
You have a choice of religion
If your religion says you are not allowed to serve gays you are free to choose another one
So now your argument is with Kosh? Scientists don't believe children's environment plays a role? Which ones? Which scientist raised a set of children in a lab? It's psychologists that examines their lives and I posted a source that disagrees with you. People don't take you seriously because you are incredibly dishonest and prolific. You lie all the time. You ARE a lie.You're a liar.Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Great response....almost on par with a Kosh response.
From the first link you provided:
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
From the 2nd:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
So, no, scientists do not believe that how a child is raised has anything to do with their sexual orientation. They do believe that environmental factors in the womb can be a factor. You are confusing environmental with socially acquired. Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth. (chemicals ingested by a pregnant woman, etc.)
You have a choice of religion
If your religion says you are not allowed to serve gays you are free to choose another one
If your religion says you are not permitted to serve gays, you are also free to retain your religion and then the only question becomes whether the government has the authority to compel you to do that which your religion forbids.
I can come up with some absurd examples, too. Like: you have a freedom of religion that "permits" you to bend to my will when some legislative act commands you to do so.
So now your argument is with Kosh? Scientists don't believe children's environment plays a role? Which ones? Which scientist raised a set of children in a lab? It's psychologists that examines their lives and I posted a source that disagrees with you. People don't take you seriously because you are incredibly dishonest and prolific. You lie all the time. You ARE a lie.You're a liar.I said environment plays a huge role. Lying asshole!You still haven't provided a single source that says being gay is a choice. In fact, everything you provided said the opposite, that being gay is not a choice.
Again, nothing you provided states that environment plays a "huge" role. In fact, I pointed out in both where the scientists stated that environment a child is raised in has no bearing on their orientation. When scientists speak of "environment" they are more often than not talking about what occurred in the womb, not once we're born.
Great response....almost on par with a Kosh response.
From the first link you provided:
BU Today: Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined?
Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.
From the 2nd:
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].
So, no, scientists do not believe that how a child is raised has anything to do with their sexual orientation. They do believe that environmental factors in the womb can be a factor. You are confusing environmental with socially acquired. Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth. (chemicals ingested by a pregnant woman, etc.)
