Theory is a key word, and is not a weak word as most people think. There is no evidence which proves, or even strongly suggests that there is not a genetic link. The theory of a genetic link accounts for the evidence we have. You as usual sound like an evolution denier..."it's only a theory", with no clue as to how strong that is.May possibly, theoricial? Of course not.
And Tom Cruise may not be gay.
The idiocy of that statement alone you made shows how weak your argument is.
And many successful studies which show evidence that it is likely. In point of fact, "failed study" is a misnomer, as the point of study is to gain knowledge, which they have done. The only proof is finding the actual genes involved, which has not been done. What we do know: statistically, genes inherited from the mother explain our observations on the maternal link to homosexuality, genes can and do affect behavior(see the nurture gene for one example), genes can and do effect sexuality(see drosophilia(sp?) study), homosexuals are physically different. These are all observations which have to be considered, and point to a strong likelyhood that there is a nature component to orientation.Exacept for all the failed studies that tried to prove it
It's hopeless now to admit that knowledge is incomplete? saying it is not proven does not mean it is unlikely, nor that there is no evidence.You are hopless you truly are. You have no proof and your only argument is there "may" be a link.
"maybe, possibly" with no look at potential is weak, but when the preponderance of evidence shows something is likely, that is a bit different. There is not alot of proof for anything in the universe, that does not mean we don't have a pretty good idea about those things.I got news for you. "maybe, possibly" isn't an argument.
Please show where I have suggested changing laws based on whether or not orientation is genetic.Is an unsupported theory which is no argument for changing existing laws or establishing new ones based on "maybe, possibly"
You did not say this?Which is a gross distortion of my argument since we are talking sexual orientation not survival.
To use the evolution argument you have to understand evolution, which apparently you do not. For a gene to be chosen over another, it has to have a greater chance to be passed on than another gene. There are any number of genes however that are neutral(hair/eye color are the classic examples) that simply are never weeded out. Homosexuality may be such a gene(gene set actually, or phenotype).Of course. How could I possibly think nature would make the opposite sexes attracted to each other. LOL
So, for all the species of the world that populate with one male one female reproduction, please explain how we are not genetically inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex.
This is the dumbest argument you have made yet. You want to cast aside millions of years of evolution and procreation based on nothing but your own self satisfying theory.