you originally said:
"There's no evidence in favor of the idea that homosexuality is genetic"
and this remains wrong. there is a large body of evidence saying exactly that. there are plenty of attempts to dismiss evidence that sexual orientation is inborn but none of these attempts is coming form geneticists.
"Evidence" in cases like this is up for interpretation. Something which can be easily interpreted either way is not real evidence. But I clarified my position further to make it clear that such flimsy "evidence" is irrelevant as it can't be used to strengthen your position.
"leave homosexuality behind" what a stupid statement. People are who they are.
People are who they choose to be. Granted that some things are beyond our control, but there is no reason to think that sexuality is beyond our control. It might not be a binary switch that we can flip as we please - but to say that we have no influence over it is simply an extremist position used to take away personal responsibility.
we may choose the person we fall in love with but we don't get to choose the gender of who we fall in love with it just happens.
If we can choose who we fall in love with, we can choose the gender as well.
you need to do some remedial reading on evolution and genetics.
not every member of a species procreates, very few male gorillas, elephants or wolves have the opportunity to have offspring. This is part of their species survival mechanisms. a common feature of these animals and with humans is their reliance on a social structure for survival.
First off, it is erroneous to use the behaviors of misc. other animals to say how humans should behave. Very clearly human courting and mating is quite different from wild beasts.
Second off, while the non-alpha males of these species may frequently be beaten out of opportunities to mate - it would be wrong to describe them as sexually inactive. Their competition is very real and important.
Third, even given that certain social behaviors are employed to limit offspring, that is not a valid defense of a homosexual gene - which again would necessarily go extinct within the first generation if such a gene managed to evolve. So then, you are comparing apples and oranges.
the genes that seem to be responsible for homosexuality are apparently tied to genes for female fertility. Women with these genes tend to have more offspring leading to the distribution of those genes, these women also are more likely to give birth to gay males. In fact the greatest predictor of male homosexuality is the number of older biological brothers one has. (this holds true no matter if they are raised with biological families or adopted out). It is pretty easy to extrapolate how this would benefit humans, having non-reproducing members acts as a safety net for orphaned children and as a means of fostering out children if a mother is having to many to care for.
Making up cases where it might be beneficial is not evidence of any such thing - especially given the very modern nature of the argument.
At any rate, what of bi-sexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. - will you say that there is a gene for all of these as well, and attempt to think up scenarios where they might be beneficial (even if there is no evidence that such scenarios are reflective of mans development). At some point you need to recognize the role of the individual and of their subconcious as opposed to attempting to argue that sexual deviations are a product of nature.
Pedophiles are not equivalent of homosexuals.
further the evidence shows that pedophilia is the result of actual brain damage.
Of course, you and society at large don't like pedophiles - so you and society have no qualms with saying that pedophilia is a disorder
As society changes, what is considered a psychological disorder changes. They make up new disorders all the time, so you can be diagnosed and sold expensive pills.
