Being gay is a fetish.

[Esquilax]

No, considering that I'm arguing against the comparison to skin color, it's valid.

Only if you're arguing against the strictest possible interpretation of the comparison, which I don't think it's at all helpful to do. Even if it's not purely genetic, the comparison is still valid in that skin color and sexuality both are not choices. Origin is almost a moot point, considering the purpose of the argument itself. You're getting hung up on semantics.

For all your use of logical fallacies, you're certainly willing to ignore confirmation bias when it suits you.

Confirmation bias? As if gay people shouldn't be trusted when the topic under discussion is what goes on in their own heads?

At least I'm partially justified. All you have is personal testimony which could result from confirmation bias, and - you do this a lot - you accuse me of an argument from ignorance when you're smack dab in the middle of one yourself.

No, I also have the other studies, I have the APA stating unambiguously that there's no consensus as to the cause or causes of homosexuality, I have the actual science and the testimony of gay people, which I think is more of a direct hint than the interpretation of a study that doesn't say what you think it says, to reach a conclusion you'd reached before looking at the study. And if your only response to those testimonies is "oh, they're lying," well, I don't have to furnish a response to "nuh uh!" now do I?

I could understand high, but less than 100%, concordance due to such factors, but not concordance rates as low as 7%. Also note the comparison to race. Twins are concordant on skin color at or near 100%.

My point is this: you do not have anywhere near a consensus of mainstream science as to the causes of homosexuality, meaning that you are severely overselling your case, and committing an argument from ignorance, when you say "what I think is the default, and you have to prove me wrong or else I'm right!" on the back of flawed studies.

[John V]

Only if you're arguing against the strictest possible interpretation of the comparison, which I don't think it's at all helpful to do. Even if it's not purely genetic, the comparison is still valid in that skin color and sexuality both are not choices. Origin is almost a moot point, considering the purpose of the argument itself. You're getting hung up on semantics.

I'm not getting hung up on semantics. I'm sticking to my original purposes. You like to shift arguments to new ground. For instance, you've said that factors during childhood might influence eventual sexuality, and that hose factors may not be conscious choices of the individual. But, as I'm arguing that people are not born gay, as people are born black, those factors, even if true, are irrelevant to me. Factors during childhood don't make people black.

Confirmation bias? As if gay people shouldn't be trusted when the topic under discussion is what goes on in their own heads?

Exactly.

No, I also have the other studies, I have the APA stating unambiguously that there's no consensus as to the cause or causes of homosexuality,

LOL - unambiguously stating that the cause is ambiguous.

I have the actual science

Let's see it.

and the testimony of gay people,

Which is subject to confirmation bias.

which I think is more of a direct hint than the interpretation of a study that doesn't say what you think it says, to reach a conclusion you'd reached before looking at the study. And if your only response to those testimonies is "oh, they're lying," well, I don't have to furnish a response to "nuh uh!" now do I?

Speaking of arguments from ignorance, here you go again.

My point is this: you do not have anywhere near a consensus of mainstream science as to the causes of homosexuality,

Neither do you.

meaning that you are severely overselling your case,

Not nearly as much as you. I have twin studies and cross-cultural studies. All you have is the personal feelings of people with a personal interest in the outcome.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Show me the scientific evidence proving that people are born gay, and I'll agree that they deserve the same protections as racial minorities.

Until then, it's a behavior or lifestyle. I support the rights of people to freely associate. Free association implies exclusion.

Believing one thing, based on no evidence, until evidence of the contrary is produced, is an argument from ignorance, not a legitimate position.

You mean like believing that practicing homosexuality isn't a choice? An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

[One Above All]

"Practicing homosexuality"? You mean being attracted to people of the same sex? No, it's not a choice.

[Esquilax]

I'm not getting hung up on semantics. I'm sticking to my original purposes. You like to shift arguments to new ground. For instance, you've said that factors during childhood might influence eventual sexuality, and that hose factors may not be conscious choices of the individual. But, as I'm arguing that people are not born gay, as people are born black, those factors, even if true, are irrelevant to me. Factors during childhood don't make people black.

So you basically just don't want to address what the point of the argument actually is, which is that immorality cannot be applied to things people have no choice in, and instead you want to argue the semantics... while denying that you're arguing the semantics.

Exactly. 

So you're asserting that we should trust those with no idea of what the experience of gay people is like, over people that have some idea? That seems cogent to you?

LOL - unambiguously stating that the cause is ambiguous.

Laugh all you want, the APA's own resources, linked from their website, specifically state that there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

I have the actual science

Let's see it.

This'll do ya.  Notice how absolutely none of the studies done make the blithe "it's a choice" derpery that you did in your initial argument from ignorance. There isn't a consensus on the issue, but nobody even sees your conclusion as a legitimate area of study.

Which is subject to confirmation bias.

So we should believe you, with zero information as to their experiences, over them, because... you say so?

which I think is more of a direct hint than the interpretation of a study that doesn't say what you think it says, to reach a conclusion you'd reached before looking at the study. And if your only response to those testimonies is "oh, they're lying," well, I don't have to furnish a response to "nuh uh!" now do I?

Speaking of arguments from ignorance, here you go again.

How is this an argument from ignorance? I give an example, you dismiss it out of hand... how is my noting that you've given no reason for your dismissal other than an assertion that you cannot possibly know about not sufficient rebuttal?

My point is this: you do not have anywhere near a consensus of mainstream science as to the causes of homosexuality,

Neither do you.

Yep. The difference is that I'm actually living the life of an LGBTQ person, and so have sufficient evidence to refute your argument from ignorance right off the bat. Oh, and I'm not sitting here asserting that what I'm saying is the default and you have to prove me wrong, either. I'm just saying that when there isn't a consensus, there isn't a consensus, but I trust the contents of my own mind over whether this is a choice more than your fiat assertion and a study that, at best, merely rules out an exclusively genetic origin. Your only response to that is to tell me I'm lying, but you don't know me, you can't read my mind, and so that response is simply one of ignorance made to retain the conclusion you'd already come to before I'd even started speaking.

I don't sit here and just invalidate everything you say through fiat dismissal, because I can see that that doesn't get us anywhere. Is it too much to ask that you do the same?

Not nearly as much as you. I have twin studies and cross-cultural studies. All you have is the personal feelings of people with a personal interest in the outcome.

Was the conclusion of either of those sets of studies that homosexuality is a choice? No? Gee, then I guess you're stuck with an argument from ignorance, propped up by attempts to poke holes in the opposite conclusion rather than supporting your own, which is itself an argument from ignorance.

You mean like believing that practicing homosexuality isn't a choice?

Where the fuck did I state that I believed practicing homosexuality wasn't a choice? You wanna strawman me any harder, Chad?

My entire position is based around whether being homosexual is a choice, you're not gonna be able to sit there and crow using little word games to try and misrepresent my position.

An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

Considering that that isn't the issue at all, you are indeed being very silly. But then, dodging the issue via obtuseness and fiat assertion is kinda standard operating procedure for you, so I'm not exactly surprised either.

[Polaris]

Believing one thing, based on no evidence, until evidence of the contrary is produced, is an argument from ignorance, not a legitimate position.

You mean like believing that practicing homosexuality isn't a choice? An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

"Practicing homosexuality"? You mean being attracted to people of the same sex? No, it's not a choice.

The reason people state a blanket statement of it not being a choice is because it's one of their main defenses against the religious right. If they stated that it was a choice for many individuals (I can't determine whether how many homosexuals could choose to partake in relation with the opposite sex), the religious right could then use that information against them stating it was their choice to sin.
If there was no religious or other opposition to homosexuality, you wouldn't see people going around saying that it's not a choice.

[rexbeccarox]

If the religious right could keep their noses out of other peoples' business, we of the LGBTQ community wouldn't have to defend ourselves so fiercely. Again, it's not a choice, but it shouldn't fucking matter what consenting adults do with their own lives.

[Esquilax]

The reason people state a blanket statement of it not being a choice is because it's one of their main defenses against the religious right. If they stated that it was a choice for many individuals (I can't determine whether how many homosexuals could choose to partake in relation with the opposite sex), the religious right could then use that information against them stating it was their choice to sin.
If there was no religious or other opposition to homosexuality, you wouldn't see people going around saying that it's not a choice.

The thing you're missing is that, for those individuals that may have a choice in the matter, the attractions they have are not a choice. They can choose whether to be with a man or a woman, but they cannot- at least as far as my experiences within the community have shown me- shut off their attraction to one or the other gender. I'm with a woman, that's my choice, but it doesn't stop me from being attracted to men, nor could I shut off that attraction either.

I don't know how it is for you, maybe it's different, but frankly, the choice you're talking about is not the relevant choice; for example, I know of many homosexuals that have indeed had sex with those of the opposite gender. Physiologically, everything works the same, and it's not like being gay means an automatic revulsion toward the opposite sex- I doubt many straight men are completely grossed out by exposed male abs, for example- but the actual attraction isn't there. You can have sex for many reasons, after all, and outright physical attraction isn't always one of them. Some of those reasons can even be very positive, depending on how one chooses to view sex.

This is a more nuanced situation than many religious people want to talk about, but if the religious want to talk about sin, they kinda first need to demonstrate there's a god to determine those; they don't get to just assume large chunks of the basis of their argument. As to your last point, that's entirely speculative on your part, but maybe you're right; if the religious right didn't see fit to demand that a class of people need to justify their existence to them, for some reason, then it's very possible that the idea of justifying their nature would never occur to the LGBTQ community. Doesn't mean the justification they've been forced to furnish under threat of persecution is just a political move.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Alcoholics cannot stop being alcoholics but they can stop drinking. They have a choice. Some people may find themselves attracted to the same sex but that doesn't mean they must engage in same sex sex.

[Foxaèr]

An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

Go ahead.  Try to have sex with another man, fucking dumbass.  Then you can tell us if choice was truly involved.  

---

Alcoholics cannot stop being alcoholics but they can stop drinking. They have a choice. Some people may find themselves attracted to the same sex but that doesn't mean they must engage in same sex sex.

What the fuckity fuck is wrong with you?

You are so illogical, it truly makes my mind explode at how fucking retarded you are.

Alcoholism is a disease, while homosexuality is natural.  Comparing the two is fucking illogical.  However, you would make these silly comparisons merely for the fucking sake of getting on our nerves because it gets you off in some twisted way due to how psychotic you are.