I have utmost respect for ProgressivePatriot who I believe challenges issues for the right reasons. However I finally found a point where I can argue back with PP, and maybe get somewhere. Currently, my response to the assertion that (A) homosexual orientation is NEVER a choice to change and (B) religion or beliefs can ALWAYS be changed was met with an insult that my answer was "meaningless." I was saying that in SOME cases A and B are right; but in OTHERS the opposite happens (where homosexual orientation HAS been changed by choice and where religious beliefs COULD NOT BE helped or changed). I wasn't saying ProgressivePatriot wasn't right in certain cases. But saying this isn't true in all cases, for either homosexuality or for religious beliefs. The three points I argue with PP 1. That SOME cases of orientation CAN be changed and some cannot (whether this is homosexual, hetereosexual, bisexual, transgender etc.) 2. That SOME people CAN change their religious beliefs but some CANNOT help what they believe or what affiliation they relate to. Like Atheists and Theists cannot always help what they believe and "change to be the other way." Many of my prolife friends cannot help their beliefs about abortion being murder. To others this appears as a "choice" but it isn't for them. 3. And that my statements I made were NOT "meaningless" but add critical depth and context to what ProgressivePatriot was saying. So my last argument is that if what I'm saying is meaningless, so must PP statement be meaningless since that was half of what I said. Go for it ProgressivePatriot! Explain how this has no meaning or adds no content to what you were arguing yourself.