Keep on posting Silhoette. As many people on here may not like it there is a lot of truth in what you post. I knew such a case very well as this "he wasn't "born gay". He was made-gay." Poor spent his life trying to fit in somewhere but could not find where it was he should be.
Exception that there isn't. As Sil has no explanation for all the gays and lesbians who were never molested. Or those who were molested and didn't become gay or lesbian. Or gays and lesbians who were molested by opposite sex criminals.
Sil is merely repeating the same nonsense that people like you *already* believe. So he's not convincing you of anything. He's preaching to his choir.
For any rational person with an even semblance of understanding of causation, Sil's claims are pseudo-intellectual gibberish. As if your 'effect" (being gay or lesbian) occurs regardless of the presense of your cause (being molested by a same sex criminal), your cause isn't.
Your entitled to your opinion. Too bad you do not agree very well others are entitle to theirs from what they have seen happen in people that they actually know in their own extended families.
Then perhaps you can explain it. How are gay people only 'made' when they haven't been molested?
Either you have an explanation....or you have to admit that Sil's completely full of shit. As you can't establish causation when your 'effect' exists even when your 'cause' doesn't.
I did not say all gay people or all lesbians are that away from abuse but the fact is many wind up in those situations of not knowing which is right or wrong for them personally. A child molested by a family member that did not care whether they were molesting boys or girl or even their own child grows up with mental defects.
Ah. So you acknowledge that gays need not be 'made'. Then that just obliterates your argument of causation. As your 'effect' exists even when your cause doesn't.
That's not causation. That's assumption. And poorly thought through assumption.
A fact only affirmed by the gays and lesbians molested by opposite sex criminals....and still being gay. Exactly opposite of what your assumptions conclude must happen. Or those who are molested aren't gay or lesbian.
The pattern of causation you assume....
doesn't exist. You're engaging in what is known as cherry picking. Where you cite anything that matches your assumptions as a 'hit', and ignore the all the times your assumptions don't match the evidence.
Its a logical fallacy for a reason:
its notoriously unreliable. And its the beating heart of Sil's hapless nonsense.