Do you have some reason to think the people that say they made a choice are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
This is a strawman fallacy, I never once said any of the sortout even suggested it. Also: Do you have some reason to think the people that say they were born that way are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
I never said you said it, did I? I responded to your assertion that people are "born that way." You have to deal with the people who actually say they made a choice, the same way I have to deal with the people that claim they were born that way. Unlike you, I don't dodge the issue, I have repeatedly stated that the fact that an individual does not remember making a choice is not evidence they did not make one.
This begs the question. There is no fact that an individual made a choice and didn't remember. That is called an assumption. This isn't a dodge. Prove that somebody made a choice. I further don't have to deal with either of the groups because I haven't made a claim, that it is a choice, learned behaviors, or inborn phenomena.
So, once again, how does your belief system deal with the fact that there are actually people out there that make a claim that directly contradicts your position?
I don't think you understand my position. Besides there are people that claim to receive radio transmissions in their teeth.
What is your explanation for data that contradicts your assertions?
What assertions?
Are you simply going to dismiss it because you prefer your beliefs to the facts?
You haven't posted any facts.
You keep using the term straw man wrong.
I am using it properly. See above you are fabricating assertions, belief systems and positions I have not taken.
I never once misrepresented anything you said, I am asking you to explain evidence that contradicts your claims.
Yes you did. I never made any claims.
Dismissing questions as a straw man argument is a childish tactic.
It's apt.
People might think you are nice because you never respond to insults with insults, but the fact that you are responding to me by misrepresenting what I am doing proves to me that you just have a different way of insulting people.
No sir you stated I made claims and have a position. Just out of curiosity what do you think my position is?
It won't work on me, I don't invest myself emotionally
What isn't going to work? And good for you for not investing emotions into debate.
but feel free to keep pretending you are better than the people, like me,
That is a rather odd projection.
who are willing to actually get into the gutter and fight.
So it would be better if I met childish name calling with childish name calling?
Quite poorly. You said there is no known genetic marker. That would mean it's unknown. You said there was no known neurological marker, again that is unknown. So you saying that there isn't enough evidence to prove your position wrong is proof that it is right, is a logical fallacy.
which is why I am free to challenge yours.
I am really curious, what do you think my claim is?
You really need to learn how to debate, to bad they stopped teaching it in schools since I grew up.
I have pointed out repeated fallacy in your argument.
[/QUOTE]Who taught you to think? Some things people learn without external aid, some things people need help to learn. Dexterity isn't one of the latter.[/QUOTE]Proof?
As for the APA, you should read this.
Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why | Psychology Today
If they reject science in their most important publication, how can you claim that the organization is scientific?
I read the link, I sawthey were talking about personalitydisorders and they mentioned leaving something out but I am unclear what it was the claim was left out.
Do some research, you might learn something.
No, this isyour claim theburden of proof is on you.
for some reason the board software didn't include your question about markers, I wouldn't want you to accuse me of dodging the question.
The only accurate study of living people showed a difference in the size of INAH3 between straight and gay men.
Is Homosexuality a Choice? | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
Why does there need to be physical markers?
The problem is that the difference does not prove that someone is homosexual, it is entirely possible for a straight man to have a relatively small INAH3, and there is no real evidence that links that area of the brain to anything.
Well this is evidence that it's unknown, not necessarily a choice.
http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique
Since I never actually claimed that there isn't a difference in brain structure, I see no reason to respond to your challenge to prove that there is. What I claimed, and still do, is that there are no markers that exist solely in gay people. Feel free to prove otherwise.
I am not interested in proving otherwise because that isn't the caseI am advocating. What I want to know is the absence of what you call a marker, what ever that may be, allows you to jump to the conclusion that it is a choice.