No you declared it to be impossible and did so by purposefully ignoring basic tenants of genetics and doing so showed the last thing you were being was logical.
I respectfully disagree. I think a fair reading of my arguments will prove them to be sound.
Male pattern baldness is inherited though the maternal line.
Height is inherited through the paternal line
Circadian rhythms (the natural cycles of sleeping and waking) passed on through the maternal line.
Crooked teeth passed through the paternal line
and dozens of other genetic traits pass only though one parent. And orientation is one of those like it or not.
Once again, you missed the point entirely. Whether a trait is inherited through one parent or both parents, nothing at all is inherited apart from the activity of reproduction. Male-male bonding doesn't produce a child. Female-female bonding doesn't produce a child. Without reproduction, there is no evolutionary pressure that will increase the likelihood of a supposed mitochondrial DNA symbiosis. If the supposed symbiosis forms accidentally through mutation, the gene will not survive into the subsequent generations. The mother will not have a gene for her child to inherit.
The only way your theory works is if women who were supposedly oriented toward other women, mated with men contrary to their nature. And if this is true, the orientation is meaningless.
wow, you rally don't have a clue about minorities.
Yes, I do. Human nature, behavior, and motives are not hard to discern for those willing to spend the time to listen and observe.
you chose your wife solely because she was a woman. Because of your orientation
You can believe me or don't.
And you still limited your choices to women because of your orientation.
Well, if there is such a thing as "orientation," mine is correct. Healthy orientation is male-female adult orientation. All others are mental disorders.
of course it does and it is just foolish to pretend it doesn't.
Who is pretending? I gave you a sound argument as to why the concept, as understood in our culture, is empty and meaningless outside the concept of sexuality. Try making your own argument if you can.
One more time. I will type slowly so you can better understand. The genes that determine homosexuality work in the mother to make her more fertile.
The likelihood of fertility has nothing to do with it. Reproduction requires both a father and a mother. A male-male orientation doesn't involve a woman. A female-female orientation involves two women, neither of which can contribute sperm. Therefore, there is no biological advantage to a supposed mother-inherited trait associated with reproduction.
Again basic genetics.
Bob has sickle cell anemia but neither of his parents have this condition. What you are saying is that this is impossible because of your faulty grasp of genetics. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia works in Bob'[s parents as a means of protection from malaria.
Bob doesn't exist unless he has two parents, male and female. Bob isn't gay because his mother has a gay gene. Bob is gay because he suffered damage to his psyche during childhood.
A gay man wears on his body the evidence against his desires. If he has a sexual attraction to another man, his desire is contrary to the created order. Men have parts that women share to have children. You can't get any more obvious than that.
That is your choice. don't inflict it onto others.
Before we make a choice, we need to face reality. I don't need to inflict reality onto a person. God did that already. All I can do is help someone accept what they already know to be true.
