Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Tulsa school district about to substitute biology classes with 3 weeks of indoctrination on "sex Ed".
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JD8" data-source="post: 3912187" data-attributes="member: 24"><p>Bless your heart you didn't offend, I was just noting your misrepresentation and was surprised by it. </p><p></p><p>Ok, for nature vs nurture, like or not there's been a lot of evidence to show a significant genetic component. Granted I'm not saying there's a specific gay gene but PR studies are indicating genetic markers. Couple that with other occurrences in other species and there's a lot of smoke there. Now you can try to polarize what I said to fit your argument. Hint: I didn't say the genetic component was 100% responsible per se. Either way, in addition to noted genetic markers in studies, and occurrences in other species, you have a prevalence of homosexual individuals throughout history and in several cultures. If "nurture" were significant or the majority of the "cause," you'd see at deviation or significant delta in the numbers across cultures, especially more conservative ones. </p><p></p><p>Therefore, the keep it quiet theory on my part is just that, but again, there's a lot of smoke there to say the least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JD8, post: 3912187, member: 24"] Bless your heart you didn't offend, I was just noting your misrepresentation and was surprised by it. Ok, for nature vs nurture, like or not there's been a lot of evidence to show a significant genetic component. Granted I'm not saying there's a specific gay gene but PR studies are indicating genetic markers. Couple that with other occurrences in other species and there's a lot of smoke there. Now you can try to polarize what I said to fit your argument. Hint: I didn't say the genetic component was 100% responsible per se. Either way, in addition to noted genetic markers in studies, and occurrences in other species, you have a prevalence of homosexual individuals throughout history and in several cultures. If "nurture" were significant or the majority of the "cause," you'd see at deviation or significant delta in the numbers across cultures, especially more conservative ones. Therefore, the keep it quiet theory on my part is just that, but again, there's a lot of smoke there to say the least. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Tulsa school district about to substitute biology classes with 3 weeks of indoctrination on "sex Ed".
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom