Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

You are making this very hard to understand because you are not responding to every single point that I am making. There are still things you haven't addressed. It almost seems as though you are not reading them. 1.) This is hard to understand. You used the term "shot yourself in the foot" and the last time you said that phrase it was in response to my point about its removal from the DSM III for no reason other than public outcry. This time it seems as though you have dropped the DSM discussion (about the fact that it is considered a mental disorder but society is more important than science now, apparently) because you don't mention it at all. Fair enough, I guess one point for me. I love how you use the term "emotions" when in reality, I have been sourcing almost all of my claims. Also you say that I do not provide facts, when in fact I believe that I have been doing the complete opposite, I have been providing facts/evidence. 2.) You say that I am basing my response on emotions, but then you source a quote that has nothing to do with my emotions. You referenced something that I quoted about a guy who was recalling his younger years of how he turned to a life of prostitution because he lacked the void of a father figure. It seems as though you are focusing more on the word "child" rather than what is actually being said. (I would also like to note, so what if he is just a child? Doesn't that make my argument more sound? Because children are more susceptible to psychological effects than adults, which is my point, that it is a psychological issue) 3.) I think/know you are missing a big point. I stated in round 2 "Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child". I think you might have had your cursor over the word CAN. I was very careful not to use broad generalizations because I knew that it would lead to this. In fact, I have already said this, in round 3, "Also, I made sure not to write in affirmative language just so that I don't get into issues that you addressed earlier, speaking in broad generalizations." Do I believe that EVERY single child with neglectful parents becomes homosexual, of course not, that is an absurd claim to make. Is it possible to believe that it could have an affect on people, absolutely, as is the case with the person I quoted. The problem is you (I am only assuming based on your responses) believe that everyone is exactly the same, psychologically. I believe that everyone is different, this why I have said certain things "can" affect certain people. 4.) I think you failed to see my point. You cannot compare sexuality in fish to sexuality in humans. Why do I say that? Because fish are completely different. Like I have said, there are certain fish that can change genders, there are also certain fish that can reproduce asexually. Neither of these sexual traits can be found in humans. I also put that "They might have misinterpreted male fishes being exposed to a chemical and then turning female to being homosexual [male] fish". Also, like I have said this study completely contradicts itself "This quote is a contradiction. "A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation" then goes on to say "and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality" so which one is it, does it have little or no influence on sexual orientation or does it entirely influence sexual orientation." 5.) "I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it" well, that isn't a good way to debate, you don't just not address something because you didn't have a source, you ask for a source (even though I gave you an EXACT example of this with the Collins twins) but then I said (this was in round 2) "In an article 8 major studies made this same conclusion that homosexuality is not genetic because of twins. Here is the article, read it for yourself: [insert link here]" So you are wrong, I did give you a source. Then you go on one of the worst rambles I have ever seen. Do you even read what you write? -"especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means". Do you think that I don't believe there can be twins that are both homosexual? That's not what I said at all. I questioned how is it possible that if homosexuality is a genetic issue, when two people with the same dna (genes) are not both homosexual? I want you to explain to me how that is possible. - (coming from a guy that says I don't source, you didn't source, you just put the list of people in the study) The first 2 sentences need context, it is just an excerpt out of a research paper. How was this investigation done? I have no idea, regardless, look at the percentages. 91.5% of men reported no overt homosexual behavior during the 12 months. but 91.5% of the 32.8% of men = ~ .3% of total sample. WHAT? The last point is probably the most important one, the "The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior" Are you kidding me? Go look back at those numbers and tell me what is striking. "37.4% of the time it is influenced by genetics". So 62.6% of the time homosexuality isn't affected by genetics, garbage. What happened to the 62.6% of the people that are homosexual that can't be linked to genetics? That means they weren't "born that way". Either it has an affect or it doesn't and clearly (from this study) it doesn't have an effect. How do you miss this? This is your own evidence. *** Also don't think I forgot when you said "especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values" um.... excuse me. Where did I ever use religion in this debate. IN FACT, I have strictly mentioned that I would be refraining from sourcing studies that are run by religious organizations ( to remove bias ). I have no idea how you can make such a claim (then again, look at how this debate has been going). 6.) I know I have said this already in this round but since you mentioned it I will again too. I do not believe I have been emotion based in this debate. Actually, I believe that I have been provided a good amount of evidence. 7.) Besides the fish study and this study with homosexual twins, you haven't given me evidence as to how it is genetics. Even these studies you have given me are practically useless. I mean... fish aren't mammals and their sexuality is completely different from humans. The homosexual twins study you gave showed that it isn't genetic because it only might have an effect like ~30% of the time. Come on man, is this all you got? Hit me with something hard, show me something where there is ABSOLUTE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT evidence that it is genetic. I mean, that's basically the consensus of society, so there must be something out there. Why haven't you shown me it? Just k.o me in one swoop. Can you do it? I don't think you can because there isn't evidence to prove its genetics, but there is evidence to prove it CAN ( I have to capitalize it because apparently you can't read that word ) be based on psychology. I await your response. ********* Hey I know I kind of did this already, but for round 5 lets just wrap everything up no responding just a closer, because its the last round. Agreed?*******