Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture

You've reiterated the fact that you were born gay, however you have no evidence to back up this claim. Due to the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. The idea of blindly nurturing nature without proof that it really is nature is a dangerous move in the long run. The only reason that I consider it dangerous is because if there is by some chance some way this country escapes some sort of major catastrophe and the evolution of the community of a whole is going to end up with some sort of warped view of themselves that has to no scientific backing. The thing is this empire and country will fall and your lifestyle will be a null and void lifestyle. Because society is going to revert back to the need and functionality of reproduction. You see in your lifestyle the most basic of basic purposes for sex is leisure and pleasure and love. This type of lifestyle flourishes in an over populated society. Which is why I said it is lifestyle of luxury. However in a heterosexual lifestyle the most basic of basic reasons for sex is reproduction. The love and leisure are secondary. So until a woman is pregnant and the doctor can do a blood test to determine whether or not the child is homosexual much the way you can with down syndrome or diabetes. Your debate point of being born gay is a void point. Second pulling from one side of the nurture vs nature debate and quoting different authors is not a reliable source of debate. For I can pull just as many authors that will say it's nurture and this debate becomes pointless. To nurture your points however saying that I study the genetic, neuroscience and cognitive development of a child that is supposedly born gay is a bit pointless due to the fact that a baby lacks frontal lobe development.(cognitive thought) The child loves its mother but doesn't know why, and it is not in love with childhood friends. For sake of getting a point across we will use your Steven Pinkner point even though he is notoriously biased and only approaches studies from one side of the coin. In saying we look at the boy during puberty is in fact that an unfair test subject due to the fact that 1. unless the child was proven to be a sterile test subject i.e evidence can soundly be shown that the boy has received no contaminating education. (Seeing Bruce Jenner on a magazine) Then the study can not be completed because we can not say the child wasn't mislead. 2nd Genes do not control the human behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids in the body which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a portion can AFFECT things like alcohol tolerance or mood. However affecting something is not the same thing as having complete control over it. In other words alcoholism can be genetic if a child's parents and grandparents were alcoholics and they saw their parents receiving stress relief at the end of a long day as a child. However if that child is moved to an area that alcohol is banned the child will not still be an alcoholic. Homosexuality was thought to be able to be passed on in the early 90's and an abhorrent question was developed on how to abort an unwanted gay baby. Which led to a study where a child was taken from a surrogate lesbian couple after being given up for adoption, the child was placed into a heterosexual household the child grew up straight. Without education the child is unable to pass "gay genes". They simply do not exist.