It's actually correct both ways. Wrong has a noun form which this wrong is specifically his.

Potentially esoteric definitions for words make English very pliable.

Cite. Your. Sources. I'd understand if I hadn't asked, but I most certainly did ask. Just saying "This is true." is worthless on the internet.

The reason I say what I say is because I've read about it from institutes who research the stuff. Yes, I didn't cite a research paper, but I did cite the general consensus of a major institution's stance on the issue which is in their subject field to study, which says your wrong.

Other institutions might say they are wrong. Show me to support your assertion.

Your thought experiment is fruitless because there is no discernible way to tell if people could choose because they are bisexual or because sexuality is a choice. Or that if they can't "choose", if it's because it's not a choice, or if it's because of their psychology regarding the issue regarding any of the possible factors that make humans choose what they choose growing up.

In other words, the thought experiment is pointless without the very information that quote says we don't have.

Humans psychology is vastly complex. Solving for whether something is truly a choice or not, when that thing is deeply embedded in something we don't understand very well (our desires) is nigh impossible without a lot more information.

I'm not arguing that it's a choice. I'm arguing that the claims that it isn't a choice are baseless.

+5 Funny? I was actually serious.

"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works. Please cite sources.

I love how hilarity comes out of misinterpreted comments on the interwebs. It's lovely. I now see the humor in my comment. Still, Please cite sources.

Just because it's erotic doesn't mean its homoerotic. /s

Besides... You should know by now that the rules are different for the Kremlin & their cronies.

Then how does it work? Please cite sources.

From what I've heard and experienced, that's exactly how it works in the European countries that have UHC.

Thank you for being civil.

I chose after experiencing attraction for both genders. I understand what you are saying about "those people are probably just bisexual", but I think actually discerning that for certain is difficult because it requires a person to be introspective enough to understand the difference between their choice and their desire. I'm very introverted, so introspection is all I can really do well.

If I had the desire for same gender relations, but chose to get rid of that desire, and it's really gone now, is it gone because of my choice, or because I wasn't done developing? Or due to some life event that affected my psychology? Or what-have-you. There's just not enough information to discern that effectively & reliably imo. I only know what I've experienced.

From my perspective, there are 3 things related to sexual relations to be considered: Biological reaction, i.e. blood flowing and whatnot, emotional reaction, i.e. desire to fornicate, and psychological action, i.e. "I'm going to have sex with that person." Usually biological & emotional are tied together, but if I just experience the biological, but not the emotional, is that relevant to what sexual orientation defines?

I personally always thought sexual orientation was purely based on your choice of who you fornicated with when I was growing up. Then, as the LGBT movement has grown, I've come to understand that what most people view that as is "what you are sexually attracted to", and not "what you actively sleep with". I'm still lost on the definition of actual sexual attraction though. Does it mean the emotional response, the biological response, or both/neither, and it appears most people consider the psychological choice irrelevant now-a-days.

For me, it's always been a choice. It's hard for me to understand how it's not one for others, but I didn't live their lives, so yeah. I'm just a bit perplexed at how so many people are certain of something that science has yet to point to in any significant or meaningful way, according to the bodies studying this very subject intently.

The problem with universal healthcare is that it lacks incentive for actually curing people and adds pressure to cut corners in their treatment. I personally am for a hybrid system. I'm not sure what it'd look like, but I've learned so far in life that the best answer rarely lies in extremes and is usually a balance of those extremes.

In the public healthcare system, as you've said, "Doctors order test after test to cover their asses against malpractice suits", but there's another side effect of that: diseases/illnesses are more likely to be found. A higher screening rate generally leads to more lives saved, admittedly at greater cost. I agree there's way too much waste and lack of efficiency in the system, but in a system that is set up to save people's lives, how do we establish efficiency if, to be more efficient, we have to let more people slip through the cracks?

Admittedly, that's probably counter-acted by the number of people who don't get treatment when they should due to cost, but in a universal healthcare system, even if tax payers do foot the bill, there is a budget. So in that system, you take the incentive of more tests for CYA & profits and trade it for pressure to avoid more tests as it cuts into what budget you have. i.e. less screening means more people fall through the cracks due to budget concerns.

To me, that choice between private & public health care is a catch-22 as, either way, the system is set up in a way that an excessive amount of people fall through the cracks. Which is why I'd prefer a hybrid system.

I don't see where the validity to this "We can't control our sexual orientation" idea came from. According to the American Psychiatry Association, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".

I suppose it's more likely it's environmental, but what we get from our environment is dependent upon our perception of it which, as many religious people have shown, is something we can freely control if we choose to. Ranging from tuning out a noise in the background to "This is the Matrix and our choices are pointless in a false, digital, world", depending on how you think our body interacts with the world.

Full Disclosure: I'm a homophobe. That means I irrationally fear homosexuals the same way I irrationally fear heights or spiders. I despise the fact that people use that as a slur, ignoring what the word actually means (reminds me of what happened to mental retardation, being a completely legitimate medical term turned into a hateful word used against people).

I mean no hatred with this comment/question. I sincerely want to know where the certainty, which saturates this entire post, comes from that it's not a choice, when a governing body that actively studies this isn't certain at all. Admittedly, that page hasn't been updated in a while, but I'd figure it would be if something as important as that were discovered to be true, and it represents a key location people who know little about the subject would go to get more information.

>So the obvious question is why be willing to believe that God did not require creating, yet he universe did?

The universe has cause and effect and requires it for everything. I don't think it's a stretch of logic to say the universe requires that of itself as well.

Applying that to God doesn't make sense because then we are saying that God is subject to the same things that the universe is. Which is kind of opposite the whole concept of God. i.e. Supernatural (read: doesn't follow nature's laws).

It's logical to apply the universe's inner workings to itself as a whole, but it's not to apply them to something that is supposed to be beyond them by definition (at least as most religions look at it).

Some people get caught up in the difference between the mechanics of evolution and the theory regarding how life became so diverse over time.

I'm not opposed to believing one and disbelieving the other in regards to what is the truth (evidence notwithstanding). i.e. "Genes and exist and evolution works, but that's not necessarily how we got from monkeys to us, or from amoeba to monkeys."

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

If that's the definition, there's one issue with the Judge's decision. The definition of puffery requires that the customer doesn't take the claim seriously. It sounds like the investors (the customers in this case, in a sense) did indeed take them seriously.

Caveat emptor, yes, but regardless, by the FTC's definition, this isn't puffery. Not sure what it is, but it's not that.

Considering we've already gotten this far, in 1970, we shouldn't have much farther to go to figure out that mass propulsion problem.

I'm probably failing high school biology here, but don't some genes, individually, affect multiple things? i.e. If you focus on intelligence, what does that predispose other factors to? Are the intelligence based genes tied to anything else? And if so, what would focusing on those genes also bring out in the kids born from those embryos?