Christians are the ones who imposes their views on us gays and forced us to abandon homosexuality. All gays ask of Christians is to just leave us alone (live and let live) and do not condemn us.
Why do we have to prove something is imposed onto us when Christians cannot prove that gay is a choice and conversion therapy is safe and effective?

Beside, u are the one who first brought up gay as a sexual preference (on May 29th, 2009 8.00 pm ) in this discussion without any proof!

(a) You wrote: A=“What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.” And i countered : non-A=”oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.”
You jump in with “Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer. ” ie B= “APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move”

I give you counter example to rule out A. By Mathematics of Logic, there is no need to proof B, because A is already disproved.

(b) You wrote: “Treatment of patients has always been an opinion”
Philosophy of medical science has ALWAYS been: “Treatment of an INDIVIDUAL patients is an opinion, to be view under each INDIVIDUAL clinical setting, BUT treatment of a condition in general is always a consensus” MOH sg has come up with no less than 60 guildlines of treatment — which is CONSENSUS. Most (if not all) national medical body throughout the world comes out with CONSENSUS.
This also counter proof your (a) APA come out with CONSENSUS that homosexuality is NOT a disease.

(c) you wrote : ” If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised” is rheoterics.
Your ignorance in your genetic writings tells the truth. Since YOU (solo bear, and NO other people) dont know medical genetics, please SHUT UP and SIT DOWN.

I did not assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.

(d) “Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too” Google that or try to look for the 1984 SBC medical genetics series as delivered by Emeritus Prof Wong HB, he is a medical geneticist cum paediatrician.

(e) My duty is not to PROOF that gay is inborn. My duty is to tell you, to SHUT UP and SIT DOWN. You are spreading pseudo-science.

Whether I can prove is besides the point. The onus is on gays to prove that gay is inborn. They made that statement, the onus is on them to bring proof. Not the other way.

Kill netizen
>> Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
>>

All right big talker. Let’s see how you perform. Please cite source, date and details. Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer.

One is a case of early symptom of cancer, the other a total 180 degree turn away from a current opinion it is a disease. Please show correlation, doc.

>>(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
>>

Treatment of patients has always been an opinion, hasn’t it? How does it lend credence to the fact that APA’s voting decision to turn 180 degrees is professional, which is an opinion whether a behaviour is a disease?

>>(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
>>

If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.

>>(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.
>>

Care to explain that, quack doc?

Your job is to show PROOF that gay is inborn. Cut your pseudo knowledge you possess, such that even professors and specialists don’t dare claim.

If you truly have the answer that gay is inborn, I dare challenge you put your medical profession on the line by stating in no uncertain terms, to the medical world that you have found proof that gay is inborn. Bring forth your studies to be examined.

Dare do it? If yes, just do it. If no, YOU shut up and sit down, doc.

Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.

It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.

u cant prove all gays has a choice by giving examples of gays who have changed.
I am not sure if u understand elementary logic.
we can all agree that we are just being stubborn.

So not only there is no proof, you don’t have majority opinion either.

And gays dare say science is on their side?

What pompous claim!

EXACTLY! So all the talk by gays that you have proof gay is inborn in nothing more than just opinion.

There is NO PROOF gay is inborn. Just opinion that it is.

So?

It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.

>>But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
>>

Do you know that APA took a vote to consider homo not a disease?

What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.

Ha ha. Since when medical science is based on votes?

You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed

Stop repeating that

Prove it

But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses

You keep repeating gay is not choice and it cannot be reversed.

Stop repeating that.

Prove it.

Where is the scientific evidence when there is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field?

How does that support the argument gay is inborn?

>> Sexual differentiation in mammals is biased towards developing as a female
>>

That has been confirmed eons ago – long before the gay pride began. It does NOTHING to confirm gay is inborn. In any case, if you want to use the above argument, then what about lesbians? It throws the concept of lesbianism off, no?

Thio
>> A psychologist once said to me; the things we say about others really reflect how we feel about ourselves. True?
>>

I’d rather say that if you keep saying things about yourself, you will believe what you say. That’s how champions and losers are made. They enact what they believe about themselves.

So gays who say gay is inborn, reinforce their gayness – a very vicious cycle that entraps them to a point of no return.

abc
>>I just there’s no point explaining the science behind the etiology of sexuality to people who are
1) Completely ignorant about genetics
2) Not open to evidence that contradicts their stand
>>

Stop beating about bush. Show how genetics cause gayness. There is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field. Why claim is when there is no confirmation?

I just there’s no point explaining the science behind the etiology of sexuality to people who are

1) Completely ignorant about genetics

2) Not open to evidence that contradicts their stand

Pls keep your comments to within 500 words.

Thanks.

If it is just a choice, why cant they become heterosexual after going thro a deliberate conversion therapy to change to heterosexuality.