I am not sure if English is your first language or not, but I wasn't remotely hateful toward you. I called you on your bullshit, which you failed to address by the way. Being direct with someone isn't hateful, it's honest.

I'm not "talking against facts," I'm bringing them to the table. This is where scientists believe the fundamental control occurs. 

Epigenetics and hormones go hand in hand and it is absolutely thought to be hormones sent as epigenetic signals during development that produces sexuality. Epigenetics aren't set in stone, they are environmentally impacted. 

Classifying homosexuality as a brain disorder is absurd. Call it a recessive disposition, but disorder in this sense is a pejorative. Like I said, it's not thought of as different to left-handedness - and I think you'll fail to classify this as a disorder. 

Furthermore, what the hell does "hope" have anything to do with anything? I'm not homosexual, so I've no vested interest in a scientific explanation. I'm bringing clarity to an outdated opinion that it's a brain disorder. It simply isn't; any other assertion is baseless and, quite frankly, ridiculous.

im from iceland, and you say bullshit i assumed that was foul language in english perhaps im wrong if so appologies. my reasoning has been explained marriage is a binding of masculine and feminine coming together as one and has been so for many years it is special to me and has meaning, perhaps you are from the new world where tradition and history arent relevant but to me my peoples history and tradition is important and worth defending, people are gay yes this is true in many walks of life but they are different as are many in life, so why not allow them to have their own version with their own vows ect what is so awfull about this, 

You claimed that homosexuality "is controlled by epigenetic markers which promote a predisposition". That is not fact, that's a theory. Some homosexuality seem to be controlled by genetic markers, while some homosexuality cannot yet be connected to any predisposition, that's all we can say.

To call it a brain disorder is not "obsolete" or "absurd" for other than political reasons. You choose to compare it to left-handedness because it fits your liberal agenda, but it could just as well be compared to autism-spectrum disorders such as Aspbergers, or ADHD, which are classified as brain disorders.

About hope. Let's not pretend you don't have any premises coming in to this regardless if you personally are homosexual or not (which is really a weak argument). Undoubtetly you will prefer facts that strengthen a genetical explanation rather than a psychological explanation, or discoveries that suggest homosexuality to be a favourable evolutionary trait rather than a random detrimental defect.

You're entitled to your opinion, but emotional arguments don't carry any weight I'm afraid. Homosexuality is a natural occurance and is found in the animal kingdom. 

Your definition of marriage seems to be born of religion and misses the underlying point. It's a cultural ritual to signify a partnership between two people until death do them part. 

There is simply no need to redefine a perfectly good term. If religious people want to differentiate themselves, they can call it something else that pertains to their religion. It isn't a religious exercise, it's a cultural and legal one.

You're entitled to your opinion, but emotional arguments don't carry any weight I'm afraid. Homosexuality is a natural occurance and is found in the animal kingdom. 

Your definition of marriage seems to be born of religion and misses the underlying point. It's a cultural ritual to signify a partnership between two people until death do them part. 

There is simply no need to redefine a perfectly good term. If religious people want to differentiate themselves, they can call it something else that pertains to their religion. It isn't a religious exercise, it's a cultural and legal one.

It is the best theory at the moment. We have yet to resolve the debate, but we've certainly disproved the notion of a brain disorder.

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

I don't think you understand what the term "premise" means by your misuse of it. I've vested interest in spreading current truths about science; you don't seem to share this interest by your continued defense of your debunked position.

You're entitled to your opinion, but emotional arguments don't carry any weight I'm afraid. Homosexuality is a natural occurance and is found in the animal kingdom. 

Your definition of marriage seems to be born of religion and misses the underlying point. It's a cultural ritual to signify a partnership between two people until death do them part. 

There is simply no need to redefine a perfectly good term. If religious people want to differentiate themselves, they can call it something else that pertains to their religion. It isn't a religious exercise, it's a cultural and legal one.

In your opinion it's the best theory (and probably in the interest of liberal lobby groups) that genetic markers have a deep impact on causing homosexuality. Because it fits your agenda. Not because you're scientifically open to any explanation.

Bold: you know that sentence is false. There are evidence that severe hormonal dysfunctions affect sexuality and in turn this would qualifiy it to be classified as a disorder using medical terms, no matter if you like it or not. We just don't know the whole picture yet.

Like I said, it's laughably clear that you're driven by an agenda rather than objective towards scientific facts.