Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Coyote]

What about solitary hunter species, hmmm? Are you saying evolutiion works differently for them?

Yes. It does work differently. Different characteristics are conducive to survival in social species where the emphasis may be on survival of a closely related family grouping with cooperative care of the young rather then survival and propagation of the individual (as in solitary hunter species). Within that context homosexuality can be seen to confer certain advantages: non-breeding member of the group that aids in defense and child care, homosexuality could reduce sexual tensions in a group where only a small number actually breed and, in some cases - like Bonobos - sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior, is a means of social cohesion.

 

[numinus]

Go take a class in sociology and maybe you'll understand.

And what makes you think I'm inclined to take a gay sociology class, if something remotely similar to that exists, hmmm?

Your own definition of the word "fact" is suspect enough.

Have you even read the introduction to any dictionary?

I've shown you. The APA has done extensive research into this.

Into what? That homosexuality is a genetic condition that takes away one's free will? And what is the business of a group of psychologist doing genetic research, eh?

I would expect you to lie, but to do so in such a blundering fashion is bordering on idiocy.

What makes you think that this particular inclination deserves to be repressed?

Did I say 'repressed'? I have always argued for privacy regarding sexual matters.

Sexual interactions today are in many cases more for pleasure or to derive a sense of closeness to one's partner than for reproductive purposes. In that vain, sure, there's plenty natural about it.

I said physiological. Pale rider already mentioned the hazards of introducing fecal matter in the blood stream - which is very likely when you introduce your erect penis in someone's behind, and pump vigorously.

Why not? Are you so afraid that a group of people who've received the short end of the stick for a couple thousand years might finally be accepted by society? Why does that frighten you so?

Good lord, you're dense!

Because if there are different forms of being, other than human being, for different individuals, then there can be no law that would logically bind all.

And what sort of right do you suggest for a gay being that isn't already covered in the universal declaration of human rights, the rights of women and children, hmmm?

Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Do you deny it, then?

I deny it absolutely.

No. That's you.

And who is the one claiming dictionary definitions as rigorously factual, hmmm?

But the statement was a contradiction. First you said you wouldn't differentiate. Then you differentiated. Read it over again and tell me how I'm wrong about this.

I said IF....

The point being to expose your statement to a patently ridiculous situation IF. And because I assert that thought and action are inseparable, then only a person who indulges in the act may be deemed a homosexual.

It is not my fault that you're somewhat slow.

Have you never heard of the subconscious?

Yes. And the reason we are aware that there is a subconscious is that it manifests in action, no?

Bull.

You behave on inclinations rather than on some discernable good??? That would explain a lot.

Thank you. However, I'm generally not in the practice of taking encouragement from homophobes.

Just because I see homosexuality as a choice makes me a homophobe??? You don't know me, nor the friends I keep. You might want to ease up on the labels and stick with facts and logic.

Hey, way to not answer the question. I've never talked with anyone who could be vague like you.

A lot of things appear vague to the ignorant.

An action that is though of as good, and is not calculated to promote a further good - that is a good in and of itself.

Clear enough for you?

This is if you accept a universal model for ethics, which I do not.

You have no idea how supremely stupid that is. Even the most ethical relativist, like hume, doesn't dare assert such a thing.

In its most basic form, a "thief" is one who steals. So yes, threatening him with the force of the law and thereby preventing him from stealing keeps him from being a thief. HOWEVER - what if he has kleptomania, which predicates him towards stealing? Then, whether he is currently engaging in the act of stealing or not, he is a kleptomaniac.

What are you talking about??? A kleptomaniac IS A THIEF, and the full force of the law will not suffer theft. It will compel him to undertake a cure so that he does not steal again, which is a similar fate to incarceration if such a condition did not exist in the thief.

To live a luxurious life is an inclination most people have. And so you may follow your inclinations up to the point the law permits. And your sociology is not worth a damn if you don't know that.

I believe that society has the right to discourage thievery because it is harmful to others. Homosexuality is not harmful to others. If you wish to argue with me on this point, you may start by telling me how you, personally, have been harmed by homosexuality.

And I have NEVER asserted that it is harmful to me. It is harmful to those who practice it. And I have no intentions of interfering with the private lives of others.

Yes. Both Judaism as an ethnic origin and Judaism as a religion were targeted by the Nazis.

So it isn't exclusively thought.

There you have it, folks. Jews who were frightened into not practicing their religion to keep from being killed were no longer Jews, according to numinus.

You may as well give up, numinus. Your credibility is shot.

LOL.

How can anyone be of a religion, as a right of though, when he is forbidden to practice it, eh? You have probably heard of the word non-practicing whatever and fail to discern how utterly ridiculous that is.

No. I don't. Why don't you tell me rather than beating around the bush?

You may not have an 'enduring emotional attraction' to say your children and members of your family, regardless of gender? It is something reserved for homosexual behavior, eh?

Once again, there's the subconscious. There's innate psychological repression that goes along with not wanting to accept that one is different in a hostile world. Perhaps you wouldn't know anything about that type of insecurity, though - or how extreme it can get when one realizes that an issue such as this could completely and irrevocably remove one's emotional base of support.

Do you even know what subconscious means?

All sorts of demons can reside in the subconscious and there really isn't any way to know UNTIL THEY MANIFEST IN SOME FORM OF ACTION.

I've had just about enough of you quack psychology.

Well done, numinus, the homophobia is really starting to flow.

Not as vigorous as the flow of stupidity, I'm afraid.

 

[vyo476]

And what makes you think I'm inclined to take a gay sociology class, if something remotely similar to that exists, hmmm?

You prefer ignorance? Imagine that.

Into what? That homosexuality is a genetic condition that takes away one's free will? And what is the business of a group of psychologist doing genetic research, eh?

I would expect you to lie, but to do so in such a blundering fashion is bordering on idiocy.

It is you who is blundering here in attempting to produce an obfuscation. The psychologists have not proven that homosexuality is genetic; they've proven that is a born of a combination of "environmental, cognitive, and biological factors."

I've posted links to the APA's website far too many times to continue doing so, unless you want me to post them again so that you can actually read what they have to say this time.

Did I say 'repressed'? I have always argued for privacy regarding sexual matters.

And yet you do not believe society should accept homosexuality?

I said physiological. Pale rider already mentioned the hazards of introducing fecal matter in the blood stream - which is very likely when you introduce your erect penis in someone's behind, and pump vigorously.

There are plenty of risks involved in all forms of sexual activity.

Because if there are different forms of being, other than human being, for different individuals, then there can be no law that would logically bind all.

So?

And what sort of right do you suggest for a gay being that isn't already covered in the universal declaration of human rights, the rights of women and children, hmmm?

Recognition of the validity of their suffering at the hands of unfair oppression, and steps to be taken to correct the societal imbalance that creates a stigma around them still today.

I deny it absolutely.

So now there hasn't been any unjust mistreatment of women over the ages. Keep it coming numinus. I barely have to ask questions in order to get you to look like an idiot at this point.

I said IF....

The point being to expose your statement to a patently ridiculous situation IF. And because I assert that thought and action are inseparable, then only a person who indulges in the act may be deemed a homosexual.

It is not my fault that you're somewhat slow.

I'm having a hard time finding this "if" statement now. Care to point it out to me?

Yes. And the reason we are aware that there is a subconscious is that it manifests in action, no?

The human mind is not so simple as you seem to think it is. The subconscious of a repressed homosexual may manifest a variety of behaviors. For instance, a severely repressed homosexual may develop self-destructive habits in the presence of men to whom he is attracted to distract the conscious mind from accepting that attraction. I've seen it happen.

You behave on inclinations rather than on some discernable good??? That would explain a lot.

Our definitions of "discernible good" no doubt differ. I believe there is a discernible good in indulging consensual inclinations which are non-destructive to those who do not wish to participate. In that way, there is a discernible psychological good inherent in the homosexuals who accept their orientation and freely engage in activities pertaining to that orientation, whereas there is little discernible good that comes from repressing those activities.

Just because I see homosexuality as a choice makes me a homophobe??? You don't know me, nor the friends I keep. You might want to ease up on the labels and stick with facts and logic.

Fine, here are some facts. Homosexuality has been persecuted for hundreds of years. To say that homosexuality is a choice is to say that all those people who were persecuted chose to suffer. That's deeply insulting.

An action that is though of as good, and is not calculated to promote a further good - that is a good in and of itself.

That's not clear at all. What is "good"?

What are you talking about??? A kleptomaniac IS A THIEF, and the full force of the law will not suffer theft. It will compel him to undertake a cure so that he does not steal again, which is a similar fate to incarceration if such a condition did not exist in the thief.

Is a kleptomaniac who does not steal still a thief? Does his condition prevent him from choosing, or does it explain the choice?

And, interestingly, homosexuality as a parallel cannot be "cured." You can psychologically damage someone with a homosexual orientation to the point where they are incapable of acting on or even acknowledging their orientation without extreme amounts of distress?

To live a luxurious life is an inclination most people have. And so you may follow your inclinations up to the point the law permits. And your sociology is not worth a damn if you don't know that.

Society sets rules (norms and values) and people are generally allowed to exist withing those rules; violation of such results in society punishing the transgressor. That's pretty much how we'd just say what you said in a sociological discussion.

Now take it a step further and ask yourself why homosexuality is a transgression according to societal norms and values over the past couple thousand years. Ask yourself if that's particularly fair. And now ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, elevating the status of homosexuality for a finite (though indeterminate) period of time in order to encourage the erasure of the remainder of past inequalities and to truly put society on an equal footing in regards to homosexuality is worth it.

And I have NEVER asserted that it is harmful to me. It is harmful to those who practice it. And I have no intentions of interfering with the private lives of others.

Perhaps not directly. Indirectly you support the views of those who would interfere in the private lives of others in a negative way.

This is not an "us or them" statement. If you truly wish neutrality in this kind of argument you can keep your opinion to yourself.

How can anyone be of a religion, as a right of though, when he is forbidden to practice it, eh? You have probably heard of the word non-practicing whatever and fail to discern how utterly ridiculous that is.

Why don't you ask someone with more experience? Why don't you find a Holocaust survivor, tell him that you don't believe he was a Jew if he wasn't practicing his religion while the Nazis were killing his kind, and ask him how he could possibly assert that he was a Jew while the Nazis were persecuting him?

You may not have an 'enduring emotional attraction' to say your children and members of your family, regardless of gender? It is something reserved for homosexual behavior, eh?

Attraction is the key word. You may experience an emotional connection with your children or members of your family, but it is not necessarily an "attraction." To have an "attraction" towards these people falls into another category.

A man who loves his brother is not (necessarily) a homosexual. A man who is attracted to his brother is a homosexual. Get it?

Do you even know what subconscious means?

All sorts of demons can reside in the subconscious and there really isn't any way to know UNTIL THEY MANIFEST IN SOME FORM OF ACTION.

I've had just about enough of you quack psychology.

My "quack psychology" recognizes that the subconscious manifests in all kinds of ways. Just because someone isn't directly engaging in homosexual activities does not mean that they are not, on a subconscious level, a homosexual.

 

[r0beph]

A man who loves his brother is not (necessarily) a homosexual. A man who is attracted to his brother is a homosexual. Get it?

actually a lot more here going on than a homosexual orientation.

My "quack psychology" recognizes that the subconscious manifests in all kinds of ways. Just because someone isn't directly engaging in homosexual activities does not mean that they are not, on a subconscious level, a homosexual.

Sexuality is not simply "subconscious.", and it is SO far from a choice that numinus is arguing this point with the logic of a lobotomized rock. When you see someone you are attracted to (which is without contention, controlled sub consciously not even numinus will argue this...to do so would be silly anyhow) What causes the feelings? Is it simply your subconscious going into action? No there are distinct physical responses, release of high levels of seritonin, testosterone, vasodialation (flushing), increase in heart rate, dopamine release. This is not a choice, this is not just "subconscious" thought, this is a physical reaction based on something that is obviously tied to the mind. This is not something that counseling can change, this is not something that someone chooses, it simply IS as it is. Physical reactions to external stimuli are not something anyone can control. Logic insists under such observations that Homosexuality, in which these occur when a male sees another male whom sets off this response due to an non-choice, thus, pre-determined criteria, are therefore without a doubt a non choice matter. This is Homosexuality...the Attraction to the same gender, attraction is thus as YOU REQUESTED, AN ACTION, numunis, as this action exists, it falls squarely into your (albeit incorrect) conjecture and creates scientific evidence for the facts as I state.

You numunis, are incorrectly assuming the question, is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic, is referential to the action of having same gender relations, the actuality is that this question is a simple one that simple observation can assert. No one chooses to be homosexual, it is an innate factor, since currently there are two accepted modes of human development, environmental affects and genetic predispositions, it must be one or the other, it can easily be shown that homosexuals exist in most developmental and post-developmental stages, in all envrionments, in all upbringings, and in all areas of life. Thus environment is by virtue, not the case. Thus it is genetic, in this, it is not a choice.

You contend, however, that it is a choice, since one chooses to act on it, I agree, one does choose to act upon their predetermined drives. If suddenly society frowned upon being heterosexual, would you give up women and begin screwing men? I doubt the answer is yes. Either way, this choice, the choice to follow your sexual bias, is not the question, it is not a causitive in "homosexuality" it is an action derived from therein. So please stay on the topic and don't divert in an attempt to mask the reality of the reasoning.

 

[numinus]

It is you who is blundering here in attempting to produce an obfuscation. The psychologists have not proven that homosexuality is genetic; they've proven that is a born of a combination of "environmental, cognitive, and biological factors."

I've posted links to the APA's website far too many times to continue doing so, unless you want me to post them again so that you can actually read what they have to say this time.

So, if you remove the word 'biological', which is genetic, (something that is outside a psychologist's competence to determine), you are left with 'environmental and cognitive'. Are you with me so far?

And since environment and cognition are external influences on the human mind, there is absolutely no REASON that it is an INNATE PREDISPOSTIONT, is there?

Is it now plain how you intend to cheat your way from one point to another, hoping that less-rigorous minds can be fooled?

Our definitions of "discernible good" no doubt differ. I believe there is a discernible good in indulging consensual inclinations which are non-destructive to those who do not wish to participate. In that way, there is a discernible psychological good inherent in the homosexuals who accept their orientation and freely engage in activities pertaining to that orientation, whereas there is little discernible good that comes from repressing those activities.

And what exactly does it take for consensus to be valid, hmmm?

A consensus emanating from an arbitrarily set age of majority? A consensus derived from some form of financial remuneration - as in a patron-prostitute relationship? A consensus that results from ignorance? A consensus arising from cultural norm?

All these forms of consensus are DEFEASIBLE from the standpoint of a CATEGORICAL MORAL GOOD. They are NOT VALID in the mind of almost all rational individuals.

And yet, the rational and natural process of sex, something that is NECESSARILY BOTH UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE, are left contingent to the whims of HOMOSEXUAL APPETITE.

It is patently absurd. Sell silly some place else.

That's not clear at all. What is "good"?

Can you find any particular reason why having justice, freedom or equality are good? They are good in and of themselves. That is why the declaration of independence says they are 'self-evident'.

Is a kleptomaniac who does not steal still a thief? Does his condition prevent him from choosing, or does it explain the choice?

ALL CHOICES ARE EXPLAINABLE. Only explanation that are logically valid can somehow mitigate the consequences of law. Having said that, STEALING IS NOT GOOD, whether the thief is a kleptomaniac or a naturally greedy and ostentatious person.

And, interestingly, homosexuality as a parallel cannot be "cured." You can psychologically damage someone with a homosexual orientation to the point where they are incapable of acting on or even acknowledging their orientation without extreme amounts of distress?

I simply do not care how homosexuals want it. That is not my concern. I am merely stating that it is fundamentally a CHOICE. And because it is a CHOICE, no one should be compelled to validate it, nor suffer the consequences of such a choice - least of all CIVIL SOCIETY.

Perhaps not directly. Indirectly you support the views of those who would interfere in the private lives of others in a negative way.

I do no such thing. I would be the first to object to the state legislating sexual behavior.

Keep your straw-man arguments to yourself.

Why don't you ask someone with more experience? Why don't you find a Holocaust survivor, tell him that you don't believe he was a Jew if he wasn't practicing his religion while the Nazis were killing his kind, and ask him how he could possibly assert that he was a Jew while the Nazis were persecuting him?

If one does not have the conviction to defend one's right of thought, then it should be of less significance to that person the religious affiliation other people think he belongs to.

That goes for EVERYONE, not only the jews.

Attraction is the key word. You may experience an emotional connection with your children or members of your family, but it is not necessarily an "attraction." To have an "attraction" towards these people falls into another category.

No. Emotional is the key word. And if it is emotional, it is not physical nor sexual, regardless of how you wish to define attraction.

A man who loves his brother is not (necessarily) a homosexual. A man who is attracted to his brother is a homosexual. Get it?

You are thoroughly confused. Here you go - a dictionary definition.

2. attractive quality; magnetic charm; fascination; allurement; enticement: the subtle attraction of her strange personality.

Does that definition exclude the possibility of attraction between siblings, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Yes. It does work differently. Different characteristics are conducive to survival in social species where the emphasis may be on survival of a closely related family grouping with cooperative care of the young rather then survival and propagation of the individual (as in solitary hunter species). Within that context homosexuality can be seen to confer certain advantages: non-breeding member of the group that aids in defense and child care, homosexuality could reduce sexual tensions in a group where only a small number actually breed and, in some cases - like Bonobos - sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior, is a means of social cohesion.

That is very interesting.

Unfortunately, I do not think that is something that is within the exclusive province of evolutionary genetics. Any tendency towards cooperation in higher order social animals is more learned than anything. Of course, this is not the case in, say, bees, where social behavior is a function of some clear genetic adaptation.

And once social animals form groups out of necessity, then the next logical step is some form of heirarchy. Heirarchy is, by no means, permanent. Often times, the social dynamics within the heirarchy can spell the difference between life and death to marginal members of the group - so much so that it presents a clear environmental stress.

We all know to what extent animals, and even humans, are capable of under extreme forms of stress. It could range from a total disregard to self-preservation, to cannibalism, and yes, even homosexual behavior.

Yes, I have read somewhat about the behavior of bonobos and how their genetic make up is so much closer to humans than any animal. They have a tendency to form larger groups and have more complex social behavior. And just like humans, they indulge in homosexual behavior often enough.

 

[Coyote]

That is very interesting.

Unfortunately, I do not think that is something that is within the exclusive province of evolutionary genetics. Any tendency towards cooperation in higher order social animals is more learned than anything. Of course, this is not the case in, say, bees, where social behavior is a function of some clear genetic adaptation.

Complex social behaviors are learned but there is also a genetic component that allows it to be learned and that makes the animal desire to be around it's own species.

No matter what the environmental pressures, solitary animals like leopards, cheetahs or bears do not form social cooperative groups beyond short term mother-offspring units that split once the cubs are old enough to be independent. Likewise - highly social animals (canines, horses, apes) will form social bonds with other species when they don't have access to their own. When isolated they exhibit lonleiness and neurotic behaviors. Certain behaviors are instinctive not learned - sexual desires are instinctive but courtship may be learned, touching, hugging, holding among apes is instinctive. Play between members among social species continues on into adulthood as a way of diffusing tensions and bonding the group. This is not learned but instinctive. For example - look at wolf cubs seperated at birth from the parent and raised by a human.

The ability to create and use language and other complex communication systems evolved primarily social animals. Solitary animals have a very limited language toolbox - they don't need it. Birds and humans for example - have very complex systems. Higher birds learn songs - often a complex array of them but the window in which they can learn it is finite. If they are not exposed to songs within that window - they never learn it. That indicates a genetic component at play. The same with humans - in studies of humans that have been deprived of human contact in early childhood - for example cases of lost children raised in the wild. They missed the opportunity to be exposed to language and they were never able to catch up and use language normally.

Cooperation - and behaviors that lead to greater cooperation and reduction of social stress all promote survival of the group as a whole and by extension the individual.

And once social animals form groups out of necessity, then the next logical step is some form of heirarchy. Heirarchy is, by no means, permanent. Often times, the social dynamics within the heirarchy can spell the difference between life and death to marginal members of the group - so much so that it presents a clear environmental stress.

Social animals may start out forming groups out of necessity - however, if they lack the instinctive tools that have evolved in social animals, those groups soon disband and die out. Otherwise you would see social animals banding and disbanding depending on the environment but they don't. The hardcore social animals remain social and do not do well alone. Herd animals, taken out of their natural environment remain herd animals - even if it means adopting other species. Elephants - males may often be alone but the central maternal extended family unit remains together and must, in order to raise their young. Some species are more flexable. Cats for example. Cats have few social tools in their tool boxes. In feral cat populations cats may be solitary or they may group together depending on the environment they are facing. However - even when grouped together there is only a very loose social hierarchy and limited inter-dependence. It is nothing as strong or heirarchical as a wolf pack for example.

A wolf pack is a good example of a highly evolved social structure. There is a strict heirarchy (something that allowed us to be able to domesticate them). Typically only one pair breeds and the rest help raise them: hunting and bringing back food that they regurgitate for the cubs to eat, "baby sitters" who stay behind to watch the youngsters, etc. Contrary to popular mythology there isn't a great deal of out and out fighting "to the death". The "alpha's" aren't running around hammering on the omegas. Most fights are highly ritualized and most submission is offered, not forced. These are instinctive behaviors for the most part that we see early on in the pups. They are refined and reinforced through learned behaviors later on. All of this shows an evolutionary selection for a socialized predator at the top of the food chain - a predator that must group to bring down big game, that lives in an environment where if every individual bred and raised a litter survival would be marginal, and where the group can not afford the injuries that would occur if serious fighting among individuals occurred frequently.

You can look at a pride of lions for another example. Lions, like most cats have a limited social toolbox. They just haven't "quite got" the cooperative social living aspect of a pack. There is more infighting, less in the way of social appeasement gestures or play among adults, less cooperative cub rearing and higher cub mortality.

We all know to what extent animals, and even humans, are capable of under extreme forms of stress. It could range from a total disregard to self-preservation, to cannibalism, and yes, even homosexual behavior.

Homosexual behaviors have been witnessed in a variety of species - all social. It appears independent of "extreme stress" and a normal aspect of the species. I don't see how extreme stress has anything to do with it.

Yes, I have read somewhat about the behavior of bonobos and how their genetic make up is so much closer to humans than any animal. They have a tendency to form larger groups and have more complex social behavior. And just like humans, they indulge in homosexual behavior often enough.

 

[vyo476]

So, if you remove the word 'biological', which is genetic, (something that is outside a psychologist's competence to determine), you are left with 'environmental and cognitive'. Are you with me so far?

"Biological" also refers to physical development of the brain in this case, which is within their realm of study.

And since environment and cognition are external influences on the human mind, there is absolutely no REASON that it is an INNATE PREDISPOSTIONT, is there?

An unchangeable predilection formed soon after birth. I would call that a predisposition, as it's topic is sexuality and the formation of sexual orientation comes pre-sexual activity.

Is it now plain how you intend to cheat your way from one point to another, hoping that less-rigorous minds can be fooled?

Is it plain how you just will not accept the truth about sexual orientation, truth that comes from qualified scientists, because your bias won't let you?

All these forms of consensus are DEFEASIBLE from the standpoint of a CATEGORICAL MORAL GOOD. They are NOT VALID in the mind of almost all rational individuals.

Find me some more rational individuals who will fully agree with this and then we'll talk.

And yet, the rational and natural process of sex, something that is NECESSARILY BOTH UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE, are left contingent to the whims of HOMOSEXUAL APPETITE.

It is patently absurd. Sell silly some place else.

Sex as an action also serves as a way for human partners to become closer to each other. In that mode sexuality need not be pro-creative, at least not in the literal sense.

Can you find any particular reason why having justice, freedom or equality are good? They are good in and of themselves. That is why the declaration of independence says they are 'self-evident'.

I can find reasons why justice, freedom, and equality are preferable. If we're talking "good" as in beneficial I could list reasons why injustice, slavery, and inequality are "good" too.

You can't state that something is "good" in and of itself simply because it has preferable characteristics. I personally do prefer justice, freedom, and equality, but not because I think they're some perfect "good" that is insurmountable.

ALL CHOICES ARE EXPLAINABLE. Only explanation that are logically valid can somehow mitigate the consequences of law. Having said that, STEALING IS NOT GOOD, whether the thief is a kleptomaniac or a naturally greedy and ostentatious person.

I guess you never heard the story of Robin Hood as a child.

I simply do not care how homosexuals want it. That is not my concern. I am merely stating that it is fundamentally a CHOICE. And because it is a CHOICE, no one should be compelled to validate it, nor suffer the consequences of such a choice - least of all CIVIL SOCIETY.

From the APA:

"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

Now unless you know more about psychology than the American Psychological Association (which you don't, or if you do you've been hiding it well) I'd suggest you stow that "it's a choice!" crap.

Civil society should be compelled to accept homosexuality, because otherwise you wind up with discrimination and hate.

I do no such thing. I would be the first to object to the state legislating sexual behavior.

Keep your straw-man arguments to yourself.

I shouldn't say that you hate homosexuals, numinus. That was wrong and I apologize. However, your ideas encourage homophobia, by suppressing the information that works toward giving them societal validation. Only with that will the discrimination end.

If one does not have the conviction to defend one's right of thought, then it should be of less significance to that person the religious affiliation other people think he belongs to.

That goes for EVERYONE, not only the jews.

Just stop.

No. Emotional is the key word. And if it is emotional, it is not physical nor sexual, regardless of how you wish to define attraction.

Do you not recognize physical beauty without being attracted to it?

In the same vein, can you not have an emotional connection to someone that is not an attraction?

You are thoroughly confused. Here you go - a dictionary definition.

2. attractive quality; magnetic charm; fascination; allurement; enticement: the subtle attraction of her strange personality.

Does that definition exclude the possibility of attraction between siblings, hmmm?

First of all, after all the dictionary-bashing you've been doing, what compelled you to do this?

Second. Familial love is not about charm, fascination, or allurement. If you were to be emotionally "allured" by your sibling, wouldn't you say that a line had been crossed in the traditional sibling relationship?

 

[numinus]

Complex social behaviors are learned but there is also a genetic component that allows it to be learned and that makes the animal desire to be around it's own species.

You are suggesting that the genetic component rests merely on the ability to learn, and not towards a very specific behavior like homosexuality.

No matter what the environmental pressures, solitary animals like leopards, cheetahs or bears do not form social cooperative groups beyond short term mother-offspring units that split once the cubs are old enough to be independent. Likewise - highly social animals (canines, horses, apes) will form social bonds with other species when they don't have access to their own. When isolated they exhibit lonleiness and neurotic behaviors. Certain behaviors are instinctive not learned - sexual desires are instinctive but courtship may be learned, touching, hugging, holding among apes is instinctive. Play between members among social species continues on into adulthood as a way of diffusing tensions and bonding the group. This is not learned but instinctive. For example - look at wolf cubs seperated at birth from the parent and raised by a human.

The ability to create and use language and other complex communication systems evolved primarily social animals. Solitary animals have a very limited language toolbox - they don't need it. Birds and humans for example - have very complex systems. Higher birds learn songs - often a complex array of them but the window in which they can learn it is finite. If they are not exposed to songs within that window - they never learn it. That indicates a genetic component at play. The same with humans - in studies of humans that have been deprived of human contact in early childhood - for example cases of lost children raised in the wild. They missed the opportunity to be exposed to language and they were never able to catch up and use language normally.

Cooperation - and behaviors that lead to greater cooperation and reduction of social stress all promote survival of the group as a whole and by extension the individual.

I am not suggesting that sexual desires aren't instinctive. However, a genetic cause, seem to me, an inability to be otherwise. Granted that homosexual behavior can be seen in animal social groups, are those individuals exclusively homosexual? Is there any indication that they are incapable of straight sex?

If not, it merely suggests a powerful sex drive that needs to manifest in whatever form or with whatever gender, no?

Social animals may start out forming groups out of necessity - however, if they lack the instinctive tools that have evolved in social animals, those groups soon disband and die out. Otherwise you would see social animals banding and disbanding depending on the environment but they don't. The hardcore social animals remain social and do not do well alone. Herd animals, taken out of their natural environment remain herd animals - even if it means adopting other species. Elephants - males may often be alone but the central maternal extended family unit remains together and must, in order to raise their young. Some species are more flexable. Cats for example. Cats have few social tools in their tool boxes. In feral cat populations cats may be solitary or they may group together depending on the environment they are facing. However - even when grouped together there is only a very loose social hierarchy and limited inter-dependence. It is nothing as strong or heirarchical as a wolf pack for example.

A wolf pack is a good example of a highly evolved social structure. There is a strict heirarchy (something that allowed us to be able to domesticate them). Typically only one pair breeds and the rest help raise them: hunting and bringing back food that they regurgitate for the cubs to eat, "baby sitters" who stay behind to watch the youngsters, etc. Contrary to popular mythology there isn't a great deal of out and out fighting "to the death". The "alpha's" aren't running around hammering on the omegas. Most fights are highly ritualized and most submission is offered, not forced. These are instinctive behaviors for the most part that we see early on in the pups. They are refined and reinforced through learned behaviors later on. All of this shows an evolutionary selection for a socialized predator at the top of the food chain - a predator that must group to bring down big game, that lives in an environment where if every individual bred and raised a litter survival would be marginal, and where the group can not afford the injuries that would occur if serious fighting among individuals occurred frequently.

You can look at a pride of lions for another example. Lions, like most cats have a limited social toolbox. They just haven't "quite got" the cooperative social living aspect of a pack. There is more infighting, less in the way of social appeasement gestures or play among adults, less cooperative cub rearing and higher cub mortality.

If there is a distinct genetic adaptation that controls homosexuality, then it is not enough to demonstrate animals indulging in homosexuality. You must also prove that it is a statistical occurence as well.

Can one say that homosexuality in groups of a particular specie exists within some definite statistical distribution? Is this statistical distribution the same for animals of different species? Does this statistical distribution remain more or less constant outside environmental influences? I have very little background in biology so I'm afraid you need to provide sources.

Homosexual behaviors have been witnessed in a variety of species - all social.

It does not occur in domesticated cats?

It appears independent of "extreme stress" and a normal aspect of the species. I don't see how extreme stress has anything to do with it.

How extreme must stress be to incite homosexual behavior in animals? I would imagine it to be considerably less than the stress associated with cannibalism. Would I be correct in saying that?

Quite frankly, I've seen cannibalism in domesticated cats and dogs, which, I believe are well-fed and well-treated. Does domestication qualify as stress to the extreme then? And isn't domestication analogous to civilization in human beings?

And, more importantly, what is the relevance of genetics in human behavior? If an alleged genetic predisposition to homosexuality could cause nothing but homosexual behavior, then a genetic predisposition to, say, intelligence could make nothing other than an intellectual, no?

 

[9sublime]

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

From your beloved wikipedia niminus.

 

[Coyote]

You are suggesting that the genetic component rests merely on the ability to learn, and not towards a very specific behavior like homosexuality.

No, not at all. There is a genetic component to how and what we are able to learn. A wolf can not learn to sing like a bird. There are genetic components that lie at the base of a great many behaviors. The more we study it - particularly the brain, the more we are aware of that.

For example there is a biological (and thus likely genetic) basis for humans desiring to believe in the supernatural that actually has been theorized to have a survival benefit at one time in the evolution humans.

There is a lot of data supporting genetic (and thus evolutionary and biological) basis for behaviors: altruism for example, belief in the supernatural, avoidance and desires for certain food tastes, etc. Sexual orientation certainly seems to be one of those. If it were strictly a "learned" behavior, then there is no explanation for why it seems to pop up in the face of: no prior exposure, societal condemnation and persecution and even execution, and no reason why the internal orientation persists despite educational programs to change it. Only the external behavior changes. That is the learned component of the behavior. The biological component - same sex attraction remains.

I am not suggesting that sexual desires aren't instinctive. However, a genetic cause, seem to me, an inability to be otherwise. Granted that homosexual behavior can be seen in animal social groups, are those individuals exclusively homosexual? Is there any indication that they are incapable of straight sex?

You are confusing sexual desires with sexual orientation - I think a fundamental difference. The number of actual homosexuals is very small - a much larger number swing both ways and in those, I would suggest a choice is made and behavior is learned - but not in those who are truely homosexual. Their orientation is hardwired.

In terms of homosexuality in animals - not a lot of research has been done for two reasons: there is considerable social bias towards studying it, and it's difficult to assign motivation to behavior in other species.

Homosexual behavior appears to be widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.

According to: 1,500 Animal Species Practice Homosexuality. News-medical.net (2006-10-23).

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."​

When it comes to whether they are homosexual, and will not form sexual bonds with the opposite sex there is indeed some evidence that that exists in some species.

For example, there were studies on penguins that showed citing gay penguins that mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance. Another study on sheep showed that permanent homosexuality can occur in species with permanent pair bonds like the penguins, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.

One report on sheep cited below states:

"Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."[15] In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.​

If not, it merely suggests a powerful sex drive that needs to manifest in whatever form or with whatever gender, no?

You need to differentiate between behavior and being. Sexual behavior is not merely a drive for sex. In many species - sexual behavior is a form of dominance particularly among all-male populations. You see it in animals all the time - brief mounting and thrusting. Sex is a language. Sexual orientation is inate. Sexual behavior is learned.

If there is a distinct genetic adaptation that controls homosexuality, then it is not enough to demonstrate animals indulging in homosexuality. You must also prove that it is a statistical occurence as well.

Can one say that homosexuality in groups of a particular specie exists within some definite statistical distribution? Is this statistical distribution the same for animals of different species? Does this statistical distribution remain more or less constant outside environmental influences? I have very little background in biology so I'm afraid you need to provide sources.

The example I gave of the sheep came from: Roselli, Charles E.; Kay Larkin, John A. Resko, John N. Stellflug and fred Stormshak (2004, vol. 145, no2, pp. 478-483). The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference. Journal of Endocrinology.

It does not occur in domesticated cats?

It can and has - as a behavior when they are forced into unatural social situations much like what occurs in same-sex prison populations. In the end though - those animals and people emerge retaining a heterosexual orientation.

The thing is - homosexual behavior is a behavior but being a homosexual is a state, not a behavior. All animals exhibit homosexual behaviors in different situations - social animals do so much more frequently and do so in non-stressed situations as well. People are reluctant to look at sexual behaviors in the same light as other behaviors - aggression, altruism, etc. Behaviors are the external manifastations of internal states - anxiety, appeasement, dominance, submission. They are not the same as sexual orientation. It's like saying everyone who has a headache has a brain tumor. We know that is ridiculous. However - SOME of those people do indeed have brain tumors.

How extreme must stress be to incite homosexual behavior in animals? I would imagine it to be considerably less than the stress associated with cannibalism. Would I be correct in saying that?

You are talking about apples and oranges here - you can't make a really valid comparison. It depends on the species and the stress. Overcrowding in an environment is much more stressful for a solitary species (who would then be more likely to exhibit abnormal behaviors) then a social species who has at hand, more tools to deal with it and diffuse tensions. Stress' that induce cannibalism are highly varied. Environmental stress such as famine where a mother can and instinctively knows she can not raise her litter can induce "cannibalism". So can inexperience in motherhood.

Cannibalism also occurs when defective offspring are born. When a male lion takes over a pride - he will try to kill any cubs not his. In those cases - it's not a "stressor" but a normal behavior.

Quite frankly, I've seen cannibalism in domesticated cats and dogs, which, I believe are well-fed and well-treated. Does domestication qualify as stress to the extreme then? And isn't domestication analogous to civilization in human beings?

Here you are - I believe - anthropomorphasizing them. It makes no difference on whether they are well fed or well treated. They aren't humans. They are dogs and cats. I'm assuming you mean cannibalism as in consuming their newborn young? That is the most common situation. In those cases the stressors can be many. Quite often in domestic animals - we have bred out a lot of instincts in exchange for other features that enable domesticity or improve appearance or function (in human opinion). Good maternal behavior can be lost in the mix. Or you can have inexperienced mothers who don't know what to do the first time around. Or you can have stress you as a human may be unaware of - too many other animals around, too much chaos in the environment from the animal's point of view etc.

And, more importantly, what is the relevance of genetics in human behavior? If an alleged genetic predisposition to homosexuality could cause nothing but homosexual behavior, then a genetic predisposition to, say, intelligence could make nothing other than an intellectual, no?

The relevance of genetics in human behavior is becoming more and more apparent the more we study it - in particular, the brain. The best statement I've seen concerning this has been: Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

But - you are again comparing apples and oranges and you are also over-simplifying it.

Intellegence is a composite of genetics and environment and is also most definately not an easily qualifiable or quantifiable trait. There is almost no way to measure it without a cultural bias.

Sexual orientation on the other hand is much more easily measured and studied. There is a clear definition. Orientation persists regardless of external behaviors.

 

[numinus]

"Biological" also refers to physical development of the brain in this case, which is within their realm of study.

LMAO. You are stretching absurdly and you know it.

The physical development of the brain AS IT PERTAINS TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR is not exactly genetics, is it?

Or are you suggesting any physiological difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? An unusually small penis perhaps, or having only one testicle?

An unchangeable predilection formed soon after birth. I would call that a predisposition, as it's topic is sexuality and the formation of sexual orientation comes pre-sexual activity.

But certainly not genetic, is it? And how soon after birth does an external factor need to be applied before the homosexuality become irreversible and therefore a predilection, hmmm?

Is it plain how you just will not accept the truth about sexual orientation, truth that comes from qualified scientists, because your bias won't let you?

You are the one stretching, and I'm the one who is biased????

The fact that you are trying to tailor-fit your definitions to suit your view of homosexuality fools no one.

Find me some more rational individuals who will fully agree with this and then we'll talk.

LMAO some more.

Haven't anyone taught you that any conception of law must necessarily adhere to some moral good? That an immoral law is precisely the foundation of any RIGHT OF RESISTANCE? And so, I have just mentioned practically every lawyer and political scientist on the planet. Or did you meant for me to mention the political philosophers who espoused the right of resistance and the ethical philosophers who adhered to an objective good?

And since the law is a concieved by the human brain, you might want to consult the unquestionable competence of the apa on biology on this matter as well, eh?

Sex as an action also serves as a way for human partners to become closer to each other. In that mode sexuality need not be pro-creative, at least not in the literal sense.

That is what I meant by BOTH UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE. Conjugal partners become symbolically ONE entity in two persons. There are many forms of love. All forms (except self-love) are known to bring people closer to each other. There is no need to confuse conjugal love with all the others if the end is to bring people closer.

I can find reasons why justice, freedom, and equality are preferable. If we're talking "good" as in beneficial I could list reasons why injustice, slavery, and inequality are "good" too.

You can't state that something is "good" in and of itself simply because it has preferable characteristics. I personally do prefer justice, freedom, and equality, but not because I think they're some perfect "good" that is insurmountable.

Apparently, you find 'self-evident' in the declaration of independence a vague concept, eh? And because the reasons cited in the declaration of independence are vague, the american revolution and national self-determination was AN ILLEGAL ACT AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS' RIGHTFUL KING.

You had better stick to sociology and psychology, where concepts are purposely vague.

I guess you never heard the story of Robin Hood as a child.

Apparently, you are incapable of critical thought. Can the imperative prohibiting stealing supersede the categorical imperatives of life, human dignity and justice? You need not pretend freedom and justice are functions of human sentiment.

From the APA:

"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

No more than geniuses can consciously change their predisposition to abstract thought and problem-solving. Do we think members of mensa who are not professionals in the sciences somehow suffer psychologically?

The apa has been cited as being controversial in their pronouncements. It goes with tailoring your conclusions to fit your agenda, I think.

Now unless you know more about psychology than the American Psychological Association (which you don't, or if you do you've been hiding it well) I'd suggest you stow that "it's a choice!" crap.

LMAO.

Psychology runs very low in my esteem. No other course has prompted more skepticism from me than psychology. No other course has presented a veritable forest of conflicting ideas - all of which are supposedly valid.

And more importantly, if I am to lend any semblance of validity to what you are saying, no other course can find meaning to a thought that is divorced from its corresponding action. And because people cannot discern for themselves the rational relationship between his own thought and his own action, they need the psychologist to do the discerning for them, preferably, with a prescription of anti-depressants.

Civil society should be compelled to accept homosexuality, because otherwise you wind up with discrimination and hate.

Civil society, (the more correct word is the body politic) holds the SOVEREIGN WILL exclusively. By definition, it cannot be compelled to accept anything, except throught the natural operation of logic. And if you wish it to accept homosexuality, then you had better start saying something logical.

I shouldn't say that you hate homosexuals, numinus. That was wrong and I apologize.

Accepted.

However, your ideas encourage homophobia, by suppressing the information that works toward giving them societal validation. Only with that will the discrimination end.

Fear towards homosexuals has very little logical basis, perhaps less than homosexuality itself. Encouraging fear is the last thing I wish to do. Having said that - there is nothing to validate if something isn't logically valid to begin with. Validation implies concurrence on the universal application of logic.

Just stop.

You did ask, didn't you?

Do you not recognize physical beauty without being attracted to it?

I suppose not. However, physical beauty isn't the only thing that I find attractive.

In the same vein, can you not have an emotional connection to someone that is not an attraction?

So many negatives, it makes my eyes hurt. I have a positive emotional connection to an attraction - yes.

First of all, after all the dictionary-bashing you've been doing, what compelled you to do this?

I'm not bashing the dictionary. I am bashing the people lacking critical thought to go beyond the definitions it gives.

Second. Familial love is not about charm, fascination, or allurement. If you were to be emotionally "allured" by your sibling, wouldn't you say that a line had been crossed in the traditional sibling relationship?

Can one not be 'allured' by someone else's intelligence? And if you had a brother and sister like mine, you would be similarly 'allured' without crossing traditional sibling relationships.

 

[vyo476]

LMAO. You are stretching absurdly and you know it.

The physical development of the brain AS IT PERTAINS TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR is not exactly genetics, is it?

Or are you suggesting any physiological difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? An unusually small penis perhaps, or having only one testicle?

No, it's not genetics, and that's kind of the point. Biology does not equal genetics.

But certainly not genetic, is it? And how soon after birth does an external factor need to be applied before the homosexuality become irreversible and therefore a predilection, hmmm?

No, it isn't genetic. The person who titled this thread had an agenda of his own and misrepresented the two sides; one is pure choice, the other is predisposition.

You are the one stretching, and I'm the one who is biased????

The fact that you are trying to tailor-fit your definitions to suit your view of homosexuality fools no one.

I have a purpose in what I do. Can you say the same?

LMAO some more.

This is a little juvenile.

Haven't anyone taught you that any conception of law must necessarily adhere to some moral good? That an immoral law is precisely the foundation of any RIGHT OF RESISTANCE? And so, I have just mentioned practically every lawyer and political scientist on the planet. Or did you meant for me to mention the political philosophers who espoused the right of resistance and the ethical philosophers who adhered to an objective good?

And since the law is a concieved by the human brain, you might want to consult the unquestionable competence of the apa on biology on this matter as well, eh?

It's just that everyone's definition of "moral good" is different. You're going to have to be very, very specific of how absolute good works - how something is good "in and of itself" as you've already put it.

Apparently, you find 'self-evident' in the declaration of independence a vague concept, eh? And because the reasons cited in the declaration of independence are vague, the american revolution and national self-determination was AN ILLEGAL ACT AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS' RIGHTFUL KING.

The reason the Revolution wasn't "illegal" is because we won.

No more than geniuses can consciously change their predisposition to abstract thought and problem-solving. Do we think members of mensa who are not professionals in the sciences somehow suffer psychologically?

How is this relevant?

The apa has been cited as being controversial in their pronouncements. It goes with tailoring your conclusions to fit your agenda, I think.

The APA controversial? So says the man who denies that oppressed Jews during the Holocaust weren't really Jews?

Psychology runs very low in my esteem. No other course has prompted more skepticism from me than psychology. No other course has presented a veritable forest of conflicting ideas - all of which are supposedly valid.

And more importantly, if I am to lend any semblance of validity to what you are saying, no other course can find meaning to a thought that is divorced from its corresponding action. And because people cannot discern for themselves the rational relationship between his own thought and his own action, they need the psychologist to do the discerning for them, preferably, with a prescription of anti-depressants.

Well, your philosophical meanderings, which have very little if anything to do with the real world, aren't exactly high in my book.

The behavioral sciences are a complex study. Note that list word. Study. Where one does experiments and accumulates actual data. As opposed to your version of studying people and society which involves...sitting around and thinking, yes?

Civil society, (the more correct word is the body politic) holds the SOVEREIGN WILL exclusively. By definition, it cannot be compelled to accept anything, except throught the natural operation of logic. And if you wish it to accept homosexuality, then you had better start saying something logical.

Society accepts plenty of things that aren't all that logical. The anti-sodomy laws I've mentioned before were just as much a product of society's bias than of some overbearing, deranged monarch.

Fear towards homosexuals has very little logical basis, perhaps less than homosexuality itself. Encouraging fear is the last thing I wish to do. Having said that - there is nothing to validate if something isn't logically valid to begin with. Validation implies concurrence on the universal application of logic.

Let's see if I get your reasoning straight. You don't want to encourage fear and discrimination towards homosexuals, but preventing this takes a backseat to the operations of your logic.

I don't understand how anyone could choose abstract ideas over the lives of people.

I suppose not. However, physical beauty isn't the only thing that I find attractive.

Obviously.

I'm not bashing the dictionary. I am bashing the people lacking critical thought to go beyond the definitions it gives.

And yet, when it suits your purposes, you'll use those same definitions.

Can one not be 'allured' by someone else's intelligence? And if you had a brother and sister like mine, you would be similarly 'allured' without crossing traditional sibling relationships.

So when is the traditional sibling relationship breached? What word would you assign to a breach of the traditional sibling relationship (when the line between familial love and incest is crossed)? This word must encompass all the reasons for which a heterosexual chooses a partner.

 

[r0beph]

LMAO. You are stretching absurdly and you know it.

The physical development of the brain AS IT PERTAINS TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR is not exactly genetics, is it?

Or are you suggesting any physiological difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? An unusually small penis perhaps, or having only one testicle?

But certainly not genetic, is it? And how soon after birth does an external factor need to be applied before the homosexuality become irreversible and therefore a predilection, hmmm?

Absolutely it's physical, if not physical then what is it? Welcome to Neuro-biology and Neurobioinformatics 101. I mean sure, behavior is based on nothing physical according to your logic regarding what is "physical" the having one testicle analogy is like the supposition that sloped foreheads are criminal. Although we both know both are false. What isn't false is that the structures (physical) of the brain are directly responsible for our behaviors, big surprise right? Brain damage due to trauma, for example, was cited in in the case of Phineas Gage (one of my favorite cases of all time in ab-psych) . Damage to the frontal lobe caused his behaviors to radically change. It's very much less than a small step to say that obviously this is proof that the physical structure of the brain affects behavior. Thus since the brain was formed using a genetic template, one must assume that the structure is inherent to the genetic template, which means that these behaviors and predispositions must be genetic in nature, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous. But then, so are all of your arguments.

You are the one stretching, and I'm the one who is biased????

he may have worded it badly, I'm not sure where he was going with that, but yes, you're biased.

The fact that you are trying to tailor-fit your definitions to suit your view of homosexuality fools no one.

I'd like to take a moment to also tell you how VERY VERY annoying and childlike your propensity of using a definition from a "dictionary" online to prove something. It doesn't, just because the word is there, doesn't mean the definition is distinct, welcome to the wonderful world of english.

LMAO some more.

Haven't anyone taught you that any conception of law must necessarily adhere to some moral good? That an immoral law is precisely the foundation of any RIGHT OF RESISTANCE? And so, I have just mentioned practically every lawyer and political scientist on the planet. Or did you meant for me to mention the political philosophers who espoused the right of resistance and the ethical philosophers who adhered to an objective good?

wow, your'e dumb. Good and bad are purely abstractions of whether or not something is deemed acceptable by the majority. It's bad that people in the middle east stone to death adulturous women, to them, it isn't. Something so very subjective cannot be distinct and well defined, please numunis shut up...

And since the law is a concieved by the human brain, you might want to consult the unquestionable competence of the apa on biology on this matter as well, eh?

strange strawmanesque argument here, I don't know what to say...really...I'm just lost.

That is what I meant by BOTH UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE. Conjugal partners become symbolically ONE entity in two persons. There are many forms of love. All forms (except self-love) are known to bring people closer to each other. There is no need to confuse conjugal love with all the others if the end is to bring people closer.

So what's the point, to homosexuals can become "one" procreation has nothing to do with ****, I swear, you're really reaching on a lot of your points, laughable almost....except you actually believe this ****, so it's not funny.

Apparently, you find 'self-evident' in the declaration of independence a vague concept, eh? And because the reasons cited in the declaration of independence are vague, the american revolution and national self-determination was AN ILLEGAL ACT AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS' RIGHTFUL KING.

it was illegal, subjectively to the king...and rightous to those rebelling. That's pretty simple.

You had better stick to sociology and psychology, where concepts are purposely vague.

no they're not, you're just dumb.

Apparently, you are incapable of critical thought. Can the imperative prohibiting stealing supersede the categorical imperatives of life, human dignity and justice? You need not pretend freedom and justice are functions of human sentiment.

Ad hoc et ad hoc et ad hoc ad nasueum.

No more than geniuses can consciously change their predisposition to abstract thought and problem-solving. Do we think members of mensa who are not professionals in the sciences somehow suffer psychologically?

This is a real misdirection on your part. People who are smart and in mensa, thus are smart and in mensa, they can't choose to be dumb. Homosexuals can't choose to be straight, even IF they're trying to practice heterosexuality, it doesn't make them attracted to women...just like saying crazy **** like 1=2 2=5, doesn't make a mensan dumb, cos just like the "straight" gay, he knows the reality.

The apa has been cited as being controversial in their pronouncements. It goes with tailoring your conclusions to fit your agenda, I think.

I'm sure any publication that doesn't fit your narrow line of faulty reasoning is questionable and controversial.

LMAO.

Psychology runs very low in my esteem. No other course has prompted more skepticism from me than psychology. No other course has presented a veritable forest of conflicting ideas - all of which are supposedly valid.

And more importantly, if I am to lend any semblance of validity to what you are saying, no other course can find meaning to a thought that is divorced from its corresponding action. And because people cannot discern for themselves the rational relationship between his own thought and his own action, they need the psychologist to do the discerning for them, preferably, with a prescription of anti-depressants.

big words don't make you right.

Civil society, (the more correct word is the body politic) holds the SOVEREIGN WILL exclusively. By definition, it cannot be compelled to accept anything, except throught the natural operation of logic. And if you wish it to accept homosexuality, then you had better start saying something logical.

One time I read on an amusing web tidbit, that it was an addition of +10 points to the scale of crack pottery for each and every word using all caps. That aside, utter nonsense and pointless crap, again attempting to askew the reality that science pretty much stands by....and yeah I know, you have those scientists out there who say homosexuality is a choice, but you also have physicists who still talk about aether....both are kinda considered fringe.

Fear towards homosexuals has very little logical basis, perhaps less than homosexuality itself. Encouraging fear is the last thing I wish to do. Having said that - there is nothing to validate if something isn't logically valid to begin with. Validation implies concurrence on the universal application of logic.

stop trying to mix ideas again please. You're right on the fear part, homosexuality's sense, is a bit different as reproductively, it really doesn't, though it's existence makes perfect sense.

I suppose not. However, physical beauty isn't the only thing that I find attractive.

I noticed you're having even more trouble keeping your pinky away from that enter key, can we keep it down to at most, one return per line you feel you need to add one to? that aside, there are many things that one can be attracted to, physical beauty isn't necessitated, it's the whole package that is made up of the details that creates the overall criteria.

I'm not bashing the dictionary. I am bashing the people lacking critical thought to go beyond the definitions it gives.

you sure quote the dictionary a whole bunch yourself. I assume in some mocking pseudo-sarcasm from that warped little stretch of a mind of yours. Do understand that I know that words can step beyond the bounds of their definitions, but there are definitely limits to this. .

Can one not be 'allured' by someone else's intelligence? And if you had a brother and sister like mine, you would be similarly 'allured' without crossing traditional sibling relationships.

Well, sort of, except the typical usage of Alluring is of a somewhat sexual attraction, or at minimum romantic attraction. The problem with this term in particular is where it comes from root being Lure, a being from latin Ad, Lure (Loire I think) meaning "Bait" Ad is "To" thus To Bait, so is that what your sister and brother do? Bait you? To what extent? The intention of today's usage still relates to this etymological root. Although in a much looser sense, it nonetheless is ill advised to say that you find your sister alluring in mixed company.

 

[numinus]

Absolutely it's physical, if not physical then what is it? .....

I really find coyote quite informative. Unfortunately your posts (which I find myself somehow compelled to correct) keeps getting in the way of some rational discussion.

Your posts suggests that the brain is the CAUSE of the mind. And because of this, you have reduced the operation of free will into a deterministically contrived set of finite electrochemical reactions. Though this might be helpful in advancing the cause of medical science, it is fatal to any conception of human nature, civil society and the laws that MUST govern them.

This assertion reminds of the philosophical assertions of a french mathematician (laplace, I think) who said that if he knew the position and motion of all particles in the universe, then EVERYTHING, past, present and future, is known. This absurdity, is what is known as mechanistic determinism, and was quite popular within the scientific community of his time - that is, until it was dealt a fatal blow by the very science they pretended to uphold - the uncertainty principle.

he may have worded it badly, I'm not sure where he was going with that, but yes, you're biased.

Bias for logic is not exactly a bias, now, is it?

I'd like to take a moment to also tell you how VERY VERY annoying and childlike your propensity of using a definition from a "dictionary" online to prove something. It doesn't, just because the word is there, doesn't mean the definition is distinct, welcome to the wonderful world of english.

Would you rather I get my definition from an actual dictionary, then?

wow, your'e dumb. Good and bad are purely abstractions of whether or not something is deemed acceptable by the majority. It's bad that people in the middle east stone to death adulturous women, to them, it isn't. Something so very subjective cannot be distinct and well defined, please numunis shut up...

Duh uh.

This is precisely the assertions of hume - that ethics is merely the sentiment of the majority. Unfortunately for anyone wishing to believe such a thing, the concept of justice is indispensably linked to a FIXED concept of good and bad. And what your insistence on ethical relativity is actually saying is that justice can not exist in society, nor can anyone, not even the state, dispense it.

What are people to believe, then, I wonder?

strange strawmanesque argument here, I don't know what to say...really...I'm just lost.

I see the irony flew past by you. Don't fret. Intelligence is a predisposition.

So what's the point, to homosexuals can become "one" procreation has nothing to do with ****, I swear, you're really reaching on a lot of your points, laughable almost....except you actually believe this ****, so it's not funny.

I said BOTH UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE.

For sex to have the moral worth of an imperative, it must conform to both - not unitive alone, nor procreative alone, certainly not for one's own pleasure.

it was illegal, subjectively to the king...and rightous to those rebelling. That's pretty simple.

No it's not.

The intended audience of the declaration of independence was the international community. It is a justification for going to war and establishing an independent and sovereign nation. Without the 'self-evidence' of its cause, might simply makes right, and the declaration of independence, so much nonsense.

Of course, no one would establish a nation out of nonsense.

no they're not, you're just dumb.

LMAO.

Have you read nietzche's nonsense? Only in psychology does the babbling of a madman hold such high esteem.

Ad hoc et ad hoc et ad hoc ad nasueum.

Not if there was a categorical imperative that is a good and of itself. The justification would simply stop there. Ironically enough, the ethical relativism you are proposing would fit that sentiment nicely.

This is a real misdirection on your part. People who are smart and in mensa, thus are smart and in mensa, they can't choose to be dumb.

But they can certainly exist comfortably without exercising their 'predisposition', can't they?

And although it would be an obvious waste of human potential, society leaves it up to them to do with their lives as they please.

Homosexuals can't choose to be straight, even IF they're trying to practice heterosexuality, it doesn't make them attracted to women...

What nonsense. There are a lot of celibate people in the world. It is a personal choice - ostensibly, against their genetic 'predisposition'. Society can no more interfere with their choice, (or the lack of it), than society can interfere with a homosexuals choices.

just like saying crazy **** like 1=2 2=5, doesn't make a mensan dumb, cos just like the "straight" gay, he knows the reality.

There you go again - divorcing a thought from its action. If anyone says such nonsense, with NO other reason than to assert it, and completely against what he is thinking, then such an assertion is MEANINGLESS.

Do you finally get it?

Only when there is a RATIONAL relationship between thought and action can anyone find meaning in human activities.

I'm sure any publication that doesn't fit your narrow line of faulty reasoning is questionable and controversial.

You mean the same faulty reasoning you were spewing in the other thread? Nope. I'm not guilty of that.

big words don't make you right.

Correct. Your inability to point out the fallacy does.

One time I read on an amusing web tidbit, that it was an addition of +10 points to the scale of crack pottery for each and every word using all caps. That aside, utter nonsense and pointless crap, again attempting to askew the reality that science pretty much stands by....and yeah I know, you have those scientists out there who say homosexuality is a choice, but you also have physicists who still talk about aether....both are kinda considered fringe.

Actually, the reasoning for the cosmological constant lambda, or the energy density of vacuum is very much similar to the reasoning employed in the ether. We observe an expanding universe, although there is no tendency we know that can counter the contracting tendency of gravity.

Viola - we have the cosmological constant - despite the fact that no one has actually held any lambda for scientific examination.

Who's laughing now, eh?

stop trying to mix ideas again please. You're right on the fear part, homosexuality's sense, is a bit different as reproductively, it really doesn't, though it's existence makes perfect sense.

It does not make perfect sense to indulge all your appetites - although you may do so, if you wish - subject to the rights of others.

I noticed you're having even more trouble keeping your pinky away from that enter key, can we keep it down to at most, one return per line you feel you need to add one to? that aside, there are many things that one can be attracted to, physical beauty isn't necessitated, it's the whole package that is made up of the details that creates the overall criteria.

Haven't you heard of platonic relationships?

That aside, there is no need to indulge predispositions, is there? Since physical beauty is not necessary (which is dependent on a genetic predisposition to procreate or sentiment, anyway), what makes you think that a specific gender is, hmmm?

you sure quote the dictionary a whole bunch yourself. I assume in some mocking pseudo-sarcasm from that warped little stretch of a mind of yours. Do understand that I know that words can step beyond the bounds of their definitions, but there are definitely limits to this.

.

Correct. I was demonstrating the lack of rigor in a dictionary definition.

Well, sort of, except the typical usage of Alluring is of a somewhat sexual attraction, or at minimum romantic attraction. The problem with this term in particular is where it comes from root being Lure, a being from latin Ad, Lure (Loire I think) meaning "Bait" Ad is "To" thus To Bait, so is that what your sister and brother do? Bait you? To what extent?

Maybe. They divided among themselves, the intelligent genes, and I was left with nothing but charm.

Made me jealous as hell the way they breeze through math while I trudged along.

The intention of today's usage still relates to this etymological root. Although in a much looser sense, it nonetheless is ill advised to say that you find your sister alluring in mixed company.

And why the hell not, if it is a matter of fact, hmmm? She is - physically and intellectually. You on the other hand, cannot acknowledge beauty in the same gender, nor in your siblings.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be gender-biased???

Unbelieveable!