Re: The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:

Peter Franks wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> 
>>
>> You can't change an immutable trait (you are what you are).  Dobson
>> thinks homo***uality is not immutable, but rather chosen.  And since
>> it is chosen, you can choose not to be gay.  That's unreal.
> 
> 
> That immutable trait, as you call it, is contrary to nature.  This can 
> be proven scientifically:
> 
>     Take a hetero***ual couple and place in an
>     isolated yet life-sustaining environment.
> 
>     Do the same with a homo***ual couple.
> 
>     After a couple of generations of time,
>     evaluate the results. Does nature sup****t
>     human homo***uality?
> 
> I don't know if homo***uality is immutable or chosen, just as I don't 
> know if a lot of behaviors are immutable or chosen.

I do not know why homo***uality persists.  But I do know you have no 
scientific proof.  Instead you have a theory that is inconsistent with 
the data (the observation that ***uality is primarily immutable).

Maybe homo***uality will die out per natural selection.  Maybe there is 
a positive factor from homo***uality that causes it to continue.  Maybe 
we don't have a complete understanding of natural selection.

In any case, the scientific method forces us to reexamine theories in 
light of the evidence.  But Dobson being a slave to his religion, cannot 
do so.

Another statement of your inconsistent with the evidence (and therefore 
unreal) is your labeling ***uality as merely behavior (i.e., what you 
do) rather than as a defining characteristic (i.e., who you are).

> I DO know that 
> controlling that which isn't beneficial to my or societal progression is

> good for me and and society.  That is not unreal.

So, it's good to tell a gay person they should not experience love? 
That is very real, and very harmful.

Josh Rosenbluth