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

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> 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).

Yes, I have not carried out the experiment.  Regardless, the experiment 
is there.  If the actual experiment is not carried out, the conclusion 
could probably be inferred with a high degree of certainty.

> 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.

I'm not defending Dobson -- I don't even know who he is or what he 
practices/preaches.

> 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).

My statement wasn't intended to label ***uality as anything.  "Defining 
characteristic" can be inserted without altering the intent of my 
statement in the least.

>> 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.

I'm not telling them anything.  A person is free to make their own 
choices, but they must accept the consequences of those choices -- be 
they good or bad, correct or incorrect, beneficial or detrimental...