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

On May 13, 8:17=A0pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On May 13, 2:35 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>> On May 12, 10:24 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>> On May 12, 12:28 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> You can't change an immutable trait (you are what you are).
=
=A0Dobson
> >>>>>>>>>>> thinks homo***uality is not immutable, but rather chosen.
=A0A=
nd since
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is chosen, you can choose not to be gay. =A0That's
unreal.
> >>>>>>>>>> That immutable trait, as you call it, is contrary to nature.
=
=A0This
> >>>>>>>>>> can be proven scientifically:
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 Take a hetero***ual couple and place in an
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 isolated yet life-sustaining environment.
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 Do the same with a homo***ual couple.
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 After a couple of generations of time,
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 evaluate the results. Does nature sup****t
> >>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 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. =A0But I do know you
h=
ave no
> >>>>>>>>> scientific proof. =A0Instead you have a theory that is
inconsist=
ent
> >>>>>>>>> with the data (the observation that ***uality is primarily
immut=
able).
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I have not carried out the experiment. =A0Regardless, the
> >>>>>>>> experiment is there. =A0If the actual experiment is not carried
o=
ut, the
> >>>>>>>> conclusion could probably be inferred with a high degree of
certa=
inty.
> >>>>>>> What are you babbling about? =A0What experiment?
> >>>>>> The experiment I described earlier.
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe homo***uality will die out per natural selection.
=A0Maybe=
 there
> >>>>>>>>> is a positive factor from homo***uality that causes it to
contin=
ue. =A0
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe we don't have a complete understanding of natural
selectio=
n.
> >>>>>>>>> In any case, the scientific method forces us to reexamine
theori=
es in
> >>>>>>>>> light of the evidence. =A0But Dobson being a slave to his
religi=
on,
> >>>>>>>>> cannot do so.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not defending Dobson -- I don't even know who he is or what
h=
e
> >>>>>>>> practices/preaches.
> >>>>>>> I've already explained that to you in this thread. =A0He
believes
> >>>>>>> homo***uality is a chosen behavior, a sin, and should be treated
a=
s
> >>>>>>> such. =A0That's unreal.
> >>>>>> What part(s) is/are unreal? =A0Chosen behavior, sin, and/or
treatme=
nt?
> >>>>> Chosen behavior.
> >>>> Ok.
> >>>> Is that idea (chosen behavior) exclusive to the RR?
> >>> No. =A0So what? =A0Do you have a point?
> >> Yes, I have an issue with the generalization made in the subject and
> >> content of this posting. =A0I think I've now made my point.
>
> > The subject (the religious rights' unreal understanding of
> > homo***uality) is accurate as I explained. =A0Your point that this
> > unreal belief is not exclusive to the religous right does not detract
> > from the subject's claim.
>
> Yes it does; it is a subset of the RR, and therefore it most definitely
> contradicts the claim made in the subject.

It (those who who have the unreal belief about homo***uality) is a
superset relative to the RR, not a subset.  Sorry, you have not
contradicted the subject's claim.

Josh Rosenbluth