POLITICS technical points on sexuality from UGLY THREAD

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@ :

> <Please note that homosexuality is fundamentally a physical birth

> quality like sex or race, not a behavioral choice.

>

> That is your opinion but one certainly subject to

argument. Now, I am not looking to argue a specific definition of

what constitutes a homosexual but that has to be done before you can

even attempt to make such a qualification. In the process of doing

that, behavior versus feelings or causation of sexual stimulation

will be a relevant issue in the debate. Then, however you define it,

such a qualification that it is a physical birth quality is still

just opinion.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I intentionally referred to my statement as scientific fact; it is

not my opinion and it's not even controversial that homosexuality can

be congenital. It's not even worth trying to defend a point that can

be gotten from hundreds of scientific sources. I feel like I'm

trying to argue against a flat-earth theorist here. Not my idea of a

good time.

It's possible to debate the definition of homosexuality in regards to

the psycho-cultural component (college-only lesbianism, etc), but I'm

focusing on the indisputable congenital physiological component of

homosexuality in at least some of its manifestations. There's no

debate that exists, and a precise definition (there will always be

shades of grey in a biological system) is irrelevant for our

purposes. This behavior stuff is completely irrelevant to the point

at hand, which is that some types of homosexuality are biologically

determined at birth.

@@@@@@@@@@@

And I can argue the fallacies in logic to such ideas being applicable

in all situations but that is going to depend on how we define it in

the first place. Now you can take the position as some biologists

that ALL behavior is physical but as a logician, I am think you will

agree that arguments regarding free will vs biological determinism

are complicated. If we decide that all is determined for us, then

those who dislike homosexuals or take revoltion or whatever, are no

more responsible for their feelings and actions than a homosexual is

for his. And then once we finished the argument, we are both going to

resume living in a society that says we are still responsible for our

actions which leaves the argument to be resolved as to what actions

are right and which are wrong. That again is another complicated

philosophical argument and ones with different value systems are

going to derive different answers. Am I wrong here professor?

@@@@@@@@@@@

I find this passage very intelligent, but it doesn't change the fact

that discrimination against homosexuality is discrimination based on

a person's congenital physiological properties. If you choose to

make such discriminations, then we are enemies and I have nothing

more to say on the matter.

@@@@@@@@@@

> You are wrong in this. It is theorized, hypothesized, believed by

some - that's it. It is not accepted or established as scientific

fact.

> Such ideas have not endured peer review and challenge, and

collective acceptance by the scientific community which is necessary

to be claimed as scientific fact.

@@@@@@@@@

Maybe you could try contacting a local university professor in a

relevant department like biology, psychology, medicine, or whatever,

and ask them if a congenital component to homosexuality is

scientifically established. I'm not a scientist in those fields and

I have better things to do than defend the round earth theory.

@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> <<<Discrimination based

> on sexual orientation is fundamentally in the same category as

other

> congenital criteria for discrimination like sex or race.

>

> I disagree with you because behavior would be an important aspect

of how I would define the term.

@@@@@@@@@

There are components to sexuality that exist independently of

behavior, and that is what's relevant here. The existence of

behavioral components to sexuality does not negate the existence of

the non-behavioral components. It seems like you're trying to soften

the image of your bigotry by citing a behavioral dimension that could

be considered cultural " fair game " and certainly resonates with the

popular religious campaign to suppress sexuality.

@@@@@@@@@@@ :

There is no confusion and I think you understood what I meant. Some

females have more masculine qualities, some males are more

effeminate. These qualities are how we are born by which we have no

control over and reflected in physical appearance. Masculine or

effiminate qualities use to be aspects by which some would judge

sexual orientation. From all I have read, there is no correlation

and such judgements would be erroneous and unfair. Correct me if I

am wrong. If you know a better way this could have been expressed,

please share.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Actually, I had no idea what you meant by " gender sex " , which can

only possibly be a synonym for " gender " , but now I think your

referring to components of gender that are congenital, but since

gender in general has non-congenital and cultural components that are

much more prominent, this is not captured by the terms " gender "

or " gender sex " , the latter of which is a novelty to these eyes.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> <Not quite. There are more categories than just " male "

and " female " .

> This is scientific fact; feel free to look it up for verification.

>

> And just what scientific book would you suggest as I am only aware

of two - or maybe you are talking about abnormal situations such as

hermorphidites or neuters which doesn't really seem relevant to this.

@@@@@@@@@@

It's not my field, but any textbook used in a human sexuality course

would probably cover this stuff; it's not obscure. I've taken

women's studies courses where it was covered; there's no shortgage of

literature.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania