Originally posted by FeceMan
What if it's real moral superiority?
then you go to heaven and get an infinitely giant cookie.
however infringing on the happiness of others by passing judgement
and persecuting those who harm nobody is not the act of one morally superior imho.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Typical Christian logic...
typical kneejerk stereotype.
Originally posted by RegretElaborate. If something is not entirely genetic it is therefore "learned"? I'm assuming you're working on some specialised psychology definition of the word learned? Since you tend to.
Wrong. No matter the level of significance placed on genetic factors, if sexual orientation is not decided absolutely by these factors then sexuality is learned.
Originally posted by Regret
Wrong. No matter the level of significance placed on genetic factors, if sexual orientation is not decided absolutely by these factors then sexuality is learned. Any combination of factors implies the possibility of any sexual orientation.
Why couldn't it be both ? Genetic AND environmental ?
most people beleive that we are a product of BOTH nature and nurture, not just one or the other.
I also wondor why does it matter to people so much? Who cares if someone is Gay....
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThe significant factors as found in the answer given by the APA is summed in this:
Apparently, it needed to be repeated as you do not seem to understand the meaning of significant.Significant does not merely connotate "something that should be considered."
Nor is a significant factor simply one "large enough to warrant mentioning."
Rather, a significant factor warrants mentioning because it is large, i.e. "of a greater size or quantity; to a greater degree" than other factors.
Such a factor would be "highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal." Hence, primary.
"...sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors"
The significant factors are then:
[list][*]environment[*]cognition[*]biology[/list]
There is no statement as to whether one factor plays a more significant role than another in the APA's response.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenIt is currently believed to be both. But, if genetics is not the absolute and only factor then sexual orientation is learned.
Why couldn't it be both ? Genetic AND environmental ?most people beleive that we are a product of BOTH nature and nurture, not just one or the other.
I also wondor why does it matter to people so much? Who cares if someone is Gay....
I have no clue as to why people care, but it seems the homosexuals want everyone to discuss it.
Originally posted by Regret
The significant factors as found in the answer given by the APA is summed in this:"...sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors"
The significant factors are then:
[list][*]environment[*]cognition[*]biology[/list]
There is no statement as to whether one factor plays a more significant role than another in the APA's response.
The article states that "sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors," but only cites biological factors when referencing which factors appear to play a significant role in regards to "considerable recent evidence."
Originally posted by RegretElaborate. While essentially all traits are based in biological substrates, few traits show complete and absolute genetic penetrance.
If genetics is not the absolute and only factor then sexual orientation is learned.
Originally posted by RegretWhich is why I qualified whether one considers environment as biological, with the dependence on the scope placed on the word environment, and put it in parentheses.
Wrong again. Environment is all external (outside the subject) stimuli and events.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThis was stated because many psychologists particularly behavior analysts, myself included, would state that regardless of genetic factors sexuality can be controlled through proper shaping, and we would overly downplay genetics as I often do.
The article states that "sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors," but only cites biological factors when referencing which factors appear to play a significant role in regards to "considerable recent evidence."
Regardless of the significance of genetics, if sexuality is not absolutely controlled and decided by them, a variable that can be controlled by the individual or the environment ultimately decides sexuality.
Which is why I asked if you were working on some alternative definition of the word "learned"?
Originally posted by RegretI think we got that from all the lovely pictures of B.F. Skinner.
This was stated because many psychologists particularly behavior analysts, myself included, would state that regardless of genetic factors sexuality can be controlled through proper shaping, and we would overly downplay genetics as I often do.
Originally posted by RegretYou don't see something somewhat hypocritical in the assertion that if something has a basis in genetics, regardless of the magnitude of influence of this basis, if incomplete, then the causative factor can no longer be described as predominantly genetic, while conversely no matter the level at which an external stimuli, biological or otherwise, plays a role in the outcome the trait or "behaviour", in the case being discussed sexual attraction, is subsequently a "learned behaviour".
Regardless of the significance of genetics, if sexuality is not absolutely controlled and decided by them, a variable that can be controlled by the individual or the environment ultimately decides sexuality.
Originally posted by Regret
It is currently believed to be both. But, if genetics is not the absolute and only factor then sexual orientation is learned.I have no clue as to why people care, but it seems the homosexuals want everyone to discuss it.
Homosexuals only want people to discuss it because the Conservative Right Wing keeps insisting that we chose our sexuality, and that we are sinners, deserve less rights, and will end up in Hell...
THAT is why we want this discussed.....otherwise, we wouldn't care.
And don't play stupid Regret...you didn't just stumble upon the thread....you have argued on this thread a numerous time, you seem to have much interest in this yourself.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which is why I asked if you were working on some alternative definition of the word "learned"?
I think we got that from all the lovely pictures of B.F. Skinner.
You don't see something somewhat hypocritical in the assertion that if something has a basis in genetics, regardless of the magnitude of influence of this basis, if incomplete, then the causative factor can no longer be described as predominantly genetic, while conversely no matter the level at which an external stimuli, biological or otherwise, plays a role in the outcome the trait or "behaviour", in the case being discussed sexual attraction, is subsequently a "learned behaviour".
Originally posted by Regret
No, it is not hypocritical. Since the biological factor does not absolutely decide the issue, it is not more significant than the variable/s that impact the sexual orientation, especially given that genetic variables related to behaviors are in effect passive.
I love how you twist the words choice and punishment to suit your own biases and validate your religion.
You are not using the true definitions of choice or punishment.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenYou brought this thread to my attention, which is the only reason I have joined the discussion. I am not discussing homosexuality, I am discussing genetic versus learning as to impact on an individual. Homosexuality is merely the topic that the debate is often held over.
Homosexuals only want people to discuss it because the Conservative Right Wing keeps insisting that we chose our sexuality, and that we are sinners, deserve less rights, and will end up in Hell...THAT is why we want this discussed.....otherwise, we wouldn't care.
And don't play stupid Regret...you didn't just stumble upon the thread....you have argued on this thread a numerous time, you seem to have much interest in this yourself.