I guess I need an understanding of what you are saying. Are you suggesting that homosexuality is nothing more than free thought? If so, what background do you have to reach that conclusion?
Like I said, I am not an orthodox atheist...
Again, what is the basis for your determination of homosexuality? You have mentioned the term "atheist" a few times. Are you an atheist? And if so, I'm still interested in how you formed your opinions on the subject at hand.
Your explanation fails to explain the "attraction" but jumps straight to the conduct.
No explanation is needed, the axiomatic state of mammalian reproductive biology and nature needs none, nor does it require human permission.
But you certainly must admit there is some kind of attraction, do you not? And if so, I'm merely trying to establish what the cause of that attraction is. You can dance around it all you want with the "thought" theory, but you cannot begin to answer how those "thoughts" came to become attractions so powerful as to turn someone away from normal heterosexuality, especially those from strong Christian anti-homosexual families.
...the right to privacy, and is protected by the Constitution.
For starters, the word “privacy” is not in the Constitution. Secondly, a public display or declaration betrays any privacy, as does public money...
Individual privacy is a pervasive concept within the Bill of Rights. You only have to look to the third and fourth Amendments and end with the ninth which leaves others not mentioned in the first eight to the people. And of course the USSC confirms a basic right to privacy of the people.
As for public displays, if homosexuality is legal, as it currently is, then two homosexuals holding hands in public where two heterosexuals can do the same would of course be legal also.
The “world of science” cannot even cure the common cold.
LOL. Well, I can't argue that one with you. But to be sure, science and medicine have certainly proved that certain genes not in all persons cause certain rare illnesses. Science wants to know if a particular gene also causes homosexuality. I don't think they have conclusively established that it has. But at least my mind is not shut to the possibility of something that neither you nor I could possibly know the answer to.
What does the religionist have to do with anything that pertains to me? I am not an ecumenical atheist, as I have told you. The religious smear tactic is an illogical ad hominem...
My apologies. No smear was intended. But clearly you understand that religious fundamentalists are the primary source for the "it's a choice, not a physical condition" philosophy. For them, the reason is obvious. If it is a condition preceding birth, such as a gene or other physical cause, then that means that God created the homosexual. And since God can do no wrong, homosexuality cannot by definition be bad. That's their reason, and yours seems to fit into that model. But again you keep referring to "atheist" by saying you are not various definitions of "atheist" but never saying exactly what you are.
The answer is found, and it is all rooted in aberrant human thought.
Now if you could just reference that or give me a link to that conclusion, I would appreciate it.
I saw a sincere, intelligent human being, accepted and loved by her family, in a loving monogamous relationship.
ILLOGICAL.Monogamy denotes a biological procreation she is incapable of with another woman.
Well the dictionary defines monogamy as a condition or practice of having a single mate for a period of time. That would certainly seem to fit Mary Cheney. Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
But, go ahead bashing the godists all you like, this is one atheist that ain't buying your fantasy religion...
Well, I don't recall bashing anyone. I do disagree with certain Christian philosophy as we have discussed, but I am quite willing to defend any statement I make. And I am not sure exactly what a godist is, nor a fantasy religion. The only thing I have done here on this thread is to challenge the conclusion of some that homosexuality is simply a choice made, and that no one is born homosexual. I would be quite willing to back up my challenge with links to medical and scientific studies, but strangely enough no takers. Yet none, you included seem disposed to explain your conclusion.
ILLOGICAL... mating requires male and female with mammals and denotes procreation.
The biology of nature defines monogamy and human permission is not required...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
You just shot yourself down with it above... Learn Latin and Greek... get a life...
Who is he that is not of woman born?