Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lucky Dog

Glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I’m traveling tomorrow too and will be away from the ‘net for awhile, so I may not be able to respond. However, I’m not sure how different our positions really are. I was responding to your initial post, where you stated:

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.”

That was really what I was taking issue with. Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.

Your position seems reminiscent of B.F. Skinner and the radical behavioral psychologists of the middle of the last century, who insisted that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly. That advanced some aspects of the science and made for the development of interesting methodology, but it sure didn’t help the study of personality, sexual orientation, or other such characteristics. Fortunately, scientists since then have realized that they don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways to triangulate on individual differences that are not directly observable, whether they be extroversion, homosexuality, or narcissism.


40 posted on 07/22/2008 8:15:56 PM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Kahonek
Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

That was really what I was taking issue with.

Not to be trite, but I take issue with those who would take issue with my statement.

Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.

I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.

Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.

Your position seems … that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly.

You have misconstrued my position. I do not maintain that no psychological construct exists if cannot be observed directly. In general, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, psychological constructs are irrelevant to the status of individual rights. In particular, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, only the US Constitution, statutes and judicial pronouncements that do not violate same and individual behavior are relevant to the status of individual rights.
41 posted on 07/23/2008 8:57:46 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson