Great post dbrydges. Jar, when has dbrydges ever stated that he is an atheist? It seems like you equate equal rights for gay people with atheism. Is that true?

Drybridge: On the issue of God, let's just agree to disagree... and I've never seen a lobster taken from the sea but I know they come from the ocean...and you can tell God when you meet HIm how He doesnt exist...Peace

Jar, I think that we probably disagree on the very definition of homosexual. To me a person can have a sexual orientation without ever having had an intimate sexual experience. Just because a person decides not to or never has the opportunity to engage in certain activities does not mean they have no defined sexuality. I have been a heterosexual for far longer than I have been sexually active, just as most homosexuals find members of the same sex attractive before their first homosexual experience. I have even met a homosexual virgin, he's saving himself for the right man, but he is undoubtedly homosexual, just like many a heterosexual has saved themselves for their wedding night.

I don't think I've ever had a choice about who I found to be sexually appealing. I certainly have choices about how I deal with my sexual feelings, however I think it is the feelings of sexual attraction that define sexuality rather than the sex act itself. All this being said, I think there is nothing immoral about 2 consenting adults of the same sex deciding to engage in a sexual relationship with one another. there is no victim, no criminal intent, and no rational argument that does not appeal to the logical fallacy of an unprovable authority to declare it immoral.

DRYBR: I agree with what you said. ABout cognition, that is true about external perceptions we have no control over..but... in terms of personal awareness to say that with regard to personal character and hereditary traits that being aware logically will not lead to free will choice is wrong. I may be aware of a pre disposition to alcohol or other vice... the fact I am aware I have a character trait allows me the ability to decide... It is the whole basis for A.A. and N.A. Being aware leads to modifying behavior.

Update: Crystal Dixon is no longer employed at the University of Toledo, her employment was terminated on May 8th. While I'm sure many of you will be disapprove of this decision, I sincerely applaud it as another victory for minority rights over religious tyranny. I think I'll take my wife out to celebrate.

"For instance... the law of gravity states, what goes up must come down"

How colloquial, and wrong. There are both laws and theories of gravity. The laws of gravity apply to the mathematics of gravitation. For example we can calculate with a high degree of accuracy the gravitational pull between objects of known mass or density in space using the laws of gravity and the acceleration due to gravity that each body will experience, but the theory of gravity is an attempt to explain why or how gravity works. Current theories involve the ellusive Higgs Bosson which may or may not be disproven using the LHC. The same applies to the laws of inertia, "an object in motion tends to stay in motion." The laws apply to the mathematical model which has been proven through thorough experimentation to produce predictable and reproducabel results. The theory of inertia however is not mathematical model that is the law of inertia, it is currently theorized that sub-atomic particles exist that give matter mass. Science does not attempt to prove theories, in science theories are presented with supporting evidence and reasoning and considered are usually valid theories until they are disproven.

I'm not sure why you are restating what I already stated regarding consensus. You are right a consensus does not equate to scientific fact. Perhaps you over simplfied what you meant, but consensus is most definitely NOT the opposite of scientific fact. As you state the two are unrelated. Consensus among scientists simply means that a majority of those scientists BELIEVE that a particular theory has NOT been disproven, it does not equate to fact and never will.

You seem to misunderstand cognition. Cognition is knowledge through perception, awareness, reasoning, etc... nothing to do with free will. Awareness does not necessarly imply choice. I am aware it is cloudy, but I have no choice or free will in the matter. I am aware of gravity, I have no choice as to whether or not my body experience gravitational pull.

DRYBRIDGES: Umm wrong ... consensus has no role in science. The scientific method in order for it to be valid must be able to demonstrate through repeating the same experiment coming to the same finding. Science relies on process. DrBridge.. before you comment think about the extrension of your thinking. There are many laws in science. I.e. thermodynamics, gravity... Obtaining consistenly same results using the scientific method yields scientific law. For instance... the law of gravity states, what goes up must come down.... objects moving inmotion will tend to stay in motion uuntil an outward force is applied.....

And cognition is about awareness and awareness opens us up to free will choices... that is part of the findings of the APA Report as well. They also stated in the GENOME report that hereditary traits are not indicators of inevitable behavior..

* Theories are not facts
** True, but theories are supported by evidence. Most scientific discoveries are presented as theory, there are very few scientific laws. So what? There are also several religious theories, Christianity, Hinduism, etc... There are also theories that homosexuality is immoral. Theories are not facts.

* Science doesnt rely on consensus..
** Consensus is unrelated to scientific fact. However, if consensus were the opposite of scientific fact as tyou contend, then every scientific fact agreed on by a majority of scientists would be scientifically incorrect because the opposite would be true because of consensus. Nice try, all that consensus means is that a majority of those who looked at the data agreed, presumably those who are comming to this consensus are emminently more qualified to interprete the data than you or I.

*Cognitive means the ability to be aware and choose
** wrong, cognitive or cognition has to do with factual knowledge, knowing.. not deciding. I am cognitive of the fact it is raining, I do not need to decide if it is or not. Even if I decide that it is not raining, it may very well be. So a homosexual may decide that he or she is not gay, buy they may actually still be regardless of their choice.

* Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
** Homosexuality may not be hardwired, however genetic pre-disposition is certainly a factor and this implies a lack of choice in the matter. For example a person may be genetically pre-disposed to cancer but it is doubtful that most people would choose to become cancer patients.

* They don't know
** No body knows, science isn't about solid facts, its about theories that are supported by current knowledge and data. scientific theories are created and discarded all of the time. This is the strength of science, bad science is quickly discarded. This position with caveats like "probably" is infinitely more honest than the religious right who stamp their feet and claim homosexuality is a choice, not based on any real exploration of the subject, but rather based on emotionally backed religious dogma.

* They really dont know
** The theory is that there may be many causes of homosexuality, this is far more honest than claiming to "know" that all homosexuals are that way because they choose to be. As though you or anyone can read the mind of all homosexuals.

It is a ludicrous and arrogant statement…
** Sorry but it is far more arrogant to think that you're conclusions are somehow more correct because you read it in the Bible or because your peers agree with you and you feel you're right.

FInally..I have said exactly what the APA said…
** As already discussed cognition and choice are not the same thing. Cognition is the act of knowing, not the act of deciding. Look it up, use a dictionary. The APA is correct when they say it is not a choice.

FOR DRYBRIDGES: Okay so it was your retor for the GENOME Study 200&:

Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
Grateful acknowledgements to Dr. A. Dean Byrd and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) for granting www.tldm.org permission to reprint this article:

NARTH reported on March 8, 2007:

Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA research, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits." However, he adds, "for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."

In reviewing the heritability (i.e., influence of genetic factors) on personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the research of Bochard and McGue for the estimated percentage of these traits that can be ascribed to heredity.

The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).

Such estimates of heritability are based upon unbiased, careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. The studies lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these personality traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.

FOR DRYBRIDGES: My challange to you.. Repost my cut/paste from the APA.. Look at my comments that I placed under each statement.. and objectively .. not subjectively but logcially respond to each of my comments.