At 2:23 PM -0600 2/10/07, Rick Froman wrote:
Can anyone explain to me the logic behind this quote from the article:
"If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered and
manipulated, Dr. Wolpe continued, then the argument that sexual orientation is
based in biology and is immutable 'evaporates'". Since when are "biological"
and "immutable" synonymous?
Paul Brandon wrote:
I don't see where this implies that the two statements are synonymous.
These are two different statements that are often made about sexual orientation.
It is often assumed that the second (immutability) follows from the first
(based in biology).
That is, if we demonstrate that sexual orientation has a biological basis, then
we have demonstrated that it cannot be changed.
While I approve of the sentiments (gay rights) behind this assumption, I don't
find it scientifically convincing.
And of course, from a monist point of view, ALL behavior is based in biology.
Rick continues:
Synonymous was probably an incorrect usage. I think Dr. Wolpe is clearly
implying that immutability follows from biology. His use of the singular
"argument" leads me to hear a
"therefore" between "is" and "immutable".
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
