Sparo:
>I'm assuming they are different until proven otherwise.
Ok, fair enough, but that in an of itself is no more valid than the position "I'm assuming they are the
same until proven otherwise."
>They are completely different behaviors, so the
>default assumption should be that they have
>different causes.
Well we fundamentally disagree that they are "different behaviors". I find the age/gender/type of person that one is sexually attracted to to be *exactly* the same and would be interested in hearing solid arguments against that position.
>Obviously if Haroki had scientific evidence for a
>common genetic factor then that would be a
>different story, but he doesn't.
Once again, you've presented *exactly* the same amount of scientific evidence for your argument as he has for his. In that arena it kinda seems like a tie to me.
>Are you seriously suggesting that (let's say) sexual
>attraction to blondes and sexual attraction to horses
>have the same genetic or evolutionary cause?
A: I'm saying that they are wired genetically. I am not saying that they have the same genetic cause.
B: Of course I will always acknowledge there are exceptions to the above -- attention seekers, low self esteem, "I like blondes because my favorite ex was a blond", etc.
>If, as you claim, all sexual predilections are
>genetically equivalent, we can restate Haroki's
>argument as follows, substituting "blonde
>women" for "men" and "animals" for "children":
Yes. Precisely.
>"Look at this recent study showing that there is
>a genetic basis for men's attraction to blonde
>women! Obviously, then, bestiality is untreatable."
Once again we get into definitions -- if you mean "untreatable" in the sense that we will most likely be unable to make that attraction go away -- then yes, I agree with the above.
>Ridiculous isn't it?
I don't get that it's ridiculous at all. I don't think I'm going to make my attraction to athletic women go away anytime soon -- no matter what the treatment. Why would a guy who get's a woody for 11yo girls be any different. I truly don't understand.
>Here's another example. You're saying all sexual
>preferences are equivalent. What about food
>preferences?
Food preference are a far cry from sexual preferences -- a completely different category in my world, but I'll listen.
>When I was a kid I liked ice cream, now I don't
>anymore. However I don't like cilantro because of a
>well understood genetic factor that causes it to taste
>soapy. Preference for ice cream isn't the same as
>preference for cilantro; one is amenable to change
>whereas the other isn't. Just because they are both
>food preferences doesn't mean they are the same
>thing. Similarly for sexual preferences.
(First, understand that I consider sexual preference to be a continuum -- some are *really* "straight" -- NO attraction to opposite sex -- and some fall more in the middle. Gays similarly distributed.)
When you can show me a significant population of *really* gay and *really* straight people transitioning throughout their lives from gay to straight and visa/versa, I will give you some credit on the ice cream thing -- it's just not what we see day to day. Food cravings change often as our age changes. Currently not buying the ice cream argument.
No, I still see it as a cilantro thing.
JB
