Reasonings (Vertical and Lateral Matter)

[MustafaMc]

vertical is you analyzed, you compare, you work for it but accordingly to the principle and guidelines..that cannot be twist and turn...it rigid.

What I understand you to say by "vertical" is that this is a conservative approach to religion.

lateral is you find ways and means to resolve the solutions...twist and turn

Like drinking alcohol eg..some says moderation is acceptable..so this type of mindset is lateral thinking...twist and turn (they get ways and means to reason out )

What I understand you to say by "lateral" is that this is a liberal approach to religion. My opinion is that a conservative approach to religion is generally best. A liberal approach is on the slippery side of disbelief (to paraphrase a LI member) such that one risks losing all semblance of being a Muslim.

Allah provides us cognitive skill for us to be constructive in our lives so that we are able to solve our problems and able to cope with our daily stresses of activity living. Unless we are born congenitally without cognitive skills, Allah will forgive us.:statisfie

I am quite concerned by this line of reasoning. If we search for the reasons for why something is haram, then we may have a tendacy to disobey Allah if we solve all of the problems we can think that is associated with that prohibition. If we say pork is forbidden because pigs are filthy animals, then we may be inclined to disobey Allah and consume pork if the animal is grown in a sterile environment. Likewise, with alcohol in "moderation".

It does no harm to think of why something is forbidden, but we should not use this reasoning to disobey Allah.

 

[tetsujin]

Believing in gayb like believing in yourself. Gay is also another type of mindset like you need to rehabiltate and therapy.

Where did you find information that being gay is a "mindset"?

^^^ are you gay? if so then perhaps you can shed some light on what drove you into homoeroticism and dispel some of the myths and doubts for us..

cheers!

I'm sorry. I just could not find the line of reasoning that allows for such a well thought out response.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

1) An assertion was made that a sexual orientation, in this case homosexuality in men, is the effect of a particular "mindset"

2) I requested information which would allow me to understand the perspective of the claimant. I did not assume the validity (or lack thereof) of the claim. I did not state explicitly, nor did I make a statement which would implicate my position on the subject.

The only conclusions that could (which is not to say should) be drawn from my statement would be that (a) I concede my own lack knowledge on the subject matter which was has been made apparent to the claimant and (b) if I have not had the privilege of that knowledge then I am not one to hesitate to improve my own understanding of the subject.

Rather than resorting to a deconstructionist attempt to dispute the claim, I acknowledged in full that I had not entirely understood it. For example, as I paraphrased the assertion, I used the common literary tool of quotation marks to highlight the ambiguous use of the word "mindset".

As for your question, PurestAmbrosia, am I gay? I can honestly say I am not homosexual. Pursuant to the question, you made the assertion that one is driven to homoeroticism and requested that I dispute the aforementioned assertion on the basis of presumed personal experience.

Regretfully, I cannot answer in the manner that you would like due to the fact that I am not homosexual (as far as I am capable of making such a claim) and that argumentation based on personal experience has yet to be proven as sound reasoning on any subject matter.

This exchange certainly changes my perception of you as I held a highly optimistic view, however carrying forward I expect that you will not ask me to engage in irrational and fallacious reasoning. You shall receive the benefit of the doubt, since I am not in the position to judge why this has occurred.

 

[جوري]

I'm sorry. I just could not find the line of reasoning that allows for such a well thought out response.

One was her perspective, I wanted to understand if your own line of questioning stems from experience?

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

ok

1) An assertion was made that a sexual orientation, in this case homosexuality in men, is the effect of a particular "mindset"

2) I requested information which would allow me to understand the perspective of the claimant. I did not assume the validity (or lack thereof) of the claim. I did not state explicitly, nor did I make a statement which would implicate my position on the subject.

Indeed..you have never assumed the validity or lack thereof, it can be implied from the line of questioning, however-- whether or not this little awkward and unbefittingly bombastic detour in 'self-righteous(ville)' will hinder you from pursuing it further, is a different story all together...one can forgo all that and just simply ask you, your perspective on the matter.. can't one? The same way you have asked the dear sister here,hers!

The only conclusions that could (which is not to say should) be drawn from my statement would be that (a) I concede my own lack knowledge on the subject matter which was has been made apparent to the claimant and (b) if I have not had the privilege of that knowledge then I am not one to hesitate to improve my own understanding of the subject.

fair enough!

Rather than resorting to a deconstructionist attempt to dispute the claim, I acknowledged in full that I had not entirely understood it. For example, as I paraphrased the assertion, I used the common literary tool of quotation marks to highlight the ambiguous use of the word "mindset".

lol.. that was a dynamo of declamation.. ok -- we'll go along!

As for your question, PurestAmbrosia, am I gay? I can honestly say I am not homosexual. Pursuant to the question, you made the assertion that one is driven to homoeroticism and requested that I dispute the aforementioned assertion on the basis of presumed personal experience.

yes indeed.. one way to 'undo' stigma is to explain your position on it, it will enahnce the empathy when coming from personal experience?!

Regretfully, I cannot answer in the manner that you would like due to the fact that I am not homosexual (as far as I am capable of making such a claim) and that argumentation based on personal experience has yet to be proven as sound reasoning on any subject matter.

Ok.. again fair enough!

This exchange certainly changes my perception of you as I held a highly optimistic view, however carrying forward I expect that you will not ask me to engage in irrational and fallacious reasoning. You shall receive the benefit of the doubt, since I am not in the position to judge why this has occurred.

I don't understand what that means exactly? let alone the exaggerated response to a simple question to your simple question..You'll forgive me, I don't enjoy the hyperbolic style. I don't think any of this is necessary or even appropriate or pertinent in nature for one simple Q..do you?

It is easy to just say..no I ain't gay, I am a free thinking atheist..and I think your ways are backwards and archaic.. since I have become an atheist,I have also become a 'humanist' and like to fight for the rights of those who offer their behind to members of the same gender whilst parading in colorful culottes on saturday afternoons..that is what it means to be progressive and look how soft spoken and educated I am while doing it. If that ain't a testament to both favoring and promoting progress then I don't know what else it is?
See..simplicity really is best!
That way everyone can cut the cr@p?


cheers!

 

[tetsujin]

One was her perspective, I wanted to understand if your own line of questioning stems from experience?

Fair enough, but you could have asked if I had a different perspective rather than imply that I did.

..one can forgo all that and just simply ask you, your perspective on the matter.. can't one? The same way you have asked the dear sister here,hers!

Yes, you can certainly ask me what my perspective is, but I did not ask for a perspective, nor did you ask for mine. Your question, in and of itself, was meant to determine my sexual orientation. My question, in and of itself, was meant to determine a source of information.

I don't understand what that means exactly? let alone the exaggerated response to a simple question to your simple question..You'll forgive me, I don't enjoy the hyperbolic style. I don't think any of this is necessary or even appropriate or pertinent in nature for one simple Q..do you?

I don’t normally write for the enjoyment of the reader. That was not a simple question. Yes, I could have responded simply with a “No, so I can’t answer your question”, but that opens up the possibility that it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to answer. Your statement that followed in effect loaded the question, as it presupposed my position. Would my apparent lack of an answer to your question suffice, or would you question my intentions at that point by presupposing that I feel I have the right to question a perspective without offering my own? I do not know. So I simply answered your question and indicated that the question itself was loaded.

A simple question to my question would be to request any information that I have found on the subject. The tangent itself seemed odd, when considering that my answer to your question could possibly change the nature of the discussion itself. If we were to assume that I am homosexual, would you refrain from presenting an argument or otherwise alter your stance or the information which may be presented?

It is easy to just say..no I ain't gay, I am a free thinking atheist..and I think your ways are backwards and archaic.. since I have become an atheist,I have also become a 'humanist' and like to fight for the rights of those who offer their behind to members of the same gender whilst parading in colorful culottes on saturday afternoons..that is what it means to be progressive and look how soft spoken and educated I am while doing it. If that ain't a testament to both favoring and promoting progress then I don't know what else it is?
See..simplicity really is best!
That way everyone can cut the cr@p?

I don’t know what to say, had I responded in that manner it may have implied that you yourself do not stand for the rights of a minority group due to your religious convictions. It may have implied that I hold myself in higher regard because of my religious convictions. I’d certainly be putting words in your mouth, and I wouldn’t want to do that. I have respect for you, for reasons I would not like to share, but I’d like you to know that. However, I can only respond in a manner which I deem appropriate.

The hyperbolic crap is an effect of perceptual differences, and arises from difficulties in communication. I cannot see it as it is my written work in question, but if you feel it is necessary to highlight some specific parts which could have been written in a simplistic and (more importantly) effective manner then please do so.

I make an attempt to be thorough. Yes, it could have been easy, but it wouldn’t have been right. You will find that I don’t always take the easy route, or the most apparent route. Please take what I say for face value, I make an attempt to remain stoic in these discussions.

 

[جوري]

Fair enough, but you could have asked if I had a different perspective rather than imply that I did.

I thought I did?

Yes, you can certainly ask me what my perspective is, but I did not ask for a perspective, nor did you ask for mine. Your question, in and of itself, was meant to determine my sexual orientation. My question, in and of itself, was meant to determine a source of information.

My question was not meant to determine your sexual orientation.I couldn't care less. It was to determine whether you are on to something the rest of us aren't based on something other than opinion..as the sister has given an opinion so to did you by way of question-- there is no great mystery here.. often questions aren't as innocuous as they seem.

I don’t normally write for the enjoyment of the reader. That was not a simple question. Yes, I could have responded simply with a “No, so I can’t answer your question”, but that opens up the possibility that it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to answer. Your statement that followed in effect loaded the question, as it presupposed my position. Would my apparent lack of an answer to your question suffice, or would you question my intentions at that point by presupposing that I feel I have the right to question a perspective without offering my own? I do not know. So I simply answered your question and indicated that the question itself was loaded.

Guess it is loaded both ways?

A simple question to my question would be to request any information that I have found on the subject. The tangent itself seemed odd, when considering that my answer to your question could possibly change the nature of the discussion itself. If we were to assume that I am homosexual, would you refrain from presenting an argument or otherwise alter your stance or the information which may be presented?

Not at all..my stance is made quite clear on several pages of this forum, even directly to some of our homosexual members here, or I should say to two of our resident homosexuals. certainly people who are, have more insight to their condition that is beyond 'known medical research'!

I don’t know what to say, had I responded in that manner it may have implied that you yourself do not stand for the rights of a minority group due to your religious convictions.

My stance on the subject has nothing to do with my religious convictions.. although religion does define morality for me. looking at it past the moral or immoral. Homoerotiscism is an act of sexual deviance, so classified for us in the diagnostic manual of mental disorders by the American psychiatric association (1973), no different than necrophilia or pedophilia, though after what I can only assume was heavy lobbying it made it out of there.. It was treated in the exact manner..'aversion therapy' with electric shock treatment...
what leads you to cringe at mysophilia, Biastophilia or some pederast priest sodomizing one of his alter boys, should eventually lead you to like wise cringe when it is two adult male homosexuals committing sodomy.. but it doesn't?.. I assure you, not because you are past religious rituals and definitions of backwardness, rather due to being a product of a society that has made you a hypocrite but didn't explain to you the subtle nuances of where exactly it has failed you, while indoctrinating you in that elite society of illuminati!

It may have implied that I hold myself in higher regard because of my religious convictions. I’d certainly be putting words in your mouth, and I wouldn’t want to do that. I have respect for you, for reasons I would not like to share, but I’d like you to know that. However, I can only respond in a manner which I deem appropriate.

Ok thank you..I am flattered I suppose-- I do feel dignified by the gift of Islam and not through anything else I may have accomplished in life and gotten accredited, licensed or rewarded for.. And I say All of it is min fadl rabbi ( astghferoh min kol zanb 3atheem, wa'a7mido 3la ma an3am 3ali)

The hyperbolic crap is an effect of perceptual differences, and arises from difficulties in communication. I cannot see it as it is my written work in question, but if you feel it is necessary to highlight some specific parts which could have been written in a simplistic and (more importantly) effective manner then please do so.

I thought I already have? just write the reason behind the reason, that way everyone can sleep early have a light snack..drink some juice, and maybe be on time in the morning?

I make an attempt to be thorough. Yes, it could have been easy, but it wouldn’t have been right. You will find that I don’t always take the easy route, or the most apparent route. Please take what I say for face value, I make an attempt to remain stoic in these discussions.

You can be thorough the comfortable way..why work harder when you can work smarter? I assure you, you'll not delve into anyone's psyche past what they wish to offer you anyhow, whether you fancy them idyllically simple and bucolic or the new Ahmed zewail.. people's instincts are over powering sometimes more than their intellect.. and I gather, most, I am sure yourself included, don't enjoy being patronized..
with that said I bid you all g'night... I would like to retire for the evening!


cheers!

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Allaah says NO then NO... there's no need to ask WHY when Allaah says NO!

^ whoah mashaAllah, that sentence was :|

i see no reason to comment further on this.


oh apart from one thing though,

when somethings makhruh you dont make it haram,
when somethings haram you dont make it makhruh,
when somethings halaal you dont make it mubaah or makhruh or haraam!

all im sayn is leave all these classifications to scholars, people sometimes overreact on issues which arent too grave, laa hawla wa laa quwwata illah billah

 

[tetsujin]

I'm sorry about the late reply. Apart from the fact that I've been preoccupied, the use of the word "Illuminati" surprised me, as I have not come across that term outside the social circles of conspiracy theorists.

My question was not meant to determine your sexual orientation.I couldn't care less. It was to determine whether you are on to something the rest of us aren't based on something other than opinion..as the sister has given an opinion so to did you by way of question-- there is no great mystery here.. often questions aren't as innocuous as they seem.

Okay, I'll drop the matter.

Not at all..my stance is made quite clear on several pages of this forum, even directly to some of our homosexual members here, or I should say to two of our resident homosexuals. certainly people who are, have more insight to their condition that is beyond 'known medical research'!

Anecdotal evidence is hardly sufficient.

My stance on the subject has nothing to do with my religious convictions.. although religion does define morality for me. looking at it past the moral or immoral. Homoerotiscism is an act of sexual deviance, so classified for us in the diagnostic manual of mental disorders by the American psychiatric association (1973), no different than necrophilia or pedophilia, though after what I can only assume was heavy lobbying it made it out of there.. It was treated in the exact manner..'aversion therapy' with electric shock treatment...

I don't know where you've gotten that idea. Straight from the APA:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

"APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups."

If the key word for your argument is "deviance", from the normal, then that is no argument at all.

Gone are the days when psychiatry was necessarily subjective. The new breed of psychoanalysts are also neuroanatomists, neurobiologists, endocrinologists, or of an associated field, and have the scientific tools to diagnose patients. Psychology today is a farcry from the pseudoscience it once was, and while it's still not perfect, at least opinions are not the singular basis for treatment of "diagnosed" mental disorders.

what leads you to cringe at mysophilia, Biastophilia or some pederast priest sodomizing one of his alter boys, should eventually lead you to like wise cringe when it is two adult male homosexuals committing sodomy.. but it doesn't?.. I assure you, not because you are past religious rituals and definitions of backwardness, rather due to being a product of a society that has made you a hypocrite but didn't explain to you the subtle nuances of where exactly it has failed you, while indoctrinating you in that elite society of Illuminati!

Fortunately, I do not cringe, as there are natural explanation for these acts. The fact that such acts are illegal or immoral as defined by you, me, or anyone else is an entirely separate issue. I will kindly ask you, once again, to avoid informal fallacies and stop presupposing my position on the subject.

If you could find a definition of disease to your liking, I assure you I could find an exception which would fit that definition and not be classified as as a disease.

You can be thorough the comfortable way..why work harder when you can work smarter?

Okay, perhaps you wouldn't mind a bit of reading about the following research

1) Cognitive traits of homosexual and heterosexual people, 1993, Jeff Hall
2) Sexual orientation among monozygote and dizygote co-twins of gay and bisexual men, 1952, Franz Kallman
3) Maternal inheritance of male sexuality, "The Science of Desire", 1992, Dean Hamer

Perhaps you'd also be interested in the findings that homosexual relationships also occurs in other animals; for example, rats, sheep, ram, seagulls, hanuman langurs, bonobos, etc...

If you'd just like one book I could suggest starting off with "Queer Science: The use and abuse of research into homosexuality" by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist.

 

[جوري]

I'm sorry about the late reply. Apart from the fact that I've been preoccupied, the use of the word "Illuminati" surprised me, as I have not come across that term outside the social circles of conspiracy theorists.

NO worries, I forgot about this thread... I don't fancy beating a dead horse!

Okay, I'll drop the matter.

:mmokay:

Anecdotal evidence is hardly sufficient.

What are you talking about?

I don't know where you've gotten that idea. Straight from the APA:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

"APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups."

If the key word for your argument is "deviance", from the normal, then that is no argument at all.

I am pressed for time today, I can't whittle myself on every project.. I suspect a simple google search in on direction or another will yield tons of books on the matter.. You are just doing selective reading to foster what you are looking for?.. that is fine.. each person wants to reaffirm their view by whatever means possible.. though I don't put much stock on psychiatry as a solid medical field, that is to say, you can't submit mental disorders to the same type of experimentation that you'd do for the heart or lungs etc, rather forgo that for a ten or 12 step criteria by which if met, voila you are suffering such and such mental disorder.. You are schizoid, he is schizotypal, that lady is suffering from schizophreniform disorder, while the third guy is suffering from schizophrenia in all its subtypes ( paranoid, simple, hebephrenic and catatonic) .. can you tell the difference? be honest here? Can you give a simple blood test or subject them to an MRI or SPECT studies measure their urine VMA or chemicals like epinephrine and norepinephrine that are produced in the medulla of the adrenal glandand come up with any of the above diagnosis? Do you think you can do a quickie wiki or google search and feel on top of it? if it were the case everyone would be a scholar in every field, no need for proper schooling or incisive thoughts!
Yes to deviance, yes to Sexual Orientation Disturbance, and yes to it as a mental illness indistinct from the others. The judgement factor doesn't play part in science...science isn't concerned with judgement and morality and that is beyond the purposes of this topic..
You simply classfying them as a discrimnated against minority however IS.
Many people really can't help their desires.. it doesn't exclude them however from being liable beyond the science factor!

here is a little excerpt from the. Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:210-215
Copyright © 1981 by American Psychiatric Association

Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:210-215
Copyright © 1981 by American Psychiatric Association

• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• REGULAR ARTICLES
  
  
• The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues
• RL Spitzer
  
  
• In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality.

that is if we are going to speak of the matter from a purely 'scientific' as far as psychopathology is concerned--- it is a mental disorder no different than other afore mentioned disorders save for the en vogue definitions of a want to be politically correct society--deeming at whim what is and what isn't proper!
Homosexuality at some point was treated with aversion and shock therapy along with other disorders but it didn't yield a positive effect in any of them. being a pederast or a necrophiliac is still not ok however while now being a homosexual is?! To me, that is naked hypocrisy!


Though, will attest, matters of morality and ethics from a theological point of view, I gather don't and really shouldn't matter to an atheist!

Gone are the days when psychiatry was necessarily subjective. The new breed of psychoanalysts are also neuroanatomists, neurobiologists, endocrinologists, or of an associated field, and have the scientific tools to diagnose patients. Psychology today is a farcry from the pseudoscience it once was, and while it's still not perfect, at least opinions are not the singular basis for treatment of "diagnosed" mental disorders.

I disagree with what you have written, see my above paragraph!.. aside from that, I haven't seen a single medical research using modern Genetics as a determining factor to deem homosexuality a 'normal minority', one that in the least was peer reviewed and acknowledged by the medical community as to the 'normalcy' of homoeroticism. Thus it will remain what it is an act of sexual deviance! a disturbance like that found in pederasts --which we apologize if we assumed earlier as an act that makes you cringe when in fact it doesn't!

Fortunately, I do not cringe, as there are natural explanation for these acts. The fact that such acts are illegal or immoral as defined by you, me, or anyone else is an entirely separate issue. I will kindly ask you, once again, to avoid informal fallacies and stop presupposing my position on the subject.

You stick with your 'natural explanations' then-- but, You are bound to read something you are not going to like when engaging in a topic such as this. I am not going to accede to your desires when writing!

If you could find a definition of disease to your liking, I assure you I could find an exception which would fit that definition and not be classified as as a disease.

What you get from your third party sources on google, can hardly be classified as an 'exception'. Opinions and personal beliefs along with heavy lobbying by homosexuals doesn't count!
I am not the type that is swayed by name or article dropping. I have a head on my shoulder and I can reason through BS.

Okay, perhaps you wouldn't mind a bit of reading about the following research

1) Cognitive traits of homosexual and heterosexual people, 1993, Jeff Hall
2) Sexual orientation among monozygote and dizygote co-twins of gay and bisexual men, 1952, Franz Kallman
3) Maternal inheritance of male sexuality, "The Science of Desire", 1992, Dean Hamer

I have read the sexual orientation of monozygotic twins, unfortunately the author failed to find the so-called 'Gay gene', his is a mere unproven and unsubstantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world. I am not convinced!
I have a book here written by a highly respected psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins where homoeroticism described just like other said 'philias' and his is actually very objective read written from a medical stand point.. he wasn't trying to make sale at amazon
I'll include a couple of books on the bottom for those interested!

Perhaps you'd also be interested in the findings that homosexual relationships also occurs in other animals; for example, rats, sheep, ram, seagulls, hanuman langurs, bonobos, etc...

If you'd just like one book I could suggest starting off with "Queer Science: The use and abuse of research into homosexuality" by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist.

Funny how you suppose for other people, all the while wishing to exclude yourself from certain stereotypes that can easily be attributed to you simply by virtue of what you write, which is so visible to the naked eye.. in fact when you try to take us on a detour, you end up digging a deeper hole for yourself---Indeed in 'animals' homosexuality is found.. as well as in humans with such maladies as Klüver-Bucy syndrome, as in those suffering from brain damage, those who can't make executive decisions yield in to their 'animal' instincts!

Neither of us I can tell is interested in the other person's book collection.. But if it comes down to 'my books can beat your books A$$' then, there is plenty out there that will support the original designation Sexual deviance by Dr. Marmer, a psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins who wrote extensively on the topic..
I can't find his book on google but here is a list of others though not as good as his will suffice
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis By Ronald Bayer


http://books.google.com/books?id=UT...859-1&sig=nScuQ9-_CWZbkT6kaVggEvekCfQ#PPA4,M1
and another
http://books.google.com/books?id=-L...9-1&sig=RESGAWrGpwhfHbn0G3r9utssMgI#PPA239,M1




A personal note:
I have covered all that needs to be on the topic, though I find going into deep details on any forum to be a painful waste of time.
Your take home message from what I wrote is:
Homosexuality is not normal! It is deviance, it is a Sexual Orientation Disturbance, and should be viewed as a mental illness ---It is no different than any of the other deviant 'philias' those that in many other cases, have led others (who couldn't help their attraction) to be incarcerated!

The subject of religion hasn't come up so far on this topic though I'd like to tie it in out of respect for the forum on which we type, I am trying to keep this strictly in the realm of psychopathology, but from a moral stand point ' we are not animals, you'll forgive me for supposing in advance, that to an atheist being a parasitic protozoa or an un-segmented worm doesn't differ much from being a human being. Thus what you deem 'normal' in animal behavior and rightfully so, and witnessed like wise in diseased states, in brain damage with such conditions as Klüver-Bucy or others that afflict the frontal lobe or amygdala; shouldn't and doesn't apply to healthy conscionable individuals.

On the level of cognition, one can be forgiven as is with Islamic jurisprudence ' layes 3la almareed haraj' i.e. those who are diseased aren't accountable!
However, thinking, reflecting human beings are in fact accountable by the choices they make. A homosexual who acts on his lusting instincts, differs not much from a heterosexual who acts on his in non lawful way!

That is where religious morality comes in, to define for us what is and what isn't appropriate. I'll not make another supposition of your person as with your afore strict warning, but will state this much, a young man such as yourself might lust after an endowed woman walking down the streets, but he if has some morals will not be dragging her to some corner to assuage his painful sexual desires. And it wouldn't matter then what doctor came out with a best seller, to speak of the Norepinephrine, various other catecholamine and let's not forget testosterone and the genetic predisposition found in that extra aberrant and anomalous Y chromosome leading some hyper hormonal young men to relieve themselves in an immoral manner so the rest of us can bow aside accepting of medical jargon

--whatever your level of education, we call that making excuses for unforgivable behavior!...and still will not be acceptable socially or morally! such people are usually imprisoned or in the case of pederast priests, given some reprieve by papal order-- the way things are going-- those too might become 'normal' in the future with enthusiastic young men such as yourself trying to come to teach in that subtle civilized way to leave our antiquated ways behind in favor of glossy new and improved books?



In homosexuality, there are animal urges indeed I can accept that... but there is also the refinement and acculturation that comes with the 'Human condition' and aspiration to not be a carnal skulking animal there for the sole purpose of allaying the desires of the lower self!.. The choice and free will is up to the individual, but please don't impose on me last night's head line news as lobbied for by homos, or because you were particularly touched by someone's convincing writing-- ( I personally know of two psychiatrists) who still don't understand why homosexuality is no longer classified with other forms of sexual deviance as it once was, neither has any religious affiliations.
Don't quote for me your own personal understanding of a particular condition-- that basically wastes both our time and on a level countermines your objectivity.. I might be backwards and archaic as far as you are concerned, but I can still keep on top of modern studies and reason without personal prejudices!

If one has strong faith, one doesn't need to over and over, reconcile his beliefs with what is politically correct.. what is ethical will always be evident from the get go!

cheers!