In honor of Alan Turing
 

A very moving piece:

In Honor of Alan Turing: A message from the sponsor - Linux Magazine Online

Not safe for LB.

"If you are homophobic, you probably want to stop reading now. Just go to the next blog, or dial up Fox News, because the rest of this blog entry will not be satisfying for you."

Starts off as a predjudiced and bigoted heterophobe.

Sounds like you took the advice.

No I read the entire article, just increases my appreciation that such mutant deviations, perhaps by design, more often than not fail at passing their peculiar genetics along to subseqent generations of humanity.

You and Larry should form a club. I guess you failed to notice his parents were straight.

Our lives without Alan Turing would be so much better.

So Kerry, are you arguing that homosexuality is not genetic?

I haven't seen much evidence that it's genetic. It could be but if it is, I've seen nothing to suggest that the genes are passed from gay people to their children. Straight people seem to pass it along. I'm not saying that it's a choice. The fact that many gay males have straight older brothers seems to indicate that whatever causes it is associated with second male pregnancies.

Not sure about Larry and I've got to go with Groucho when it comes to clubs!

Your guess is incorrect. The author's parents where straight he mentioned it in his screed, their son is not straight and statistically their not-straight son is unlikely to produce offspring and the predisposition, which he claims he was born as, to biological disfunctionality will not be inherited by anyone.

With regard to Alan Turing it is hard for anyone to judge what life would be like had he never existed but I suspect our lives today would not be much different. I'm of the mind that in due course someone else equally brilliant would have accomplished what Turning may have. It's pretty clear that his story has some cachet considering the cause celeb that biologically incompatable deviant sexual behavior has been elevated to in popular culture of late. It moved you!

Dang, a reasonable answer. In my (unscientific) opinion, it is partly inevitable genetics and partly developmental physiology and party free-will choice. I do not believe that all 3 must line-up to present homosexuality in an individual. I think these are 3 relatively independent factors that govern all sexuality. Also, I think one may change one's orientation (in both directions) with time and circumstance. I believe that is demonstrable in the natural world among a variety of species.

Because it is also under the control of free will, I think that laws governing sexual behavior should be very carefully written and enforced. Essentially, I think that the gov has a role in protecting the infirm and young from sexual predators and that's about it.

Some have argued that it a psycological developmental disorder, a failure to develop the normal response to sexual stimuli and a failure to develop a mature sense self, sort of being trapped in a more child like narssacistic self centered mind set. It often manifest itself in the "its all about me-ness" it may or may not be coincidence that gender/sexual dysmorphic individuals are often affected with emotional and psycological challenges.

There's a scientific approach: They're not normal, they're immature, child like and selfish.
Do you think there may be a correlation between the State's will to castrate homosexuals and their emotional and psychological challenges. By the way, a high percentage of homosexuals have reproduced.

I simply stated I have heard that arguement and it strikes me a plausible, it is quite interesting that Botnst in the interim has proposed a remarkably similar theory/opinion and you've skipped over his response with nary a comment in an attempt to find something to mischaracterize and squeal about in mine! Nothing like a little drama, huh?

They are not normal, the biological imperative to reproduce and generate mutation defines normal in this universe, get over it!

The State through its authority has at times and places decided it was in the public interest to prevent through castration deviant mutations from passing that mutation to offspring, again get over it!

Correlation? Chicken vs. egg? Psychological malfunction or biological sexual malfunction, which one begets the other, I don't know and neither do you!

By the way, until you offer something more than an unsupported assertion your claim as to the "high percentage of homosexuals" that have reproduced is an opinion to which you are entitled to believe and everyone else is entitled to dis-believe.

The issue is obviously personal to you, good luck with it!

PS You'll note I never stated I purported my comments to be a "scientific approach" either!

I saw nothing in Botnst's post which cast moral aspersions on homosexuals, whereas yours was filled with them. Hence its plausability depends upon a moral judgment whereby homosexuals have more moral weaknesses than heterosexuals.
Normal has huge variations amongst species. Some species have a substantial contingent of homosexuals, others don't. Some of our primate relatives have lots of 'deviants', others don't.

Your looking for moral aspersions when there are none. Just like you elected to use the word "deviants" which I have not! I was scrupulous to only use the adjective "deviant" to delineate behavior outside of the biological imperative which is the norm for every species that has ever existed or will exist.

My "plausibility" has nothing to do with morals or moral judgement anymore than black hair vs. blonde hair, blue eyes vs. brown eyes, two legs vs. 3-4-5-6 or any number of appendages does.

I understand that perhaps you're feelings are hurt by any lack of agreement with your position that there is no difference between homosapiens that conform to the biological imperative and those who can't, don't, or won't!

Immature, childlike, narcissistic, self-centered, are not moral judgments? In what world? Certainly not this one.