The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.

[_antishock8]

[_Thama]

Yes, yes, I'm quite aware of all this. My problem is with biological determinism; with those who propose that genes are primary in the development of homosexuality (and other complex human qualities) rather than a constituent element among other, equally important and interdependent constituent elements, as Oaks accepts in his essay.

Of course nobody has discovered a "homosexual gene". How would any such gene self-perpetuate? It would, at best, have to be a recessive allele, and those genetic conditions which prevent or severely inhibit reproduction tend to exist in the population at extremely low frequencies -- much lower than the proportion of homosexuality, anyway. Biological determinism is a very different matter, however, and is not synonymous with "having a ___ gene". While some polymorphisms are the result of variance in alleles, others are the result of a system where several possibilities exist, and they are turned on or off by chemical, temperature, or other such means at a particular stage in development. In such a system, determinism could not be said to be genetic in origin, as all relevant genes exist in all polymorphisms, yet the result of the system is very much biological in nature. Don't make the mistake of thinking that everything in biology is understood purely from genetics.

There are no commonalities whatsoever, as a number of General Authorities have pointed out over time.

And unfortunately for this facile analysis, we know the intellectual origins of the utopian collectivist movements of the 20th century. This is not a theoretical empirical question but a matter of intellectual and social history, the history of ideas, and a study of political economy. Your analogy is fine for the study of homology, but not for an analysis of political, economic, and social history.

Simply because a General Authority pointed it out doesn't make it any less full of crap.

Plus, you missed the point -- I wasn't talking about homology at all, my example was of analogous structures. I don't deny that the basis of the United Order and the basis of Marxist Communism are completely different... but to the casual observer, reading how the two societies ended up functioning, the major similarities are obvious (shared property, attempted economic equality).

You argue in a circle here by assuming, yet again, operating upon nothing more than bare assertion, and received popular media and academic nosturm, that Nazism and Socialism represent the right/left poles on an ideological fulcrum. They do not.

Yes, I know. There are many political philosophies which may be called "rightist" and many which may be called "leftist" that frequently have little in common with one another. But then, you're the one who insists on calling everyone you disagree with politically a "leftist".

What "set of ideas"? Define "rightist" please.

I was hoping you'd do exactly that, actually. I would consider fascism and libertarianism to be two rightist political philosophies, but which have little to nothing in common. Any time you can lump Dick Cheney and George Will into the same political term, it needs further definition before it becomes so broad as to be rendered useless.