The Real Face of the Homosexual "Rights" Movement

[_Morley]

...and numerous other thinkers in the western tradition, including people like Foucault, wrote and write in a similar open-ended and dense manner.

My underline.


Not in my experience. But take care.

[_EAllusion]

I'd love to do some research on that and find those who don't think so.

Nearly all relevant experts? Even non-physicalists aren't apt to use that argument and for someone who is so very deep and educated, you probably would be aware that a large % of philosophers are physicalists, right? Do you think they think that position entails radical skepticism?

I'm aware that they exist. However, these are my claims and my philosophical perspective (and I can find some very distinguished thinkers who agree with me - although whether they will be contemporary academic philosophers or not, I cannot say with any degree of certainty - nor do I see any reason why that would matter) and if you cannot seriously engage and rebut them

You didn't offer an argument. You offered an assertion. What kind of rebuttal do you want?

No.

There you go.

Positivism claims, in a nutshell, that nothing in the universe that is not a logically necessary truth (tautology) or a conclusion that follows necessarily from known true (logically or empirically) premises, or which is not the result of empirical observation and/or experiment, replicable and subject to verification by independent observers, is true, or an actually existing phenomena or condition.

That's logical positivism, which developed in the 20th century, not the 19th. You're confusing that with 19th century positivism. Moreover, one doesn't need to think this to be a physicalist. To wit, physicalism is very popular while logical positivism is essentially dead. Hence my comment. While LP is dead, it wasn't *that* far off and the kind of positions that still are held by most philosophers probably ring as LP to your ears even though there are important distinctions that exist as couterpoint to LP's flaws. My views are best described as scientific realism, for instance, which is perfectly compatible with a physicalist ontology.

How is contemporary physicalism, which asserts that everything is the universe is physical, or supervenes (utterly dependent upon) or is necessitated by the physical, substantively different from this?

For one, Logical positivists assert that statements that do not meet the verificationist criteria are essentially meaningless and physicalists aren't wedded to that position. For two, logical positivism make a clear distinction between analytic and synthetic statements and physicalism doesn't require that.

My initial comment doesn't even have to be read as an assertion of physicalism though. Saying mind is what the brain does and therefore being Mormon is just as much a biological thing as being gay doesn't entail a hard metaphysical position. Numbers can exist as some non-physical abstractum - a position I have no vociferous objection to- and that still be true for instance.

[_Milesius]

You've been shown mountains of empirical evidence that homosexuality is inborn.

LOL. (Incidentally, I do not think heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual orientation is a choice but what's-his-face's claim is pure flatulence.)

[_Milesius]

Important things to note:

1. The pro-slavery verses in the New Testament are all in pseudepigraphal books.
2. Dan Savage is a worthless, fetid sack of excrement.