: Your overblowing this thing. Remember the 'proof' that lefties offered us that homosexuality was inbred? Great point.
The 'lefties' who claimed homosexuality was innate were breaking ranks with the behaviorist paradigm and (unintentionally) submitting to the (old) idea that biology is destiny.
The political problem with that, as I've repeatedly said, is that 'human nature' (like the Word of Christ) can never really be monopolized by any particular group. Someone always challenges the interpretation!
Nevertheless, as my essay above attested, no behaviorist EVER claimed that genetic endowment wasn't significant.
The issue isn't whether or not there's innate differences between boys and girls or straights and gays (there are)---the issue is really WHO gets to decide what is 'general' behavior for each of these genetic groups?
Can you dig the distinction?
: Would you consider a person's conscience as part and parcel of human nature?
Absolutely not. 'conscience,' like 'morality' is a social construct.
If you and I were well-paid, pampered Kremlin officials working in the Khrushchev administration, we'd probably both think (that sort of) communism was the greatest thing going.
