This is one of my primary goals in life. Get nuclear more accepted in the US, then start building Thorium reactors across the country.

Soon

I'm just going to hazard a guess and say that the cardinal directions have to do with the magnetic field of the body itself. At least, that's what I always thought growing up.

i.e. If we were to go to Mars, we'd define the poles as North and South (not sure if there are specific characteristics or if we just pick randomly), then define East/West based on that.

This comet probably doesn't have a magnetic field though.

East. Now in space.

Right, I left the question way too open ended. I mean based on what we currently define as Republican & Democratic parties. Possibly even counting when they flipped ideologies (i.e. Republicans used to be liberal while the Democrats conservative).

I think that's actually another perfect example of the problem. All of those people died in the 19th century. It is time for real change.

If I had the mod points....

+1 to this. I voted purely Green & Libertarian (aside from where there was no option for such choices and depending on the specific issues). Then I saw my state's election results and realized how pointless it was for those two parties to even exist.

Has there ever even been someone voted to a major political office (i.e. Senator, House Representative, or Governor of a state) that wasn't R or D?

I experienced the full brunt of voter stupidity when a relative of mine asked me who I was voting for, then proceeded to tell me she always voted for Republicans if she didn't have any knowledge about the candidates and she never bothered studying the issues to have that knowledge.

I believe that displays a perfect example of the problem.

Well that was an amazingly detailed post. Thank you. If I had mod points and could use them, you'd get them.

Overall, after reading all of that along with what you yourself have said, it seems that you are saying the assertion that it's not a choice is baseless, but regardless of whether it's a choice or not, the more important issue is our acceptance of homosexuals.

I agree with that. I'm personally of the mind that homosexuality is wrong (that's my personal moral choice), but that they should be treated no differently than the rest of humanity. I'm sure everyone has lied at some point in their life. I don't see it differently. I'm also pro same sex marriage interestingly due to the financial considerations.

Overall, I'm pro freedom-to-do-as-we-wish as long as people are taught the responsibility that goes along with such things. i.e. abortion, guns, same sex marriage, etc.

i.e. I don't think it's right that people do it, but I don't think they should be treated as they are for what they do.

Strawman. You said, "you'd best do it using correct grammar." No mention of what sounds good when said verbally, or of what people would normally say & understand it as.

Grammatically, that is correct. I'm not saying I didn't typo. I did. However, it's grammatically correct and has the same meaning both ways. There is no real difference aside from the irrelevant one of how it sounds when said. This is the internet. We're not saying any of this. We are typing it.

Remember, we were all pushed head-first out of someone's vaginal tract. Why are we acting so dignified?

It's actually correct both ways. Wrong has a noun form which this wrong is specifically his.

Potentially esoteric definitions for words make English very pliable.

Cite. Your. Sources. I'd understand if I hadn't asked, but I most certainly did ask. Just saying "This is true." is worthless on the internet.

The reason I say what I say is because I've read about it from institutes who research the stuff. Yes, I didn't cite a research paper, but I did cite the general consensus of a major institution's stance on the issue which is in their subject field to study, which says your wrong.

Other institutions might say they are wrong. Show me to support your assertion.

Your thought experiment is fruitless because there is no discernible way to tell if people could choose because they are bisexual or because sexuality is a choice. Or that if they can't "choose", if it's because it's not a choice, or if it's because of their psychology regarding the issue regarding any of the possible factors that make humans choose what they choose growing up.

In other words, the thought experiment is pointless without the very information that quote says we don't have.

Humans psychology is vastly complex. Solving for whether something is truly a choice or not, when that thing is deeply embedded in something we don't understand very well (our desires) is nigh impossible without a lot more information.

I'm not arguing that it's a choice. I'm arguing that the claims that it isn't a choice are baseless.

+5 Funny? I was actually serious.

"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works. Please cite sources.

I love how hilarity comes out of misinterpreted comments on the interwebs. It's lovely. I now see the humor in my comment. Still, Please cite sources.

Just because it's erotic doesn't mean its homoerotic. /s

Besides... You should know by now that the rules are different for the Kremlin & their cronies.

Then how does it work? Please cite sources.

From what I've heard and experienced, that's exactly how it works in the European countries that have UHC.

Thank you for being civil.

I chose after experiencing attraction for both genders. I understand what you are saying about "those people are probably just bisexual", but I think actually discerning that for certain is difficult because it requires a person to be introspective enough to understand the difference between their choice and their desire. I'm very introverted, so introspection is all I can really do well.

If I had the desire for same gender relations, but chose to get rid of that desire, and it's really gone now, is it gone because of my choice, or because I wasn't done developing? Or due to some life event that affected my psychology? Or what-have-you. There's just not enough information to discern that effectively & reliably imo. I only know what I've experienced.

From my perspective, there are 3 things related to sexual relations to be considered: Biological reaction, i.e. blood flowing and whatnot, emotional reaction, i.e. desire to fornicate, and psychological action, i.e. "I'm going to have sex with that person." Usually biological & emotional are tied together, but if I just experience the biological, but not the emotional, is that relevant to what sexual orientation defines?

I personally always thought sexual orientation was purely based on your choice of who you fornicated with when I was growing up. Then, as the LGBT movement has grown, I've come to understand that what most people view that as is "what you are sexually attracted to", and not "what you actively sleep with". I'm still lost on the definition of actual sexual attraction though. Does it mean the emotional response, the biological response, or both/neither, and it appears most people consider the psychological choice irrelevant now-a-days.

For me, it's always been a choice. It's hard for me to understand how it's not one for others, but I didn't live their lives, so yeah. I'm just a bit perplexed at how so many people are certain of something that science has yet to point to in any significant or meaningful way, according to the bodies studying this very subject intently.