I hope I’m not too off the topic in my reply Sandy but it is such an interesting topic… I hope readers of this thread will forgive this segway in the interests of stimulating discussion!

Anthony, sorry I don’t have an answer or response for you except to say that I think a lot of others love you for being you too and surely that is what counts!

Sandy, I’m not sure who your lecturer is but I know there are quite a few old structuralists floating around the social work schools (they got tenure before the academic workforce was ‘casualised’ with budget cuts). It’s a cute quote and perhaps what it does best is distinguish its creator.

As for the AASW code of practice, I’m not sure whether I would agree it is the ultimate guideline for me, the ultimate guideline for me would be my own values. But I guess anyone who signs up for AASW membership has agreed to abide by those guidelines and has done so voluntarily. There are many who choose not to join. I was not a member of the AASW for years but I still practiced social work.

I like your idea about embracing diversity. I certainly fits with my values. Some people believe God made them gay, some people say it was nature (“I was born that way”), or “it’s in my genes”, some people say it was their experiences (“It was so good, I could never go back!”), or maybe a ‘past life’ had something to do with it, or they are conducting an experiment or going through a phase or getting into character for a film role. I have heard all of these. Some people don’t even ask the question and never wonder ‘why’ they are who they are. I also know someone who says he just can’t understand heterosexuality. It baffles him. But ‘live and let live’ is his value. He doesn’t want to convert anyone.

Diversity is nice.

Who thought up diversity????

AVB: Lol. Postmodernism is about deconstructing all the things that modernism created, it’s a discourse of language mostly. Postmodernists would say:

You love being you.

Who are you?

How is who you are defined?

Who decides who defines who you are?

Why is your interpretation of who you are more truthful than anothers? Indeed it’s often the individual who has less self-awareness about who they really are than those around them.

Can you really love who you are when you are not who you think you are? At least not in all respects.

Therefore loving who you are is based on the faulty logic because it is not apparent exactly who you are as this changes from interpretation to interpretation and no one interpretation is more truthful than another.

This is extreemly simplistic and anyone who knows anything about postmodernism could have done a better job of it but it does demonstrate how having no truth benchmark makes the world a crazy place. If there are no answers, no absolutes then there is no comparative value in anything.

LOL….thanks Sandy…..and here I was thinking I had it all sorted out…….but now I’m really confused. I knew I should have gone to Uni. 😆 😆 😆

i have enough trouble dealing with my own philosophies without confusing them with others……hehe. 😆 😆

would you like to explain that for everyone JYONG

If I am not mistaken one is lean toward behavioural science/biology and the other is a study at molecular level.

You can do your homework!!!

This is a great scientific article, very comprehensive outline of human neurological, hormonal chemical and genetic aspect of human sexuality, these are ground-breaking work to detach the issue of sexual orientation from rumours and harmful psychiatric analysis, and taking a more scientific and sensible approach. But the Human anatomy is a complex machine, and there should be more research putting into the linkages between anatomical, chemical and genetic of human sexual orientation, and draw up a much more comprehensive conclusion into proofing sexual orientation is a biological make-up, aka, its God’s wonderful creation.

Also, these scientific research are to be put into Good use, and not to make human experimentation of changing sexual orientation in the prenatal process of birth, as the article have stated, it would be genocidal to do that.