...

moontanman..I can't help but find your responses a little humorous. don't you think you're being a little dramatic.. this thread is about whether homosexuality is a mental illness..and you think MY opinions are barbaric? obviously you do give a rat's ass as evidenced in your word choice. However, I didn't say a single negative thing about homosexuality..only that I don't believe it can be pure. I'm sorry if you are a homosexual or have close ties to homosexuality, and my opinion offends you. For the record, I would guess that homosexuality should not be defined or classified as a mental illness. I consider it to be nothing more than a personal preference, such as a favorite type of food, or music genre..but these sorts of preferences are environmentally influenced I believe. The existence of homosexuality certainly appears to be to the immediate detriment of our survival..I say immediate because it obviously prevents procreation, but there may be an unknown, long-term benefit such as a population control as someone mentioned earlier. Nature introduces many abnormalities detrimental to reproduction, some beneficial.. They come and go. There's something to be said for the continuing occurrence of homosexuality throughout our evolution..which could be construed as evidence that it is environmentally induced, as natural selection would have compensated for a genetic origin. Again, notwithstanding an unknown, long-term benefit to reproduction. I would be curious to know how common homosexuality was prior to humans coalescing into large groups.

moontanman, yes you're right..I probably should have read the entire thread so as not to simply restate something someone had said previously. I usually would have, but I didn't feel like it at the time. As far as I'm concerned this is completely acceptable because 1) I stated at the beginning that the entire entry was my own personal opinion and, as far as I can tell, posts on this forum need not be worthy of a peer-reviewed journal. And 2) if a point of mine had already been made, well then my entry could be considered an affirmation of that point. I suspect the most likely reason for your retort is not your concern for forum etiquette in general, but that you simply disagreed with my argument in part or whole. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of a post before making accusations of 'grandiose claims'..of which there were none made. I should probably go back and read the arguments you put forth to discover which parts of mine disturb you...but I don't feel like it..

First, let me say that I am no expert in any related field and don't pretend to be. This is only my uneducated opinion. Additionally, I'm sure this could be said more concisely with a better vocabulary. Straight men are not afraid of homosexuals. Why would they be? The thing that makes straight men so uncomfortable about homosexuality is the possibility that either they might discover that they themselves are gay or that they might be perceived as being gay, and this is only a problem because homosexuality has developed such a major stigma since the ancient greeks. Personally, I believe homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental component, and I believe the environmental factor is substantially larger. To keep it simple, I think genetics plays a role in two things. 1) a persons vulnerability to sexual feelings, urges, whatever..the level and ease with which their libido responds to stimulii. and 2) a person's mental functioning that would affect their willingness to experiment..to ignore established societal norms and try new things..--this is a personality trait that goes far beyond sexuality. Now, there are still many very horny and rebellious people out there who never practice homosexuality. Additionally, there are plenty of people with low sex drives and not particularly outgoing who become homosexuals. And lastly there are still more people who experiment with homosexuality only to discover that they're not really homosexuals. So I think genetics set the stage for homosexuality, but environmental circumstances are the trigger and the ultimate determining factor in whether a person actually becomes a permanent, full on homosexual. Maybe a person is exposed to close friends or relatives who live homosexual lifestyles and therefore that person develops a sense that it is more acceptable than someone who was not exposed to it. Maybe a person has a string of bad relationships with the opposite sex and gets bored or attempts to search for a more meaningful alternative. Maybe a woman has a traumatic experience such as a rape or molestation and feels she can no longer trust men but finds understanding and emotional relation with other women, and so lives the gay lifetyle simply to find comfort and emotional fullfilment rather than actual sexual attraction. My point is that there can be all sorts of reasons a person might 'try' being gay, or actually become gay, or maybe just think they're gay..other than true sexual attraction. Now, admittedly, I say all this as a straight man who simply cannot believe (because I simply can't imagine) that a man can be SOLELY sexually attracted to other males, and not at all attracted to females. I simply don't believe it. I think if a man says that's the case, he must be in denial, or there's a pride issue..something. I don't believe that nature, even with it's occasional abnormalities, would program a member of a sexually reproductive species to instinctively choose the same sex. The same way it would not program an animal to commit suicide. The instinct to procreate must be the strongest after self-preservation. You don't see animals killing themselves for no reason. Only us, with our advanced cognitive function can choose to ignore our basic evolutionary instincts. I'm aware that homosexuality is observed in other animals, but is it really homosexuality? ..or is it something else such as domination.. or are they just really horny. I bet if you take any sexual animal that exhibits homosexual behavior (other than a human) and provide it the opportunity to mate with a suitable member of the opposite sex.. it will.

I think I understand what you're asking (but maybe not).. You're saying if you have a system defined in such a way that it contains moving pieces at some time t_o and then observe it..the moving pieces will separate from each other as time advances unless there is some force to alter their motion in such a way to keep them together..such as electrostatic attraction or gravity (which isn't a force but may be treated as one), or even nuclear forces if your system was say an atomic nucleus. I think if your system is defined as a spatial region and not based on the components of the system themselves, say the volume encompassing our solar system right now and affixed to the sun's reference frame..and then gravity ceased to be..everything but the sun would immediately continue traveling in straight lines tangent to their current elliptical paths..thereby eventually exiting the predefined spatial system and taking energy with them. So I think the answer to your question as you intended it is yes. However you could define your system to be the components in which case the system would simply expand as the pieces moved away from each other, but would retain the same matter and energy.

I agree with the assessment that the speeds will be the same and velocities different. If released at the same vertical position (same potential E) with the same speed (same kinetic E) and arrive at the same final vertical position (same final potential E) ... for energy to be conserved the final kinetic Es will need to be the same as well which means the velocity magnitudes (speeds) will be the same...assuming of course they all have the same mass.

Hi. I belonged to a science forum a while ago. I'm not much of a forum guy but I liked it. Then it disappeared one day. I spent several years grieving. Now I am here.