I think you're on really shaky ground here. First of all, it's not possible to demonstrate the action of the Unconscious. Its existence can be inferred, but never proven.The Unconscious concepts I am familiar with are those of Jung and Freud, respectively - and neither ever proposed a role for the Unconscious in physiological development.

It's interesting to speculate on how "deep" the Unconscious might go, but to say, "This is how the brain works," as if you have the report in front of you, is disingenuous at best. If you do have any evidence to support this, I'd be interested to see it.

I don't buy it. Yes, the human body develops in response to the environment on a fundamental level; and yes, social learning at a young age has a huge impact on our relationships later in life (attachment theory), but I would argue that all of these developments occur within the framework of our basic genetic blueprints. IE, we're born with certain potentials, and the environment, and probably chance, too, help to determine what gets filled in and emphasized.

Do you think some children learn to be colorblind? If so, why is Red-Green colorblindness the most common? Red and green are primary colors - I highly doubt any children grow through a critical stage of development without seeing plenty of both of them. Not to mention colorblindness is more common among boys. Are boys at a higher risk of not being exposed to the right colors at the right time?

I suppose I could cite religious traditions, but I'm not religious.

Why shouldn't a physical thing be sacred? If you really believe that life has no meaning but what we make, and there is nothing after we die, than this physical world is all we have. Wouldn't that make the physical world that much more precious and full of meaning?

You must not have any children? Aren't all children sacred to their parents?

If you've studied Carl Jung, then you should know his type theory of personality: which presupposes that individuals are born with an innate, preferred mode of interacting with the world. In fact, this mode also determines how an individual would "screen" information, and hence shape what it is that he learned from his environment (for example, introversion vs extraversion).

Furthermore, (according to Jung) an individual can "learn" to ignore his natural preference and become a "turntype." Needless to say, this is unhealthy for the individual, leading to anxiety, complexes, and generalized human misery.

p.s. For those interested, Jung's typology has been popularized by the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). It's the most complete, deep, and useful (imho) personality theory ever conceived.

I just want to defend my beliefs of innate predisposition from accusations of "dehumanizing the species."

I have not meant to suggest that human beings are incapable of change, growth and transformation. Of course not. But there is a certain inherent intelligence and potential; an optimal direction for self-actualization. IMHO.

But that doesn't mean I am reducing a human being to a pile of genetic material. On the contrary, I think our genes (as we understand them) are merely the physical manifestation of our presence, and I believe human beings are more than just physical matter (Wow, that sounds flakey).

Then again, how did genetic material get such a bad reputation? If human beings were the only species with DNA, it would be sacred.

I don't think nurture enters into it. If people are experimenting with homosexuality, okay.

But if you are acting in accordance with a spontaneously occurring desire, then that's just how you're wired.

Speaking to the issue of physical sexual desire, would anyone seriously contend that heterosexual desire stems from social learning? Absurd.

Given the stigma that is still associated with homosexuality, why would anyone "choose" to desire someone of the same sex? It'd be a hell of a lot easier to do what the majority is doing. You can't choose your desire.

But it's more than just physical desire that makes people fall in love. There is a mental/spiritual component, too. And I think that is also innate, and anyone who tries to label that as an environmental interaction is 'shrinking' what it means to be a human being.

There is an unfortunate tendency among heterosexuals to magnify the sexual dimension of homosexual relationships. Homosexuals seek companionship, security and fulfillment just like everyone else.