Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Of course it doesn't, logically. People do not always behave logically, however. In fact, there was a rather long thread on here where people of supposed 'faith' tried to make an argument that homosexuality is not scientifically 'natural'.
So you're saying I'm blind and dogmatic, but I'll ignore the logic present in that dogma to be anti-Christian homophobic? Okay!
And homosexuality does have to be scientifically natural, due to us being biological organisms. I wasn't apart of that thread, I didn't reference it, I didn't read it, I didn't bring it up, I haven't mentioned religion or faith. Your argument is a generalisation plucked from nowhere.
Well, no--that's not in the same light at all.
Yes it is, because it's looking at procreation. Procreation makes species go. Everything else is an augmentation - not saying positive or negative, but it is an augmentation.
There is, however, a pretty strong bias against homosexuality in what you say. For instance, your need to point out that same-sex unions can't produce biological children by way of that union and say it's "in the same light" when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the continued existence of a 'gay gene'.
There is no bias in what I'm saying. Any bias present is for nurture.
We haven't found the gay gene. And I'm fairly sure that in the grand scheme of topics, genetics and procreation would be on the same playing field. But that's relative to personal interpretation I suppose.
I think there are two explanations for this, so I'll go with the more polite one: you're tone-deaf to how your statements sound. To you they sound neutral, but they sound to everyone else like you have a religious agenda here.
Oh good, more inclusive/exclusive language. Me verses "the escapist" (represented by Cheeze). Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that you speak for the whole board? Isn't that a bit
intolerant and hypocritical to assume that I have no say?
Similarly, you are the only one to brand me with a religious agenda. Also, you're saying (by claiming that I have a homophobia in light of my views on nature vs nurture) that people who have been abused are bad - because no homosexual would want to have been thought of as abused. So where does that leave the poor abused people? You certainly see it as a terrible thing that lives inherently within them. You see, because I have done much work with abused people, I know that it is not their fault and that they must be met where they are at.
Rather than walk into the thread announcing your lack of agenda in a way that, quite frankly, practically screams agenda, do so by using an example you can think of that disarms any attempt "accuse" you of anything--say something like "if homosexuality is genetic, how do we reconcile that with Darwin: shouldn't only the genes for heterosexuality and bisexuality descend through the generations?"
First off. I have no agenda. Nature or nurture doesn't mean squat to my theology and I don't care if you're homosexual, straight, whatever. You've thought this agenda up to discredit me. Secondly, for me to ask that question would be to assume that I didn't already know the answer. If the logic of that model of darwinistic theory was in any way correct, then there would be no homosexuals today and we wouldn't be having the conversation we are.
See how that's a *much* better way of heading off the PC Police, if that's actually your intention, to 'point out the obvious' as opposed to working an agenda?
Thanks so much Cheeze. I don't particularly care about the PC police. I care about shaking things up. If you could briefly provide me with the agenda I'm working (as it's so obvious to you), I'd be pleased to give it a try. Do I hate gays and think they're demons or do I like gays but think they need to go straight or what?
I'm not only interested in proving I'm right, I'm interested in showing how dogma biases the way some people deal with questions that have empirical answers.
Did my saying "good articles, thanks" heavily emphasise my hatred of empiricism? If you say "yes", then you are unempirical. Similarly, give me my dogma that I'm sporting. I'm so eager to know.
The people who read science best are the people who put up a wall of separation between their metaphysical beliefs--be they religious or atheist--and their reading of science.
Isn't that a generalisation?
Surely Newton, or Francis Collins, Max Planck, Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss or Nikola Tesla might disagree when it is their faith that spurs/spurred them on? Surely these beliefs (or lack of belief) are a basis we are working towards to prove to exist or not exist?
Anyway, I didn't want to make this about religion, and I still don't. But you are, with your dogmatic claims of dogma.
