By psychicpenguin, origional post can be found here

There has been a lot of talk, on mindsay, and on the internets lately about homosexuality. Not so much fundementalist homophobes condeming homosexuals to hell, but homosexuals themselves, addamantly defending their sexual preference. To be honest, I couldn’t really care less whether someone was gay or straight. But when I am presented with all these opinions, it makes me think, and I want to present my opinion as well.

*ahem*

One of the common things I have noticed in articles written by people proclaiming their gayness is that they want respect, because being gay is “normal” and “natural”. Mind you, whether homosexuality is normal or not has little to do whether it is morally wrong or right. There are plenty of things that come natural to human beings that aren’t practiced by the general population, because they are wrong, and there are also countless things that humans do do that aren’t natural at all.

Because I don’t want to be educated on science, and gender roles, sexuality, etc. by someone who has formulated their own opinions by the popular media, I turn to people who have studied these things. Scientists from all backgrounds, liberal, conservative, christian fundamentalist, neo-pagan, and even of varying sexual practices have contributed to the research. One of my favorite researchers in this field is Professor Steven Goldberg. Goldberg is the Chairman of the sociology department at City College of NY. He acknowledges that in order to shed light on the real facts of human sociology, you have to look at the facts without bias, without standing on some ideological ground on which you base your opinions. Because, of course, the Christian scientists are going to have evidence against homosexiality, and Pro-Gay scientists are going to have evidence supporting it. 🙂 Thats just the way it is.
A shame that such an advanced society has to mix religion and politics in science.

Goldberg has some interesting things to say about homosexuality..
“Goldberg says that gays have an ideological commitment to proving the normality of homosexuality, but they have not yet been able to make a convincing argument for it.

We cannot grant gays affirmation of the normality of their behavior unless they can give us a cause for homosexuality that can be considered normal, he says. Most gays refuse to consider the common environmental factors that have been found in the backgrounds of homosexuals; they simply insist that causation is “irrelevant.” They expect, he says, that we should suspend criteria for normality which psychologists apply in all other cases.

Many gay spokesmen actually tend to deny the logic of deeming any behavior abnormal. Yet this approach does them little good. What they really want to argue, Goldberg says, is that homosexuality is normal, while other behaviors like necrophilia and coprophilia are not. To make the argument that homosexuality is normal because “all variant behaviors are ‘normal,'” gays would then be forced to deliver an argument explaining why necrophilia and coprophilia should be viewed as perversions, while homosexuality was healthy.”



Again, do not get me wrong. I have nothing against homosexuals. I would never try to stop someone from loving their same sex partner, I would never commit or condone hate crimes, and I would never treat someone differently because of their sexuality. But I will tell people my opinions, especially when everyone else gets to share. It is Samaels turn. : ]



I have heard a lot of homosexuals, and “pro gays” on the rampage claim that people are born gay. 🙂 That my dearies, is utter foolishness. Not only has it been dismissed by everyone in the scientific field, it’s not logical. There is no evidence supporting the “gay gene” theory either. Simon LeVay himself has said this: “It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”. So homosexuality is not genetic. No one is inheriantly gay. If they were, anyone who was gay would not be able to change. I personally know three people who once identified themselves and practiced bi-homosexuality, and since have found opposite sex lovers. Does this mean that all people can do this? I don’t know. But it can and does happen. An arguement against people “changing sexuality” is that they wern’t really gay, they were straight all along. Really? Who can say? No one.


I hate making long posts, so I will cut this one here. 🙂 Enjoysed!

Science vs. Christianity

Saturday, 4 February 2006

An article by Davyd ‘Hu

Evolution

“After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”
Albert Einstein

Evolution: “A process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

There are many groups, both religious and political, that are trying to stop the teaching of evolution in schools because they feel that it is just a “theory”. These same people want the “theory” of intelligent design taught in public schools. The problem lies in that there is no scientific evidence to support intelligent design. Thus, teaching it in place of evolution could mean teaching religion in our schools, a practice that is highly frowned upon in a nation of freedom. Extreme evolutionists argue that evolution is a proven fact, and that to believe anything different is complete ignorance.

My viewpoint? Why does evolution have to interfere with the beliefs of Christians or any other faith? It shouldn’t and doesn’t.

The theory of evolution is separate from the opinions of how the world and life itself was created (God, the Big Bang theory, etc.). Evolution only describes the changes of living things through genetics over a long period of time. Evolution doesn’t even have to make the claim that the earth is billions and billions of years old. Evolution needn’t take an extraordinary amount of time. It’s results can be seen even after a thousand years, or less. Results that can clearly be seen every day.

For this example, I shall use dogs. There are numerous diverse breeds of dogs, as different as Chihuahuas and Dalmatians. All of these dogs share a common ancestor with Canis lupus, and yet all have great diversity in both physical appearance and genetic makeup. Is this proof of evolution? Not necessarily, but it is certainly evidence.

In any event, I am not here to make anyone believe or disbelieve in evolution; personally, I don’t care what you believe. I just want you to actually think about this instead of believing what others tell you.

Now, let’s look at some creationist opinions and see if they make any sense (don’t worry, we will look at the evolutionist side as well).

The WWCW (World Wide Christian Web) website makes this claim:
“If evolution is true, then there can be NO moral, legal or ethical standards whatsoever that have any real or ultimate significance or meaning, since all of these have arisen from humans at some point in history, and no human is any better than any other human.”

Does this make any sense at all? Is every evolutionist saying that we don’t have souls? Of course not. Evolution does not make a claim that there is no God; it does not make the claim that we are all here by chance. Apparently, the authors at WWCW do not understand evolution and/or have just picked out the parts they wanted so that they might tear scientific theories down to prove the existence of God. They are taking the opinions of certain biologists as scientific fact.

On the other side of the argument, we have people like Dr. D.M.S. Watson who said, “Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233)

Here we are dealing with an ignorant evolutionist. Who knew? These evolutionists refuse to see the whole picture. Evolution does explain the adaptations of a species through time and can even explain the change of genetics in any animal over time, but one thing evolution does not explain the beginning of life.

Until both sides of this argument begin to see things for what they really are, no one is going to get anywhere. Bull headed evolutionists need to stop pretending that they have all the answers, and creationists who insist on spreading their own propaganda as scientific fact need to concede that there are things science actually can explain. Both sides need to realize that there should not be a line between science and religion. Truth is truth, whether scientists or Christians accept it, and constant bickering coupled with the occasional lawsuit is not going to result in anything, except perhaps explosive tempers and more ignorant articles.

Resources:

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/domestic-dog-breed-skulls.htm

http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/familydog.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://members.cox.net/wwcw/index.html