I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
I forgot to mention that I don’t believe that the intent behind “Heather Has Two Mommies” is propaganda; I think it is meant to help children understand that their peers who come from different families (those with two mommies, or two daddies, or whatever) are acceptable.
Think what you will of homosexuals, their children (adopted or otherwise) should not be subject to ridicule and humiliation by their peers; teaching acceptance is what the Bible is all about and I find it ridiculous that modern “Christians” often forget the heart of the message that Jesus preached. He was a pacifist who taght his followers to turn the other cheek. T
he only thing that really got under his skin was merchants in the temple, so the next time a Starbucks opens in your church you are welcomed to go on a rampage. Other than that, turning the other cheek, offering the shirt off of your back, and generally loving your fellow man (no homosexuality pun intended) are pretty much the rules.
Phinn
Thank you, Phinn.
Some days I’m embarrassed to be living in the state of Alabama.
Other days, I’m frightened and want to move out, and take my friends with me.
We’re not ALL bigoted idjuts down here, honest!
Jarissa wrote…
Other days, I’m frightened and want to move out, and take my friends with me.
So the question is, do you try to get out and live with like-minded people, or do you stay put to use your voting power to make it a better (in your view) place to live?
Is it worth being miserable in hopes of making a difference? =)
“Is it worth being miserable in hopes of making a difference? =)”
One of the only reasons I haven’t moved to Canada yet 😉
Phinn
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot “prove” anything. That ain’t how the process works.
Science (n.)- knowledge as of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis.
Sounds like that how the process works to me. And since ‘proof” is nothing more than a collection of evidence gathered by one or more of the means listed in the above definition of “science”, and sufficient enough to convince others of a particular belief.
It really doesn’t matter to me if you want to debate what the definition of “is” is, while you lose sight of the points I was making, but you’ll go down that road without me. I’m pretty sure most people got the gist of what I meant.
Second, I frankly have yet to see any textbooks simply assert that homosexuality is purely genetic, so your argument has a fair bit of straw sticking out of it.
I didn’t say that any text book had asserted that homosexuality is purely genetic. Nor, for that matter did I “present ” an argument to that effect. In fact, I neither supported nor opposed the proposed law in my post.
So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
So now we have the Over-Commandments? Those Commandments that are semi-stated, assumed, and more important than the 10 Commandments themselves? 🙂
I hope this doesn’t sound insulting, because it’s not intended to be.
–Would proving the homosexualiy *is* gentic trait be a good thing or a bad thing?
It seems like it might open up the door to things like “Oh, they can’t help it, they were *born* that way.” or worse “Well now that we know what genes causes it, we can fix it.”
And to any Gay posters (bloggers?)out there; do you feel that your life style is your choice or would you rather be told that it’s because of your gentic make up?
As for the Alabma book banning– It’s 2004, almost 2005. Does anyone else feel that we’re making huge strides backwards in tolerence and open mindedness?
-=-=-Russ
Jeff asked:
So the question is, do you try to get out and live with like-minded people, or do you stay put to use your voting power to make it a better (in your view) place to live?
Do you really think my vote matters? I’ve been voting against imposed moralism and in favor of letting every adult soul choose their own spiritual destiny ever since I came of voting age — here in Alabama.
Oh, I’m staying, for the foreseeable future. Firstly, I don’t have the funds to set up my own private island nation somewhere, the Benevolent Dictatorship of Jarissa, and I’m not yet willing to give up my friends and my stuff.
Secondly, I’ve lived in several different places throughout my life, and I do know that every state is going to have its share of empowered nincompoops. I’d just be trading one set of problems for another, and I want to be certain that I’m getting a less objectionable problem set if I’m going to all that trouble.
Thirdly, it’s not illegal for me to discuss my best friend in front of a hypothetical court stenographer (paid by the state, whose document becomes part of a public record maintained through state funding) … *yet*. So I’ll keep talking, and I’ll stay here to do it.
But, Lordy, I do wish we had a law that Mrs. Grundy and all her selfish ilk could be exiled to a single, soundproofed auditorium until the echoes of their impertinent snooping voices made them all insensate.
Last year there was someone here in this state who wanted to legislate against Hinduism discussion of any sort in schools, on the basis that most of the voting population in this state is Protestant Christian of some sort. Fortunately that “movement” died a very early death.
And let’s not forget ex-Judge Roy “I don’t have to obey the law, but you have to obey me!” Moore, and … now I’m just getting mad again. Sorry.
These idiots keep popping up in this state, and getting entirely too many sheeple to follow them around and clap. You’d think none of these people had ever heard of Matthew 6, where Jesus tells his followers that the Father isn’t impressed when we show off how pious we are in front of other people. No, they’re too busy telling other people how they HAVE to live, and think, and believe, often because “He says so!”. Aaargh.
It’s crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada.
So let me get this straight, EClark — you’ll use a dictionary’s definition of science to counter what actual working scientists are telling you about how the process works in reality?
How very authoritarian.
I was not and am not arguing semantics — you made a case based on flawed definitions and assumptions, I called you on them, and now you’re saying that’s not your point.
Good try.
TWL
What I would like to know is, why do so many conservatives preach the magic of the market place as the solution to health care funding, environmental cleanup, and social security and yet turn around and want the government to censor TV and radio and like Mr. Allen in Alabama, want to censor public libraries and universities? Why preach about limited government in the boardroom but call for more government in the bedroom?
Your question confuses two different issues. There is overlap, but there is a difference. When you are dealing with “solving” social problems, you have to ask what the problem is. According to conservatives, the problem is the lack of personal responsibility. Thus, for the government to simply create a new “program,” it does not solve the problem. Conservative suggest it just makes it worse.
When you come to moral values, there is a shift (althought there is clearly overlap). To use an extreme, rape is always wrong. You don’t rely on market values to keep rape in check. You are truly dealing with a different area of life. When you come to issues that are less extreme (take “living together” before marriage), you don’t have a “market” for it. But when you get to the radio (think “Howard Stern”), the two intersect.
The reality is that there is just as much variation among conservatives as there is among liberals. Some want to ban anything they don’t like. Some just want to keep to some common sense decency (which I think Stern or the “wardrobe accident” with Janet Jackson crossed over) without regulating everything (I would ask the FCC to ban “Will & Grace” just because I disagree about homosexuality).
Jim in Iowa
Tim,
Thanks for the science definitions–I was working on sending something similar but you beat me to it and probably did it better.
“conservatives like Fred Phelps”…
Actually, you could make an argument that Phelps is no conservative. He has run for public office as a Democrat, has expessed contempt for Jerry Falwell, plans to picket the funeral of Billy Graham, called Bob Dole a “Whørëmøņgër”, say that Ronald Reagan is in Hëll, worked as a civil rights lawyer, received an award from the NAACP, and ran unopposed in the Democrat primary for DA. When he filed for the Democratic nomination to the Kansas House he said “As a Democrat, I am liberal in my thinking, but conservative in spending the people’s money.”
Now does that mean he’s a liberal? No, this guy is a special case. He’s a single issue nut. He hates anyone who disagrees on this one issue, regardless of all else. His hatred and singlemindedness have trancended all politics. Calling him a conservative is like calling the Unibomber a liberal.
RE: Science and “proving” things.
I asked the question for one reason: There are times when some of us can get way too technical. Rather than jump down someones throat because they used “prove” in a way you don’t like, why not dialog about the issue? Yes, it is good to clarify our terms so that we are on the same page. But I would hope the author of a post could be given some benefit of the doubt and that the point would be dealt with rather than just tearing into the loose use of a single word.
Jim in Iowa
It’ll never pass (as well it shouldn’t). The guy is shamelessly grandstanding to make a name for himself.
Um. Tim took my point.
Yes, go ahead and refer to the dictionary, over the word of working scientists and who teach the methodology of science.
That’s not only authoritarian, but also arrogant and arrogantly proud in its ignorance.
Why should you be taken seriously when you do this?
Jim,
One could ask the same of you — rather than jumping at someone’s tone, perhaps you could actually examine the definitions I and others posted and see why the discussion of “proof” is so relevant.
In this case, the “loose use of a single word” was really at the heart of the point. One can’t wait to put X into a textbook until “X has been proven”, because from a scientific standpoint it never will be.
The “it hasn’t been proven” argument is EXACTLY the argument used to put anti-evolution warning labels on science textbooks, Jim. This is not simply me objecting to the use or non-use of a word — it’s pointing out fundamental flaws in the other side’s logic.
I’d love to talk about the issues, but if the two sides are using the same word to mean different things it’s impossible to have a dialogue that’s meaningful.
Now, having said that … what point do you feel I haven’t addressed?
TWL
What I always thought as funny is, as the teaching goes, sin is sin in God’s eyes. No one sin is greater than the other and it’s all the same. Now to live in a functional society and not being omi-everything we as finite beings can’t take the approach.
My point, if I have one is, that a lot of Christans will harp on homosexuality, and how they wouldn’t associate with a homosexual,etc. yet they have no problem with fornicators, and a lot of them proably are fornicators.
One is just different from them, so the pick that one to hate.
uhh…if you look really hard, there might be a point in there somewhere….
Phinn wrote People who are truly concerned about marriage should wage a war against divorce; half of marriages in the US end in divorce. Divorce is something that is strictly and explicitly forbidden in the Bible (what God has joined, let no man tear apart). For that matter, adultery is one of the leading causes (or in the very least one of the most overt symptoms) of a divorce AND it is explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments. Why is it, then, that these so-called “moral majority” legislatures aren’t passing laws more strict against adultery? Why are so many of them caught in adulterous acts themselves?
If you look at some of the conserative Christians who oppose gay marriage, virtually all also are very actively opposed to divorce and adultery. If you listen to James Dobson, you will hear far more programs about how to have a healthy marriage than on the issue of gay marriage.
For the most part (there are exceptions), conservative legislatures are no more asking for laws banning gáÿ šëx than they are adultery. They focus is on the definition of marriage and what constitutes a family. While there is obviously an overlap in these issues, there is also a very clear and important distinction. In addition, when a legislature is found to have committed adultery (think Newt Gingrich), in most cases that person loses a lot of credibility within the conservative movement. Compare the status of Newt versus Bill Clinton within their supporters. Newt has fallen a lot further and is not looked to as a person to speak on moral issues. Bill Clinton still is by a large segment of his party. I agree that conservatives commit adultery, divorce, etc. But they tend to pay a much higher price for it among their supporters. There is some level of consistency among conservative Christians.
I forgot to mention that I don’t believe that the intent behind “Heather Has Two Mommies” is propaganda; I think it is meant to help children understand that their peers who come from different families (those with two mommies, or two daddies, or whatever) are acceptable.
It *is* propoganda if it is being read to children against their parents wishes. If I went into the same school and told the story of Jesus and how to become a Christian to a first grade class, there would cries of outrage — and understandably so. Reading the book does more than just say their peers are acceptable — it suggests that the parents are also doing something morally right or at least neutral. (If they were read a book saying gay couples were living in sin, that would also be propoganda. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am just making a statement that at that age, a parent has the right — and responsibility — to be involved in the forming of a child’s moral values, whether you or I agree with those values or not.)
Jim in Iowa
Kingbob wrote:
Does that mean that we have to “prove” that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries?
Personally, I don’t care what you put in a public library. I don’t have kids, and I don’t give a crap what yours read. If I ever DO have kids, and I don’t want them to go to a public library, I’ll either sacrifice and buy whatever book they need, or go to the library myself and check it out for them. Otherwise, I’ll just have to trust I’ve raised my kids in the right way and let them go to the library.
But back to your question. I think a theory should be taught AS theory, unless there is sufficient evidence to support it being taught as fact.
Is the Bible going to be banned under this law?
Who knows? It wouldn’t be the first time the Bible or at least parts of it was either banned or censored.
By some accunts, the relationship between David and Jonathan had a homosexual aspect to it.
I don’t know about that, but I’m pretty sure that for the most part, the Bible as a whole tends to lean towards the anti-homosexuality side of the argument.
And where is the PROOF that God exists?
I don’t know. Did someone announce that they had found it?
Is it a matter of fact, or faith?
As far as I know, faith.
For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can’t prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof.
Be honest, you didn’t really read my post did you?
Part of me actually wants to see this law get passed, and then see the uproar when the Bible gets banned by it.
The way the ACLU is going, we may not have to wait for that law.
“It’s crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada.”
Do a google search on “Censorship in Canada” before you do.
Tim,
I did read all of the posts. I understand the difference. But read Eclark1849’s original post:
Don’t you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn’t look good for genetics.
His point is not at setting a standard so high it is impossible to reach, his point is the evidence is not there in the first place. To argue about the definition of prove is secondary when you read his second sentence. It shows that he is arguing based on the evidence, and the eividence is what needs to be primarily addressed. Yes, clarify the definition of “prove” if you want. But deal with the heart of his argument.
Jim in Iowa
Bill wrote:
>>””It’s crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada.”
Do a google search on “Censorship in Canada” before you do.
You beat me to the punch, Bill!
Sorry for the lack of proofreading of my own posts. My earlier post should say “legislator” rather than “legislature.” Hopefully you figured that out (along with other typos I caught on further review).
Jim in Iowa
“It’s crap like this that makes me consider moving to Canada.”
Do a google search on “Censorship in Canada” before you do.
Interestingly enough, Canada is generally rated higher for personal freedoms than the U.S. is by the international community. Furthermore, Reporters Without Borders ranks Canada as the 5th most free press in the world; the U.S. is ranked at 17th.
Phinn
Fine, Tim. Whoopee! You win. Happy now? Because I’ve told you, I’m not going down that road with you.
eclark 1849 “”For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can’t prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof.”
Be honest, you didn’t really read my post did you?”
no, really, I did. You claimed that evolution was a scientific fact, that it (evolution) had been observed in nature and in the lab.
Where?
I’ve never, ever, seen anything written or posted that evolution was *proved* to occur.
There is no such thing as a *scientific* fact. Or, if there are, what’s different from a scientific fact and a lay fact?
Evolution is accepted (by some) as a theory until someone else comes along and posits are more viable conclusions. If we were to turn on our TVs tomorrow morning and CNN was broadcasting a tape of God making Platypuses, that’d throw the whole theory of evolution into a tailspin. Especially if they had an interview with the big G saying how he loved to make things like that just to mess with us.
So, if I’m wrong, what proof that evolution is a fact do you have that’s been hiding from me?
Fred Phelps is an ultra-conservative Christian.
Being a Democrat doesn’t automatically make you a liberal. See Zell Miller.
Not loving Ronald Reagan doesn’t make you a liberal.
On social issues, he’s on the far right.
Deal with it.
When you come to moral values, there is a shift (althought there is clearly overlap). To use an extreme, rape is always wrong. You don’t rely on market values to keep rape in check. You are truly dealing with a different area of life. When you come to issues that are less extreme (take “living together” before marriage), you don’t have a “market” for it. But when you get to the radio (think “Howard Stern”), the two intersect.
Here’s where your point falls apart, Jim. Rape is a violent assault upon another human being. What Howard Stern engages in is speech. Now, thankfully, our founding fathers gave us the first amendment guaranteeing even Howard Stern his right to freedom of speech. No where, however is there a “right to rape.” Therefore, laws banning rape are constittutional. Laws banning speech are not.
I use the example of the market place because, obviously, there is a market for Howard Stern and for “Will and Grace.” If not, those shows would not be making money and would be taken off the air. So, why should any conservative wish to interfere with the dictates of the market?
Now, but “conservative,” I mean the current political mindset of our beloved president and his various advisors, nearly all of whom preach market based solutions for social security and health care, yet through agencies like the FCC, have begun cracking down on freedom of speech on the airwaves. Maybe there are other conservative thinkers out there who see the inherent hypocrisy in this position, but none of them are members of the current regime in Washington.
So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
I REALLY wish people would NOT use theory and proof so loosely.
In science, theory is top of the heap…you just don’t get any higher than that. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of facts; you get evidence that supports theories. YOU WILL NEVER GET PROOF OF THEORIES.
Can I repeat that again? YOU WILL NEVER PROVE A THEORY.
So stop saying stuff like that.
1) What day did Neil make his comment? – it seems to have slipped off his first page….
2) Christianity’s relationship w/ the Mosaic laws: According to Acts, God gave Peter a vision of food forbidden under the Mosaic dietary laws; Peter first rejected the offering on the basis of the dietary laws, and God said not to reject what he had created. This leads to a request from an non-Jew for information regarding Jesus, and the first conversion of a Gentile. While the vision should be primarily viewed as a sign that Christianity wasn’t just for Jews, further reading in Acts shows that the Christians of the time were divided on what aspects of the Mosaic laws new converts were expected to follow. In particular, some people were requiring new converts to be circumcised; this was viewed as something of a stumbling block. The leaders of the Christian church decided that new converts should avoid a couple of food-related things (food sacrificed to idols, meat from animals that were strangled, and blood), and sexual immorality.
I assume that those things that were not covered (stealing, murder, etc.) were not seen as requiring specific instruction not to do, as they have generally been unacceptable in most societies.
One of the points the New Testament (and, yes, Jesus in particular) makes is that the Mosaic laws, in part, were there to make the people realize that they could not live up to God’s standard (hence, the need to make sacrifices to atone for your failures).
Two last notes from me on this topic:
a) The Bible does seem to indicate that people should not engage in sexual activity other than with their spouse of the opposite sex. I do believe that biblical teaching indicates that, for the purpose of being acceptable in the eyes of God, engaging in sex with someone of the same sex is no worse than engaging in sex prior to or outside of the bonds of marriage, or than murdering thousands of people, or than shoplifting a package of gum.
b) I am sickened by people like Fred Phelps. Jesus did not approve of people committing sin; but he loved people, even those still in the midst of the most unsavory lifestyles (like prostitutes and tax collectors; hey, he would probably have even loved *lawyers*!) Again, in the churches I have attended, the phrase that explains the attitude people strive for is “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Some people have problems making the distinction….
By the way…
Speciation: observed in the field and in the lab. With finches and with plants, over a period of years. Try that obscure Pulitzer prize book, BEAK OF A FINCH for starters. Then we can go to the scientific literature for more detailed instances…
Hm. Third thing.
Market forces are based on Darwinian principles. Why are some people so enthusiastic about that in economics, but not in biology?
King bob:no, really, I did. You claimed that evolution was a scientific fact, that it (evolution) had been observed in nature and in the lab.
I NEVER claimed that evolution was a scientific fact. I never claimed that it had been been observed either in or out of the lab. I never claimed that homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I never claimed that black holes don’t exist!
I did not claim it on a lark,
I did not claim it in the park,
I did not claim it while eating Spam
I did not claim it, Sam I am.
What the hëll are you people reading?!!!!
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
In most cases, I would agree. Market forces are good. However, when it comes to TV and radio, they are a unique vehicle. You buy cable. You pay for an individual movie. You purchase (or check out) a book. But TV and radio are understood to be “public” airwaves. Direct market forces are not at work in the same way. As a result, there is an attempt to maintain a line of “public decency.” If you go back to the days of “I Love Lucy,” people could not sleep in the same bed and you could not use the word “pregnant.” Clearly, over the years, “market forces” have changed this line (as anyone who watched “Friends” could attest).
Howard Stern is jumping to satelite radio because there is freedom in this country in entertainment. The outcry over Stern, Janet Jackson, etc., does show some “market forces” at work. People want to watch TV or listen to the radio without being “shocked” by what the average person would agree is indecent.
This is not a perfect system. But it is one that tends to balance the two extremes. So as long as TV and radio are considered public airwaves, you cannot use just “market forces” to apply to the programming. Michael Moore can make whatever movie he wants, and the public can choose to go the theater, pay for it on HBO, or rent it. But when it goes on the public airwaves, there is a level of decency that it should meet. (We tend to discourage people from running around a public park with nothing on or from screaming obscenities because it is a public area. The same courtesy is asked of what is broadcast on the public airwaves.)
Jim in Iowa
Phinn,
Sorry, I should not have used “market forces” as loosely as I did. That may have confused my point. Basically, TV and Radio are seen as belonging to the public as a whole. As such, market forces as normally defined do not apply. Obviously there is advertising, etc. But it is not the same thing. As an individual, I do not pay to see “Lost” on ABC. It is on whether I (as an individual) go buy the “Lexus” that is advertised or not. Neilsen ratings have some impact because it helps set the advertising dollar, but it is not the same as true “market forces.”
Jim in Iowa
What the hëll are you people reading?!!!!
EClark, I was wondering the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
TimJ: As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under.
Luigi Novi: Then why does the New Testament have Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah on the mountain in a positively-portrayed scene, if not to ratify Moses
Libraries are usually government run and government funded institutions. As much as one may want them to exist in an untouchable state, where they are free to do whatever they want, they in fact are subject to the rules setup by their proprietors. If a library is partially privately funded, then the government cannot ban content, but it can revoke funding if the library chooses to offer certain content (unless SCOTUS says otherwise in the somewhat related Solomon Amendment case). Only if a library accepts zero public funding is it free to put whatever it wants on it’s shelves.
As for my statement saying that some people get more worked up about homosexuality than other sins because it is consensual, I was expressing my reasoning behind what others think. That is not my own belief.
TimJ: As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under.
Luigi Novi: Then why does the New Testament have Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah on the mountain in a positively-portrayed scene, if not to ratify Moses
On social issues, he’s on the far right.
Deal with it.
Oh, no no no no no. The left doesn’t get to tell the right who its members are, “far” modifier or no modifier. We on the right don’t want Fred Phelps. He bears about as much resemblance to American conservatives as Leon Trotsky does to American liberals. He’s on his own.
Deal with it.
yes, my bad. that’s what I get for trying to split my attention between work and PAD’s board.
eclark, my apologies: I crossed whatever you said (and clearly now I DIDN’T read what you wrote) with Luigi.
My bad.
Luigi said But evolution is a fact.
Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn’t want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
Jim in Iowa,
I did read all of the posts. I understand the difference. But read Eclark1849’s original post:
Don’t you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn’t look good for genetics.
His point is not at setting a standard so high it is impossible to reach, his point is the evidence is not there in the first place.
Sorry, can’t agree.
*No* textbook is teaching the above statement “as proof”, so his question really has no basis in fact. And prefacing any question with “don’t you think science should be able to prove X before (etc.)” is a question in the “have you stopped beating your wife” category yet. It’s unanswerable because it proceeds from a flawed premise. (The second sentence, which you say is “arguing based on the evidence”, is frankly mangling the definition of “theory” and our current understanding of both evolution and black holes, so there’s not really much I can argue about there either.)
I’m sorry that I’m not presenting my argument in a way you’d like, Jim — but I’m not willing to pretend the scientific process can proceed in impossible ways.
You appear to want to argue about what the textbooks should or shouldn’t say. I’d much rather see what they actually DO say before taking much of a stance on the matter — seems more efficient somehow.
If you can show me a textbook that does in fact say without equivocation that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature, then I would say that textbook’s doing a crappy job.
If a textbook says that there is evidence for a genetic link, then frankly I’m fine with it, particularly if it either describes that evidence or mentions where one could go to find it. (How much detail they’d go into would obviously depend on the level of the textbook.)
Does that sufficiently “deal with the heart of his argument” for you? If not, we may be in “agree to disagree” territory here.
On a different note … why exactly does it matter to you whether homosexuality has a genetic component or not? Would it change the opinion you have of gay people, and if so why?
TWL
Evolution is accepted (by some) as a theory until someone else comes along and posits are more viable conclusions. If we were to turn on our TVs tomorrow morning and CNN was broadcasting a tape of God making Platypuses, that’d throw the whole theory of evolution into a tailspin. Especially if they had an interview with the big G saying how he loved to make things like that just to mess with us.[emphasis mine]
You have no idea how true that statement is.
“It’s official – the platypus is weird”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226827.htm
If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I’d easily imagine patypuses — or is it platypi? — being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
Oh, no no no no no. The left doesn’t get to tell the right who its members are, “far” modifier or no modifier. We on the right don’t want Fred Phelps. He bears about as much resemblance to American conservatives as Leon Trotsky does to American liberals. He’s on his own.
I just wish members of the right pay the left the same courtesy.
And for the record, I think the Unibomber (suggested elsewhere) would make a better example as a non-left leftist.
Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn’t want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
Well, then, you’re pretty much screwed from the git-go, pilgrim. Given that for the overwhelming majority of Earth’s history, all life was one-celled and overwhelmingly bacterial, you’re potentially killing off future civilizations every time you take a breath, take a step, or take a bite of food.
Just pretend they’re Democrats — given your past opinions, that should certainly get rid of any guilt you might have about killing them.
Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
You really didn’t bother reading any of the discussion, did you?
Prove to me that we didn’t all appear five minutes ago with implanted memories after being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
TWL
dreading the coming of the Great White Handkerchief
If there is one creature out there can prove creationism, that God has a sense of humor, or the existence of extraterrestrial life (I’d easily imagine patypuses — or is it platypi? — being descended from the long-abandoned pet of ancient astronauts), this egg-laying, mammalian freak would be it.
“Hey, these are EASY!”
— God’s thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
Remember that back in the ’70s, the federal government did not set a national speed limit, as that was not within its purview. What it did was to withhold federal highway funding from states that failed to comply with the 55 mph limit.
Cite me a state that was willing to forgo money in order to preserve its own rights.
Similarly, cutting library funding if the library refuses to censor its books will have a chilling effect on the entire publishing industry. (What company is going to want to spend the money to publish a book that no library is allowed to touch?)
Yes, I know the current argument is only in Alabama. Care to wager whether such an idea would spread through the Red States, if it were upheld there?
The big fear that I have is that Bush appointed Judges would uphold such a law. The Bushies would consider this to be a state’s right decision as opposed to medical marajuana.
According to this, libraries in Britain accounted for only 5% of all British book sales in 2001. I doubt that banning a book from libaries, thus reducing the marketplace for the book by 5%, is such a gross inhibitor of the book as to be a suppressor of free speech.