vanelr, you obviously have strongly held beliefs which I'm not going to change, however you put forward common misconceptions about science which I will address below. You also continue to offer frankly bizzare suggestions about the founding of our nation and civil rights.
vanelr wrote:
To yossarian:
Again you state that im factually wrong and back this up with two paragraphs that offer no facts. Am I missing something? Even your post uses words like ( research suggests) or ( this is simply how they show their love or sexuality). This would not meet my definition of evidence.
Reserach suggests is as good as scientific evidence gets in the social sciences - if you wish to ignore this is fine - I'm not a social scientist I don't take it personally - but since you are throwing out the entire fields, we can't really have a rational discussion about them anymore. As you point out below, science cannot prove anything, affirmatively.
The best scientific evidence, as summarized by the APS, says homosexuality is a choice. This is not one study, it is the result of the review of many by many people. That is why it is a far stronger statement then any one individual.
I can give you specific citations such as: Richard Green, Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual
Parents, 135 Am. J. Psychiatry 692 (1978)10.
You go read a whole bunch of these studies and come to a conclusion. This conclusion is not a scientific "fact". It is just the summary of the evidence.
Not accepting scientific evidence as evidence is a fascinating vision of the world I never considered before.
Quote:
Since your bought science up though, I would like to point out that science has proven itself wrong many times. As more and more data is collected the facts of science will be ever changing. To date though the bible has never been proven wrong or even inaccurate. History would show the bible to be more of a science than science is a science, lol. Im sure you get my point.
I didn't bring up science. You said there was *no* scientific evidence for homosexuality begin genetic. That was the beginning. That is simply factually wrong. There is plenty. Of course some is on the opposite side - that is science. However, the bulk of evidence is on one side. You claim to simply not acknowledge it as evidence at all. That is your perogative, but you are redefining the word evidence in an unusual way.
The strength of science is that all theories have concrete testible and falsifiable predictions. If not, it ain't science. You can look it up: that is pretty much the definition.
Since the Bible cannot be proven "wrong" in the same sense, it is unscientific. This isn't a bad thing. As you point out they are very different.
Quote:
Ill go one step further and say that any church who ordains gay as priest or offer to marry gays is not a christian church. They (imo) have broken one of the ten commandments
Which commandment?
If I may take off my scientist hat and put on my theologian hat:
(1) I say if Jesus showed up today he would hang out with the oppressed of our society - just as in his day he hung out with the lepers.
(2) I say if Jesus showed up today he would chastise us for following the word and not the spirit and he would empahsize the new covenant not the old.
As a result of (1) and (2) above, I find it far more likely that chruches accepting homosexuality would be praised by Jesus then condemned.
Quote:
I believe in minority rights but draw the line when that conflicts with the will of the majority.
I would suggest Singapore because, um, our country was founded on the opposite. Go read the Federalist papers. The founders were very concerned with the abuse of power of the majority.
The very greatness of our country is the rights to free speach, press, religion - and these are guarenteed for us all. Even if we want to vote them out we cannot.
Jesus was in the minority when he lived. If everyone at that time went with the majority pagan gods because they were more popular, your religion would never have gotten off the ground.