Geez Louise ... all I can say is that the blogger seems to have "issues" with homosexuality, especially when one somehow twists the tragedy of the Holocaust into some other form of blind hatred.

Didn't we learn anything from the Holocaust, like not to persecute people who were born a certain way?

Apparently not. That's sad -- and pathetic.

Speaking of the Holocaust, it has been suggested that gays are the new "jews" for bigots.

W., you ask if we haven't learned not to persecute people who were born a certain way.

In order to justify and play to deep-seated fears about homosexuality, today's far-right insists (contrary to reputable scientific findings) that it is a "choice." If it weren't, then all the demonizing would have no justification. Therefore, it MUST be a choice.

They start with the result they want ("gay is bad") and then swallow whatever premises are necessary to make that seem logical, no matter how ludicrous (see the evolution "debate.)

Oddly, it isn't necessarily a matter of intelligence. Some otherwise smart people (and of course many stupid and ignorant ones) embrace this classically bad reasoning out of fear, abetted by intellectual dishonesty.

Sir, I must protest that they don't come much more "reputable" than Masters and Johnson, who say in their work HUMAN SEXUALITY:

"The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today...no serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."

Perhaps John Money, sex researcher at Johns Hopkins University, would be reputable enough for you:

"On the basis of present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify an hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant from heterosexuals."

Then there's John DeCecco, who was editor of the *Journal of Homosexuality*:

"The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is foolish."

I could go on for a not inconsiderable time with such quotes, but these are enough to make the point: "reputable" scientific findings do not demonstrate that people are born homosexual. Rather, the heavy odor of researcher bias hangs over the handful of studies that even indicate such a possibility.

If anyone is guilty of getting the cart before the horse in their reasoning, it is the homosexual community, hell-bent on indulging in a lifestyle that dramatically lowers their lifespans and shaking their fists in the face of God.

Dan, you seem to have done your homework for this one at the web site of televangelist John Ankerberg. He gives exactly the same quotes in the same order.

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/streams-of-life/SL0803W2.htm

Perhaps if you had looked at some science-oriented sites, you would have read that the work of Money and Masters and Johnson on homosexuality was not well-received by their peers, nor is it current.

Here is a good explanation of more recent work that sheds light on the biological role of homosexuality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html

You really make my point: you're probably an intelligent fellow, but you start with the answer you want, that homosexuals are "shaking their fists in the face of God", then filter out anything that does not support it.

Ankerberg is a Baptist end-times kind of guy. You can believe in that or not as you wish, but he is hardly a good source for scientific research.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. The whole thing was an exercise in begging the question. They don't even know the location of the "genes" in question, let alone which ones they are, or if they are there at all. They started with the assumption that both male homosexuality and high birth rates have genetic causes, but they have no more than a statistical relationship as proof and have not eliminated sociological and cultural factors as potential causes of those effects.

"Science" such as this isn't interested in hard evidence--that's the explanation for the rejection by *some* of the work I cited.

Dan, the example was not intended to lay out a gene map, just to illustrate one way homosexuality could be understood in light of modern genetics. This as a counterpoint to your notion of it being "shaking their fists in the face of God," a very different conception of what is going on.

Science doesn't claim to have the final answer on hand at the beginning of the investigation. Often there is no definitive endpoint, because our understanding continues to grow and change. This is a crucial way science is at odds with religious zealots who begin and end with a "certainty" that comes from their personal feelings.

What does Ankerberg have to say about that? I doubt if he likes it.

Here is a good sampling of scientific thought on the matter:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html

I will take science's uncertainties over the far-right's bogus "certainties" any day.

Nothing you've said so far can cover up your predilection for substituting sheer guesswork for evidence and calling it "science."

Sorry you feel that way, Dan, but since you state on your blog that you are a "young earther" (the belief that trilobites, dinosaurs, mammals, the formation of the Grand Canyon all occurred in the last 6,000 years or so) it doesn't surprise me that you have little regard for science. I wouldn't expect to persuade you otherwise.

Resorting to ad-hominems when you run out of evidence isn't going to help.

Actually, I need to expand on that last comment a little, for it's worth following the chain:

You started out by claiming that those who don't swallow the "I-was-born-that-way" excuse take their position out of fear, intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal to believe "reputable" science.

When it's pointed out that at least some reputable researchers don't agree with you, you say that their work hasn't been well-received (perhaps not in *your* quarters)and direct me to articles containing nothing but conjecture and irrelevant statistal correlation coupled with circular reasoning of the worst sort.

When called on *that*, your tune changes to "Well, I may not have any hard evidence (can't help but note in passing that research without actual evidence apparently constitutes something "reputable" to you), but that's okay, my claim to knowing something without evidence is superior to taking something on faith." That is balderdash, of course.

When called on *that,* you--you, who confuse speculation with evidence--resort to accusing me of having no regard for science. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! What's next? Are you going to try to establish your position by suggesting I'm illiterate?

Do I understand you to consider being called a "young earther" an epithet? Is it not an accurate and uncolored statement of your belief? What is your preferred term, then?

It is relevant to a discussion of reputable (or not) science, because such a position pretty much flys in the face of well-established geology and biology.

I could have posted more detailed links in a scientific vein rather than more general, and indeed speculative ones--it's easy enough to find them--but realized it was pointless, since you seem to already have the answers you prefer.

Or are you saying it really is of interest to you?

I would amend your summary of my position to be "'not believing I know with certainty' is superior to taking something on faith," particularly when the "faith" position is such a harsh judgment on your fellow human beings. (Which was the starting point of the discussion.)

Small follow-up note:

I said in my first note, "today's far-right insists (contrary to reputable scientific findings) that (homosexuality) is a 'choice.'"

Probably the strongest consensus scientific statement that can be made today is: homosexuality is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. An exact mechanism is not known.

The uncertainly inherent in that in no way justifies your "shaking their fists in the face of God" assessment, which has nothing to do with any sort of science.

OK, one more link on the state of research:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041128-121135-7392r.htm

In it, our President makes a reasonable statement as a non-scientist:

During the third presidential debate, moderator and CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer asked the candidates, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"

"You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know," said President Bush, who then urged tolerance, respect and dignity for homosexuals.

Well, I suppose neither one of us can be surprised at our total lack of progress. One last note, Warren, and I'm done. When I have a cookout later this summer (you will see it announced on my blog, if you care to keep up with it), you and whatever significant other you care to bring will be welcome. I've noted that you've not said whether or not you are homosexual; if you are, come anyway. Seriously.

>Do I understand you to consider being called >a "young earther" an epithet?

No, I consider being accused of having no regard for science an epithet.

>It is relevant to a discussion of reputable (or >not) science...

If I believed in little purple monkeys, it wouldn't have anything to do with whether there was hard evidence for the born-gay hypothesis and whether or not that constituted reputable science. For you, my young-earth stance is nothing more than a feeble excuse to write me off as a Luddite.

> ...because such a position pretty much flys in >the face of well-established geology and >biology.

If I am certain of anything about you, Warren, it is that you will laugh when I say that I have forgotten more about evolution and its underpinnings than most evolutionists are ever likely to learn. I wasn't joking when I said that most discussions on the subject amount to shooting fish in a barrel. Come to the party and you will see for yourself. At any rate, yes, I'm perfectly aware that the majority position is against me. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the majority of the scientific community has been wrong.

>...it was pointless, since you seem to already >have the answers you prefer.

It hasn't escaped you that this is my assessment of you and your position, has it? Warren, at this point the best you can do is a somewhat nebulous statement to the effect that although no one knows an exact mechanism, the consensus is that genetics and environment both play a role in determining sexual orientation. Is it not obvious to you that this is no different from "We don't know"? How many human behaviors are *not* put down to genetics and environment? The statement is not specific enough to have real meaning. Trying to falsify it is like trying to nail jelly to the wall--which is, I suspect, the whole point of bringing it up.

>Or are you saying it really is of interest to >you?

Actually, Warren, I have enjoyed the discussion and I wish I could spend more time with you on it. Shocking as you might find this, I don't consider it a necessity that my conversational partners always agree with me. I'll admit to having found myself fairly annoyed at some of your words--more on that in a sec.

> ...the "faith" position is such a harsh >judgment on your fellow human beings. (Which >was the starting point of the discussion.)

Warren, from my point of view, the starting point of the discussion was when you labeled, quite unjustifiably, those who might disagree with you fearful, intellectually dishonest, illogical, and of having their minds made up in advance of the facts. To be frank, I would not have entered the discussion had I not been so labeled. We have seen, now, that you do not actually know how homosexuality is caused. You are, in fact, guessing. This is not the strongest position from which to accuse others of the things you accuse them of. I would say that you are in a singularly poor position to accuse anyone of rendering a "harsh judgment on your fellow human beings."

>...President Bush...then urged tolerance, >respect and dignity for homosexuals.

Again, a possible shocker for you, Warren: I have known and worked with a ridiculously large number of homosexuals over the years. I was in the restaurant business for years, and, as you may know, that business is positively full to the brim with homosexuals. We always got along, despite the fact that they knew what I thought about their behavior. I didn't harass them about it--if they didn't want to talk about it, we didn't talk about it. Saying that homosexual behavior is wrong is not the same as being intolerant of the homosexual. And I must point out the double standard *again*: you want tolerance and respect, but willingly and without hard evidence label countless thousands of people illogical, fearful, etc.

>Well, I suppose neither one of us can be surprised at our total lack of progress.

That's certainly a point of agreement.

> I've noted that you've not said whether or not you are homosexual; if you are, come anyway. Seriously.

I'm not.

>I have forgotten more about evolution and its underpinnings than most evolutionists are ever likely to learn.

You are, indeed, a prodigy then, sir.

>Warren, at this point the best you can do is a somewhat nebulous statement to the effect that although no one knows an exact mechanism, the consensus is that genetics and environment both play a role in determining sexual orientation. Is it not obvious to you that this is no different from "We don't know"?

The nebulous statement I made is really about as strong as it can reasonably be today. Your assessment of gays is extremely strong...I don't recall hearing any evidence from you, as important as you say it is, other than a cut-and-paste from a televangelist's site. Surely one who has undertaken a monumental quest for knowledge that would shame most scientists, living or dead, could do a little better? Pardon me if I hold onto my skepticism a little while longer.

>I was in the restaurant business for years, and, as you may know, that business is positively full to the brim with homosexuals. We always got along, despite the fact that they knew what I thought about their behavior. I didn't harass them about it--if they didn't want to talk about it, we didn't talk about it. Saying that homosexual behavior is wrong is not the same as being intolerant of the homosexual.

I am glad of that. I wasn't sure from what you had said so far.

>And I must point out the double standard *again*: you want tolerance and respect, but willingly and without hard evidence label countless thousands of people illogical, fearful, etc.

Observing that the far-right begins with the result they want then reasons backward to justify it, is just not in the same intolerance league as your ringing Old Testament accusation that gays are "shaking their fists in the face of God."

In all your discussions with gay restaurant workers, did you truly observe this God-defiant attitude as a common thread? I doubt it. Why the heck would anyone "choose" a lifestyle that gets them dumped on and worse with great regularity?

Do the people who insist homosexuality is a choice really find the gay lifestyle so tempting as to make the assertion plausible to themselves?

P.S., thanks for the invitation, but I like this barrel just fine.

Got no time left, but I suppose I ought to clarify one thing: when I talk about knowing more than most evolutionists, I am talking about people who believe in it, but whose field of specialization lies elsewhere. Of course, this encompasses the vast majority of evolutionists--even a surprising number of biologists, whose day-to-day work has very little to do with it. I am not claiming, in the process, to know more about biology than Pierre Grasse--just enough that I have never found myself, nor do I think it likely that I ever will find myself, more than mildly challenged in a discussion of the subject.

After your grandiose speech,

"At any rate, yes, I'm perfectly aware that the majority position is against me. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the majority of the scientific community has been wrong."

I had feared I was speaking with a mind of the caliber of Dr. No. It's a relief to hear that you merely consider yourself superior to non-specialists.

You might have more time to present evidence if you spent less of it preening.