Prop 8: Painful Times

Well written. Please also comment on TH blogs. Your clear writing style is needed.

Well written. Please also comment on TH blogs. Your clear writing style is needed.

"And yes, it is a choice. How can I say that? Because, firstly, no “gay gene” has been discovered, and thus cannot be said (empirically) to exist."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Common mistake among non-scientists. We do not know the genes for many characteristics, which nevertheless clearly have a genetic component...we used to not know any genes at all, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist, silly man.

"There are many things in human genetics that exist but aren’t supposed to – physical ailments, mental illnesses. It is clear that these things are abnormal, and we fight to overcome them – we search for cures, we use medicine, counseling, various therapies. And it is clear, based on (if nothing else) the picture our physiology paints, that homosexuality, whether genetic or chosen, is abnormal."

There are no "should" and shouldn't" in nature, only "is" and "isn't." The disorders and diseases you mention are a part of nature. We judge them to be "bad" because their effects can affect our quality and/or lenghth of life. But being sexually attracted to the same sex affects neither of those and psychiatric medicine does not recognize homosexuality to be a disorder.

"God is clear in his displeasure with homosexuality, as is nature (not only is homosexuality biologically unnatural, it’s also an evolutionary dead end) –"

Nature (apart from humans) does not express moral disapproval. Homosexual behavior is commonly observed in a variety of species. People who choose not to have children, or who can't, are also "evolutionary dead-ends"...that does not mean that they are aberrant or "wrong." What a cracked notion.

You said, "There are no "should" and shouldn't" in nature, only "is" and "isn't." The disorders and diseases you mention are a part of nature. We judge them to be "bad" because their effects can affect our quality and/or lenghth of life. But being sexually attracted to the same sex affects neither of those and psychiatric medicine does not recognize homosexuality to be a disorder."

Homesexual acts have no affect on quality or length of life? Tell that to the thousands of gays who have died from AIDS, an "affect" widely accepted as being a predominantly gay male killer. And if being gay has no adverse affect on the quality of life, why do gays demand they be treated like those who are not, demanding the right to marry. If they are happy being gay, let it be so. Do not force your life onto an institution created by the religion you so willingly violate and hold in such disdain.

That homosexuality is not recognized as a mental disorder says nothing at all about the choice to be homosexual. A large number of "recognized mental disorders" are not pathological, but CHOICES made by the afflicted. Homosexuality HAS been proven to be a significant departure from the naturally occurring instinct to assure predication of the species. In fact, it is proof of the abandonement of that instinct by the individual, something very much in opposition to all observations of animal behavior.

And your claim that there are no "shoulds" and "shouldn't" in science, only "is" and "isn't" is evidence of your lack of knowledge of the history and present state of scientific knowledge. Is there or isn't there a finite value we call "Pi" ? Prove its value. You SHOULD be able to do that. But it ISN'T possible.

Prove the existence of ZERO as a valid integer. Define the properties inherent in INFINITY. You can't. There ARE shoulds and shouldn't in science. Ask Nikola Tesla. He understood. You don't.

Homosexuality is not natural in origin. Neither is alcoholism, or marriage.

Glenn Flowers

"Homesexual acts have no affect on quality or length of life? Tell that to the thousands of gays who have died from AIDS, an "affect" widely accepted as being a predominantly gay male killer."

Apparently you are unaware that a virus called HIV causes AIDS...not homosexuality. Do you think cervical cancer is caused by heterosexuality? (predominantly kills heterosexual females, in case you're as ignorant as I suspect)

A large number of "recognized mental disorders" are not pathological, but CHOICES made by the afflicted.

No biologist would say that any mental disorder lacks a genetic component.

"Homosexuality HAS been proven to be a significant departure from the naturally occurring instinct to assure predication of the species. In fact, it is proof of the abandonement of that instinct by the individual, something very much in opposition to all observations of animal behavior."

Like I said: it is seen in nature and your argument applies equally well to persons who choose not to procreate...are they immoral for this. Your problem is that you want nature to be moral...but it isn't.

"And your claim that there are no "shoulds" and "shouldn't" in science, only "is" and "isn't" is evidence of your lack of knowledge of the history and present state of scientific knowledge. Is there or isn't there a finite value we call "Pi" ? Prove its value. You SHOULD be able to do that. But it ISN'T possible.
Prove the existence of ZERO as a valid integer. Define the properties inherent in INFINITY. You can't. There ARE shoulds and shouldn't in science. Ask Nikola Tesla. He understood. You don't."

Wow. Maybe I was unclear. What I mean can be put succinctly and perhaps more clearly thus:
Science is DEscriptive
Ethics & Morality are PROscriptive

"Absence of evidence is not absence of evidence."

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're only half right. It's true that our failure to discover certain evidence doesn't mean that the evidence is nonexistent -- but neither does it mean such evidence DOES exist; we may be looking for something that isn't there. Anyway, many homosexuals and their advocates routinely say that their orientation is genetic, no ifs, ands or buts about it -- without having proof in hand. They have established this principle as a central plank in their platform despite having nothing even close to confirmation for such a claim. Not everything about humans is genetic -- many things are learned behavior -- and even in those cases in which something IS genetic, that doesn't make it "right" or "okay." I would argue that diseases, illnesses and disorders AREN'T natural, but regardless, these things -- like skin color and height -- have nothing to do with morality, whereas sexual behavior does. In fact, homosexuality used to be classified as a disorder, but then the APA caved to the pressure of political correctness. As to evolution, it's true that couples who choose to remain childless are "dead ends" of a sort, but a couple's choice to remain childless is in no way a sign from nature that they are engaging in behavior that was never intended to happen. Without going into graphic detail, which I'm sure is unnecessary anyway, it's clear that two male bodies were not meant to engage in intercourse, nor were to female bodies. This is a clear sign from nature that homosexual behavior constitutes a wrong turn. While it may be true that some animals engage in homosexuality, it's my firm belief that we humans aren't mere animals. We have consciences, free will, self-awareness and the ability of rational thought. Thus we have a greater responsibility than do animals.

"I understand what you're trying to say, but you're only half right. It's true that our failure to discover certain evidence doesn't mean that the evidence is nonexistent -- but neither does it mean such evidence DOES exist; we may be looking for something that isn't there."

I never took a position on the existance of a genetic component. It may or may not exist. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the authors argument that no gene has been found entails no genetic component...which is clearly nuts. Everything you say in the quote above is correct, except where you called me half right:)

"Not everything about humans is genetic -- many things are learned behavior -- and even in those cases in which something IS genetic, that doesn't make it "right" or "okay.""

I would suggest that all behavior to some extent has a genetic component. For example, the ability to learn behavior is itself influenced by genetics.

I'm sure that Mr. Flowers is aware that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I believe that what he's saying is that without the use of protection, homosexual males comprise BY FAR the largest segment of the HIV/AIDS-infected population, which is a clear sign that homosexual sex is a bad idea. The anus, after all, was intended solely as a waste disposal. And many women could tell you that they must be careful to not get feces into the vagina accidentally when wiping, because that can cause severe infections. Please pardon the graphic details, but my point is that it should be patently obvious that homosexuality is wrong, in every sense of the word.

"I would argue that diseases, illnesses and disorders AREN'T natural"

In what way are they not natural? They occur naturally. They are due to natural causes. Their biology follows the same rules as all other biology. Ask any biologist.

"As to evolution, it's true that couples who choose to remain childless are "dead ends" of a sort, but a couple's choice to remain childless is in no way a sign from nature that they are engaging in behavior that was never intended to happen."

What do you mean "of a sort"?--they are dead ends genetically. One could argue that nature doesn't "intend" anyone not to pass on their genes. But in fact the ascription of intentions of any sort to nature is just loony. People want to believe in teleological ends to nature, but science has abandoned teleology...nothing in nature is FOR anything or SUPPOSED to be anything. Those are things one might believe for religious reasons, but they are not science and attempting to bolster arguments for any non-scientific believe with science is misguided and as a scientist, I'll call you on it.

Maybe you missed my point about cervical cancer. It is caused by a sexually transmitted disease called human papilloma virus (HPV). Only women who engage in heterosexual sex will get HPV cervical cancer.

My point was a comparison to demonstrate that homosexuality is no more the "cause" of HIV infection anymore than heterosexuality is the "cause" of HPV infection. In neither case is the behavior either necessary or sufficient to "cause" the outcome. Therefore they are not causes.

What I meant was that such a couple is CHOOSING to be a "dead end," whereas homosexual couples are "dead ends" regardless of whether they want to be. I see your point, though ... but I disagree with your assertion that nothing in nature is FOR anything or SUPPOSED to be anything; I'm not a scientist, but it seems obvious to me that, for example, though we CAN use our genitalia in "any way" we want, they're supposed to be used in a certain way. Just as, common sense tells me, an animal's claws exist for a certain purpose, and eyes exist for a certain purpose.

By the way, what type of scientist are you? And I'm curious as to what you mean when you say it's wrong to bolster a "nonscientific" belief with science.

And for the sake of full disclosure, and in case you're curious, much in my beliefs expressed here is indeed based on my Christian faith.

I agree that homosexuality isn't the cause of AIDS, and anyone who makes such a claim is clearly uninformed.

As to the issue of cervical cancer and HPV, I agree that heterosexual sex isn't the "cause" of HPV. On the other hand, no sane person is saying that heterosexuality is wrong or immoral. I realize that any number of diseases can be passed on by either heterosexual or homosexual sex, including HIV; my point is that homosexual men in particular are susceptible, and it's because they are engaging in a behavior that was never meant to take place, a behavior I would think that you, as a scientist, would realize was never meant to take place.

If Joel is a scientist, as he claims, he is not a very experienced one, or at least that is what the appearence would suggest. Have you ever known of a biologist defining a mental disorder? It just isn't done. Psychologists and psychiatrists define mental disorders and biological causes are rarely detected, much less proven. Also, any scientist would immediately, and with all humility, confirm my reference to the mathematical ironies as being theories, which ALL science is. Life is theory, nothing can be proven as fact in all cases, for in nature exists exception and deviation. THAT IS what homosexuality is, deviance. It SHOULDN'T occur, but does, just like stupid scientists.

Glenn

"What I meant was that such a couple is CHOOSING to be a "dead end," whereas homosexual couples are "dead ends" regardless of whether they want to be."

So are the infertile. But you are getting my point, I think.

I see your point, though ... but I disagree with your assertion that nothing in nature is FOR anything or SUPPOSED to be anything; I'm not a scientist, but it seems obvious to me that, for example, though we CAN use our genitalia in "any way" we want, they're supposed to be used in a certain way. Just as, common sense tells me, an animal's claws exist for a certain purpose, and eyes exist for a certain purpose.

Good points. I will explain better: I'm not questioning function as a concept by any means. You are absolutely correct about the claws example. The form or structure fits the function and in fact that is one of the aspects of biology I love so much. So I didn't mean that. What I mean is that science no longer dictates what those purposes are: it describes what they are used for. A scientist studying humans when asked about the function of the pen1s, would describe the things it is actually used for...and that would include all sorts of stuff not directly related to passing on genes.

By the way, what type of scientist are you? And I'm curious as to what you mean when you say it's wrong to bolster a "nonscientific" belief with science. And for the sake of full disclosure, and in case you're curious, much in my beliefs expressed here is indeed based on my Christian faith.

I'm a developmental neurobiologist. Science works the way it does because of methodological rules that we follow that amount to a nifty blend of skepticism, empiracism and rationalism. Science will tell you how things are, but it won't tell you what the right thing to do is.

"As to the issue of cervical cancer and HPV, I agree that heterosexual sex isn't the "cause" of HPV. On the other hand, no sane person is saying that heterosexuality is wrong or immoral. I realize that any number of diseases can be passed on by either heterosexual or homosexual sex, including HIV; my point is that homosexual men in particular are susceptible, and it's because they are engaging in a behavior that was never meant to take place, a behavior I would think that you, as a scientist, would realize was never meant to take place."

Science doesn't provide any guidelines for what was meant to take place...only ethics and religions do that.

"If Joel is a scientist, as he claims, he is not a very experienced one, or at least that is what the appearence would suggest. Have you ever known of a biologist defining a mental disorder? It just isn't done. Psychologists and psychiatrists define mental disorders and biological causes are rarely detected, much less proven."

Psychiatry defines mental disorders in a publication known as the DSM. Psychiatrists are doctors and many conduct research as well. In addition there are neurobiologists studying the bases for mental disorders and we are learning, but it's slow going...esp. when the money for research goes for war.

"Also, any scientist would immediately, and with all humility, confirm my reference to the mathematical ironies as being theories, which ALL science is."

Actually I would argue that science per se is actually a methodology and a practice. The body of ideas with varying degrees of acceptance that we call theories, hypotheses, etc. are more the scientific information and knowledge as we have been able to discover using science.

"Life is theory, nothing can be proven as fact in all cases, for in nature exists exception and deviation."

That is correct. We operate on the basis of probability.

"THAT IS what homosexuality is, deviance. It SHOULDN'T occur, but does, just like stupid scientists."

'Deviance' puts a nonscientific moralistic judgement on it, which is fine...just realize it isn't science. All science would say that there is 'variation'. Sorry you think I'm stupid, Glenn. Given how little you know me, I would say that you're judging without sufficient information.

"Science will tell you how things are, but it won't tell you what the right thing to do is."

"Science doesn't provide any guidelines for what was meant to take place...only ethics and religions do that."

I'm glad to read these things. And for me, though I rely somewhat on the anatomical argument in this issue, my primary motivation is my faith; I believe that God created us a certain way, that we're meant to function and behave a certain way.

What does a developmental neurobiologist study/do? Does your work involve certain mental disorders? I ask because I've been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and my daughter has bipolar, mild autism and Asperger's.

"What does a developmental neurobiologist study/do? Does your work involve certain mental disorders? I ask because I've been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and my daughter has bipolar, mild autism and Asperger's."

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you and your family have adequate access to health care and that you are getting the most out of it. Developmental neurobiologists study the way the nervous system develops. There are people studying all sorts of things related to you and your daughter's disorders. For example, the threshold for developing anxiety may be set during childhood because we know that abused children are more likely to be anxious etc. and there are researchers who study mommy rats with their babies and have figured out that when the dams (mommies) spend more time with their pups it sets their anxiety threshold higher through specific changes in the pups developing brain. So, it's all cool stuff and definitely related to mental disorders. I myself am interested in epilepsy, but have also gotten interested in autism and mental retardation.

Thanks for your concern. Thankfully we do have good health care and our daughter's needs (and mine) are being met. My situation is quite mild compared with hers; a couple medications take care of mine quite handily. Our daughter, on the other hand, has to go to a special school out of state that deals with her particular challenges, but she has made great strides over the last few years.

It sounds like you love your work; that's great. Do you work for a university, or a private firm?

I have developed the opinion of you as, say, less intelligent than a man with your education should be because of the outrageous assertions you make in the defense of what should be an unknown, private factor in the lives of these and all people.

Do you know the sexual persuasion of every person you have ever met? Why not? Because most don't feel the need to make it known, rather, consider that info private, intimate, and not for general publication.

But, take a look at those who are the loudest proponents of gay marriage and tell me they are doing this because of love, or a sense of doing the right thing for their partner and themselves.

What their motives are become secondary to the disrespect they display for themselves and their significant other by forcing the knowledge of who and what they are down the throats (no pun there at all) of every member of the USA, to their own detriment. Why? Why do they not quietly, privately, seek what they are after in the only viable way? That being the establishment a tradition of "marriage their style" within their community of like minded who want it too. I'm sure that if gays stopped the Rocky Horror type marches and tranny nun imitations that the minority fringe are so fond of, and went about the serious organizing of their society with a purpose of being accepted in society, there would be no great oppostion.

If you can, see the bigger picture here.

Glenn