Stu: Go to the home page and look under the banner. Far: I can do better than that; I've got the hardcopy right here.
Of course you do! Right next to the pyramid crystals.
Stu: Out of the six links to feature stories, half of them are about sex.
Far: So, having failed to rebut the validity of the points made in the actual article itself, you're now trying to shift the ground of the argument to something you feel more comfortable in condemning.
It's not that I'm condemning sex so much as I'm pointing out the crass commercialism of something so many at this message board have thoroughly pontificated as pure - the sincereity of science.
:: Unsubtle, Stuart; you haven't issued any convincing rebuttal of the actual point under debate; viz homosexuality is widespread in nature.
And so are a few other aberrant behaviors that are condemned biblically. I still believe God has given men and women (and a few other species) a natural attraction to the opposite sex. I further believe He has given humans an aversion to the practice and those men and women who participate in the activity have to first overcome their own conscience.
And so is meat eating widespread in nature, F. If there is no immorality associated with the practice of homosexuality because it occurs in the animal kingdom, there is no immorality accociated with eating meat.
Far: Did you actually read those articles, Stuart; one was about medical biology, one was about the effects of pollution (specifically, polychlorinated biphenyls a.k.a. PCBs) on human biology. The final one was the one I cited.
Far: Sex is a scientific matter, Stuart. Admittedly, there happened to be a large number of biological stories this week; last week there were more maths-related ones.
And I imagine more copy was peddled this week.
Far: Are you suggesting that scientists should be monks; pure creatures totally devoted to their calling? It doesn't work that way. Every human being alive has sex on the brain, Stuart; or it wouldn't sell to people.
No, F. Where did you get that? But don't be surprised when I jump down your throat if you criticize commercialism. Even science isn't above it.
Far/Gid: If you represent a typical view, it's no wonder that a recent survey found 1/3rd of adult Americans had no sex life worth speaking of...ye're all screwed up bunnies...
And sex, as dysfunctionally depicted on the BBC illustrates the positive benefits of the impact of open discussion on the subject? If someone calls me on the phone and starts asking me questions on my sex life they get nothing from me, regardless of how good or bad it is.
Far: Anyway, enough diversions; do you have with which to rebut the point (which is that homosexuality is widespread in nature); the study in question has been published as a book ("Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl; published this year by St. Martin's Press in N.Y. - see here.
Far: If you have rebuttals based on , produce them. If the best you can do is try to cast mud on the name of the journal that wrote an article about the book, don't bother...
I have evidence that you are right - my dog, for instance. But my dog is no moral guide. He is only an animal.
- too cool if this works!
