: 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.
Ah, so science is to be lumped in with New Age religion, is it? That's new to me. The only crystals I use on a day-to-day basis are the ones you also use; the piezoelectric quartz ones that keep clocks running.
(Of course, the really *great* thing about hard science is that it works even if you *don't* believe in it...)
: 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.
It's a magazine; if it wasn't commercial, it would go out of business.
It's also kind of weird to see Mr. American Christian Capitalist condemning "crass commercialism" as well...
It's merely a newspaper; newspapers report events. Does that make the events untrue? I gave a link whereby you could check the book's existence...
: :: 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 *why* do you believe this? Cite sources; preferably from more than one book. Bonus marks given for physical evidence.
: 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.
Did I say that there was any immorality involved in eating meat?
(I think personally that meat eating is unnecessary and wasteful and that factory farming methods are cruel; but I have no problem with people eating meat if they want to. It's their choice; I tolerate them; that's where you and I differ.)
: 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.
Actually, the circulation is fairly stable; it's never going to be read by everyone, but it's certainly the most popular science magazine in the UK.
: 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.
Wrong. Science magazines aren't above it. Science and philosophy existed before commercialism and transcend it.
That's not to say that commercialism doesn't taint science on occasions (e.g. Monsanto & co); but it's hard to see what commercial applications can be gotten out of the fact that homosexuality is a normal behaviour pattern for a large number of animals...
: Far: Anyway, enough diversions; do you have evidence 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 evidence, 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.
...which takes us straight back to my original post, in which I wrote;
"Now we just have to watch the die-hard Christians turn round and start saying that homosexuals are just reducing themselves to the level of beasts..."
Full marks for predictability, Stuart ;) If you'd just like to jump through this hoop, too?
You are, I trust, admitting this point; that homosexuality is widespread in nature?
Even if you deny the biological evidence that links us to our fellow mammals and vertebrates (things like genetics, embryology and anthropology)...
F.
--
McSpotlight: Enough of the blink tags, folks; they're annoying.
