Science ? Proof? Not very intelligent things for a christian to demand, Jim, when your life is built on the faith that there's a fantasy figure in the sky telling you to spend your time obsessing about homosexual people and their attempts to have the same rights as you.

I mean, I understand WHY anti-gay christians have to push the 'choice' wheelbarrow :

Because if it's in our nature, then you'd be behaving as badly as the christians who opposed mixed-race marriages .... i.e misguided, intolerant, about as far from your Jesus as your ill-conceived misinterpretations can throw you. You don't want to think that you might have this one wrong.

Well sorry Jim - that's the way that it's going to go.
Your grandchildren will grow up embarrassed to be related to you.
Your picture will not be in their houses.

Hope you work this one out during your lifetime.
All the best.

Straw man argument, Al. Poor logic.

No-one is claiming that because a behaviour is observed in the animal kingdom it must therefore be morally acceptable for humans. No-one.

The observations from animal science are that same-sex couplings occur in virtually all gregarious bird and animal societies and are generally healthy, accepted by the community, non-contagious, confined to a small, fixed proportion of the community and pose no threat to its continuation.

This tends to undermine the claim that same-sex orientation in humans is the result of an evil moral choice, doesn't it?

Whether or not any behaviour is acceptable for human society we determine by other processes. All these are increasingly leading to the conclusion that same-sex orientation and activity are just like opposite-sex orientation and activity, though significantly less prevalent.

Exactly what genetic or other benefits there are to any species of the intriguing spectrum of variations in sexual orientation is a matter of ongoing research.

Alan Austin said:
"Straw man argument, Al. Poor logic."

I know what a straw man is and I don't believe I presented one. My logic is as follows:

1. The scientific method upholds falsifiability. Scientific study is supposed to challenge existing ideas no matter the outcome. That Spitzer did that is irrelevant to highlight.

2. The acts of the animal kingdom are judged in a positive, negative and neutral light. But, you need to establish and anchor a moral framework in order to judge that certain animal acts are right or wrong for humans.

3. That animals exhibit acts of homosexuality does not mean they are "gay" in the human sense. I'm sure it would be simple to show that a dog that has an affinity for trying to mate other male dogs will be overcome by instinct when placed in the company of a female on heat. However, if the subject male dog didn't, and he was found to have a genetic disposition that caused it to be uninterested in mating a female, natural selection would dictate that, in the absence of artificial influences, the gene would be quickly bred out in that generation (i.e., no offspring).

The point is that both humans and animals engage in heterosexual or homosexual behaviour (with any number of partners) and it is irrelevant to considering changes to the marriage act.

As far as "non-contagious" goes (in the context of 'indoctrination'), that's a different story. It is right that children are taught to be accepting of all people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, and not poke fun at the kid with two mums, the one with red hair or the one with a lisp. But we are seeing school lessons flooded with homosexual content that goes far beyond "be accepting of people how they are" and our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages.

Simon666 said:
"Science ? Proof? Not very intelligent things for a christian to demand, Jim, when your life is built on the faith that there's a fantasy figure in the sky telling you to spend your time obsessing about homosexual people and their attempts to have the same rights as you. "

I'm wondering, is your assertion about a "fantasy figure in the sky" based on the scientific method, or a faith position? Sounds no more improbable than finding a multi-universe building machine to explain the fine tuning of this reality for life.

Whatever the case, the point is all science proceeds from a faith position of some kind (assumptions and presuppositions). In fact, you have to have faith in the scientific process for it to work at all, and then you have to have faith in the interpretations scientists assign to their observations. Further, when you go outside the realms of observable, operational science (stuff you can do an experiment for), you are completely in "faith" territory. Fortunately the scientific method can be enacted regardless of your theist beliefs, skin colour or preference for Coke over Pepsi.

However, none of this has anything to do with changes to the marriage act, nor the right for people hold an opinion about whether it should or should not be changed.

And I think Jim's grandchildren will grow up just fine ;) I'm sure he appreciates your concern though.

Your ideas on science as faith are all based on the moment of experimentation; but ignoring the slam-dunk that religion receives whenever there's a result - that's a little too convenient, sorry.

Oh I have no fear about Jim's grandchildren growing up fine - if there's one thing that scientific analysis does show us, it's that each succeeding generation is both turning away from superstition and embracing the idea that gay and lesbian people deserve the same rights as other citizens, including marriage.

It's Jim I'm concerned about - he's the Leon M Bazile of his generation :
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In regards to your reply to Alan :

".... our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages."

The sexualisation of children in our society is a heterosexual problem. 12 year old girls on fashion catwalks. Child actors in TV commercials mimicking desire for each other in order to sell products. Yes, it's a concern, but it has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you're saying that there should be different standards for the way that heterosexuality and homosexuality are taught in the classroom, then you're using an important issue to push an agenda. That doesn't help kids

>> "... the point is all science proceeds from a faith position of some kind (assumptions and presuppositions). In fact, you have to have faith in the scientific process for it to work at all, and then you have to have faith in the interpretations scientists assign to their observations." <<
Posted by AI, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:53:42 AM

A faith position is, however, different to having "faith in" something.

Moreover, one need not have faith in scientists individual interpretations, nor no faith in them, as the discussion and conversation around scientific observations is an open and philosophical one for all to see and participate in.