Birmingham (Alabama) mayor denies gay parade permit

[Peikko 1,575]

GW theory is very different from isolating genes that relate to behaviours.

[eekee 182]

This is similar to the GW debates. Not one of the people opining here are, to my knowledge, geneticists. No one, to my knowledge, in those threads is a climatologist either. Yet, we feel qualified to read studies and make statements as to what they do or do not say.

I dislike these kinds of discussions about where homosexuality comes from to begin with. People (and some animals) are gay, they have been present in society since recorded history, get over it.

That homosexuals exist is not being denied by anyone here.

i know. i just don't think that a discussion about WHY they exist is really all that constructive or useful.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

GW theory is very different from isolating genes that relate to behaviours.

I said the debates on VJ are similar in that people unqualified to interpret scientific literature insist on doing so. I didn't say the subjects themselves were similar.

[Peikko 1,575]

All scientist agree that homosexuality exists and most scientific study 'suggests' that there is a genetic componant in homosexuality. The fruitfly experiment was interesting.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is similar to the GW debates. Not one of the people opining here are, to my knowledge, geneticists. No one, to my knowledge, in those threads is a climatologist either. Yet, we feel qualified to read studies and make statements as to what they do or do not say.

I dislike these kinds of discussions about where homosexuality comes from to begin with. People (and some animals) are gay, they have been present in society since recorded history, get over it.

That homosexuals exist is not being denied by anyone here.

i know. i just don't think that a discussion about WHY they exist is really all that constructive or useful.

I think it is very useful when conducted amongst people of science. Among us, it's silly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is similar to the GW debates. Not one of the people opining here are, to my knowledge, geneticists. No one, to my knowledge, in those threads is a climatologist either. Yet, we feel qualified to read studies and make statements as to what they do or do not say.

I dislike these kinds of discussions about where homosexuality comes from to begin with. People (and some animals) are gay, they have been present in society since recorded history, get over it.

Absolutely - the wherefores and the whyfores about it mean absolutely nothing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

GW theory is very different from isolating genes that relate to behaviours.

I said the debates on VJ are similar in that people unqualified to interpret scientific literature insist on doing so. I didn't say the subjects themselves were similar.

There's also a lot of delusion out there nowadays on scientific subjects (not only GW or genetics, but the denial of Evolution Theory) facilitated by unbridled access to an infinite amount of information via the internet. All of which relies on this idea that there must always be two sides to every argument and that they are all equally valid. When science is attacked with pseudo-science - it causes a lot of confusion; indeed - that seems to be the point.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's also a lot of delusion out there nowadays on scientific subjects (not only GW or genetics, but the denial of Evolution Theory) facilitated by unbridled access to an infinite amount of information via the internet. All of which relies on this idea that there must always be two sides to every argument and that they are all equally valid. When science is attacked with pseudo-science - it causes a lot of confusion; indeed - that seems to be the point.

I agree.

Information is great, but we must all remain cognizant of what we are qualified to speak to and what we are not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

[almaty 19]

Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford won't sign a proclamation for an annual gay pride celebration or allow banners on city property, and said he will not grant the sponsoring group a parade permit.

Langford said he turned down the requests this week from Central Alabama Pride because it is inappropriate for government to endorse a lifestyle. Pride Week is next month and often includes a parade on Southside and other events.

"My policy is don't ask because it's not my business, and don't put me in the position to make it my business," Langford said Friday. "I don't condone it, but I also am not sitting in judgment on anyone."

...

"I don't think I'm intolerant, I just don't condone the lifestyle," he said. "Your personal lifestyle should be nobody's issue but yours. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a personal choice issue."

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/inde....xml&coll=2

fascism alive and well

[Peikko 1,575]

It died during the life of this thread though...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know.

[eekee 182]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

Exactly.

[Peikko 1,575]

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know

How so when the possible causes are limited to known possibilite ? Are you suggesting their might be some other theory of what makes humans homosexual which is as yet undetermined? A virus?

Edited May 28, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus