Round #2 of email exchange with conservative acquaintance [View All]

[TXlib]

Round #1

Again, italics are his comments.

---

>I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. As I said before, I realise you are not going to bend on your position, and neither am I.

>It's unfortunate that you won't look at reason as an argument for this type of thing.

I won't consider emotional arguments, anecdotal evidence, and moral judgements as valid arguments.

>If you look at the history
>surrounding the AMA's decision, you will recognize that they were under
>tremendous pressure from political groups to change their views on
>homosexuality, and there was quite a hubbub about this when it came down. We
>are not all "homophobes", either, which is essentially what you are
>suggesting. The homosexual lifestyle is deviant in that it is not a part of
>the natural structure! Even you, and atheist & scientist, should recognize
>this!

Homosexuality is in the minority, granted, but that alone doesn't make it unnatural. How do you define "unnatural"? Homosexual behaviour is observed in many species other than man, and not only among primates, either.

>If homosexuality were natural, there would be far more than 3% in the
>world.

There are many natural traits that are rare. Lefthandedness, albinoism, red hair, etc. If I did a google search, I could probably come up with hundreds of benign natural traits that are expressed in less than 3% of the population.

>Also, based on the idea that the greatest of species would survive
>while the meekest would die away, these people that live by this lifestyle
>would never have survived!

I am thinking, perhaps, that by "natural" you actually mean "genetic". Even if homosexuals never reproduced, they would still continue to exist; the basis of homosexuality does not seem to be genetic. However, lack of genetic basis does not make something unnatural; would you consider religious faith, then, unnatural?

>Again, you base much of this information on what you know of your associates
>and friends. There is no arguing with you or your opinion, and this
>disappoints me, since you attack not the studies that I refer to, but the
>people behind these studies, of whom you don't know, nor have you read any
>of the studies.

I've read enough of the studies to know that they are almost all one-sided pieces of junk science funded entirely by conservative groups who are not seeking the truth, but trying to push an agenda. I only need to look at who has produced/funded the study to determine if it is worth my time to read. Just the same, I would regard with equal suspicion a study produced/funded by the left on a highly contentious issue.

Show me a study that is produced and funded equally by conservatives and liberals, and refereed by educated, repected professionals who sit on both sides of the political fence, and I'll take what it has to say seriously.

>Having studied physics and claiming to enjoy the belief in
>evolution, et al., I must say that you sure don't go into really looking at
>the information right in front of you!

On the contrary! Having studied physics, I've learned what constitutes fair, honest, unbiased research, and how to sniff out junk science.

>I like to debate with you about this
>stuff, but it is frustrating... again, you are wrong with the way you defend
>this argument, but I can't convince you of this and I must learn to accept
>what I'm beginning to see as a willing ignorance.

Likewise, on my side.