Party "A" and Party "B"

[BigBlue]

Every piece of information in this thread (or anywhere really) lies somewhere on the BS scale 100% BS........0% BS... This is the (self proclaimed) Information Age... and yet most of the information we have is probably over 10% BS and very little other than basic information is 0% BS.... (I - is an example of a fact, in some fashion or another, I exist. I am Intelligent - is an example of at least 99% BS, because most of what we accept as knowledge is in fact BS.)

What is the BS scale? It is the amount of absolute FACT there is in information... almost everything we know is theory - or is based on other theories... They have the "Scientific Method" to 'prove' theories, but almost always it uses other theories as a basis and use other theories to prove them.

Facts, Beliefs & Opinions are not necessarilly BS... don't get me wrong... but some of them have no basis in provable truth... To say something is a fact, is saying a lot (to me)... because you're saying there is irrefutable evidence of it which you can show me if need be.

Is this a fact: "a Magic Deck comprised entirely of 60 Forests cannot win a game"?
Is this a fact: "I am agnostic"?
Is this a fact: "God is dead"?
Is this a fact: "I believe in lies"?

The longer I live, the more I realize that most of what we know is wrong... the penultimate truth is that there is no penultimate truth. Only what we believe to be true - today.

I really thought I knew everything 10 minutes ago, but now I see that I was a fool, just as 10 minutes from now I will see that I am a fool now. That is the circle of lies for us all.

 

[EricBess]

If there is a pair of people to love and take in those children, it does not matter what sex the parents are. *This* is more the cause of society breaking down, the lack of families period, rather than what sex the parents are in said families.

I would argue that both are evidence of a decline in the moral fiber of society and that is the underlying cause of society breaking down.

It shouldn't, if you're educating your children correctly. If you're teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong and the people are going to hell, frankly, I'm more worried about that kind of "Christian" message you're sending in the first place.

I don't recall having said anything to the effect. Teaching that homosexuality being wrong is a given, but the question of Hell is much more involved. Regardless, I am unfamiliar of any scriptural reference of Christ being accepting of sin, but there are plenty of examples of him telling people to repent and sin no more.

 

[Oversoul]

Colorado has an initiative on the balot very similar to the law already passed in Canada regarding hate speach.

I said this in the other thread too, but I guess I can repeat it: I'm apprehensive about mentions of legislation that doesn't yet exist. I've seen some pretty crazy proposals and initiatives. Until something is actually law, I just don't think it "counts."

No, there is still a father an a mother. the fact that a parent has died is sad, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

Well, that doesn't really work. Because the point you were making was that every child has a "God-given" right to be born into a family with a mother and father. Regardless of whether I feel this is special, in cases where the father dies before birth or the mother dies during childbirth, this is just not the case. I also don't see how being born into a family with a mother and father is somehow special if the child loses one or both at a young age. Yes, technically, the "God-given right" of yours was fulfilled in that case, but it seems pretty empty.

Why was my child still-born? We could get into another whole discussion here, but just because bad things happen is hardly disproof of God.

Who said anything about disproving? That wasn't the subject of this thread. You described children as being "sent" by your god. You took issue with same-sex couples receiving children through other means because it isn't "natural" (then I presume you also take the same issue with any adoption--you must if you're going to be consistent). My counterargument to this is that if the natural order is for your god to be sending children to people, and he's deliberately doing things like sending them children with congenital disorders, well, that makes the natural order something many of us don't care much for. We'd find your hypothetical god to be pretty demented and, well, evil.

Interesting how my facts are dismissed, but yours are absolute with no more evidence than I have. Perhaps we live in different realities.

Your "facts" are completely unsubstantiated. As for the fact that homosexuality is natural, I cite known genetic components to homosexuality, the fact that homosexuals respond differently to pheromones, the link between prenatal hormone exposure and homosexuality, and observed homosexuality in other animals besides humans.

Men having sex with men is not natural and never will be. Many serial killers get to the point where they feel compelled to kill. Is that natural also?

I'm going to tentatively say yes, that is also natural (the psychological factors that trigger one becoming a serial killer are probably side effects of living in civilization, which might not be considered natural, but an urge to, in certain situations, kill others is definitely natural). I never said "natural" meant good. I'd be crazy to argue that.

Another one of your facts where I'm just wrong, then? There are nature and nurture arguments and no solid evidence that directly ties it exclusively to one over the other.

I was actually addressing that to Mooseman because it was the second time he'd referred to homosexuality as a behavior. Homosexuality is not a behavior. It's a sexual orientation. Behavior is when one actually does something. Not one's inclinations. Acting on one's homosexuality in some physical way could be "homosexual behavior" but it wouldn't be homosexuality itself. I don't really even see how you could disagree with this if we're both speaking the same language...

Every piece of information in this thread (or anywhere really) lies somewhere on the BS scale 100% BS........0% BS... This is the (self proclaimed) Information Age... and yet most of the information we have is probably over 10% BS and very little other than basic information is 0% BS.... (I - is an example of a fact, in some fashion or another, I exist. I am Intelligent - is an example of at least 99% BS, because most of what we accept as knowledge is in fact BS.)

I don't know how BB's philosophical treatise on BS managed to squeeze its way in here. But at least it's fun...

What is the BS scale? It is the amount of absolute FACT there is in information... almost everything we know is theory - or is based on other theories... They have the "Scientific Method" to 'prove' theories, but almost always it uses other theories as a basis and use other theories to prove them.

The scientific method actually doesn't do proofs. I don't know how many times I've had to say this, but science just doesn't use the word unless mathematics counts, in which case certain things can be proven given acceptance of basic postulates.

The longer I live, the more I realize that most of what we know is wrong... the penultimate truth is that there is no penultimate truth. Only what we believe to be true - today.

Penultimate truth?

I really thought I knew everything 10 minutes ago, but now I see that I was a fool, just as 10 minutes from now I will see that I am a fool now. That is the circle of lies for us all.

Dude, what if we don't exist? What if we just think we exist?

I would argue that both are evidence of a decline in the moral fiber of society and that is the underlying cause of society breaking down.

But you have no evidence that society is breaking down in the first place?

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - to be honest, you are so busy arguing semantics that I'm not even sure where you stand on the issue. Have you ever considered becoming a politician? You continue to tear everyone down for what they believe, but have not offered on ounce of where you stand on the issue. Honestly, I'm not sure why you have bothered contributing at all. I for one, had no misunderstanding of what Mooseman was saying, but I see now that I've misunderstood about half of what you have said.

I'm not making a legal argument here and I don't intend to. If you don't believe that society is on a downhill cycle at the moment, then please step aside, but if it is, then we need to all do what we can to avoid it happening. If I'm right and we decide to do nothing because there weren't enough facts, then let's meet up again in 50-years and chat, okay?

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - to be honest, you are so busy arguing semantics that I'm not even sure where you stand on the issue.

Isn't the whole issue semantics? I mean, you started the thread because of an article in which people altered the forms for their marriage because of semantics. That's the difference between "Party A/B" and "Bride/Groom." That's apparently the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" in California.

Have you ever considered becoming a politician? You continue to tear everyone down for what they believe, but have not offered on ounce of where you stand on the issue.

Have I come across that way. I didn't think I was tearing anyone down for believing something. For making unsubstantiated claims, maybe. But as for where I stand, well, I thought I'd made it clear enough, but if not, let me do so now...

I see nothing wrong with the change in the California state marriage licenses. The couple who have made the news by refusing to use the new forms are shooting themselves in the foot and then trying to blame same-sex marriage for fracturing a metatarsal (metaphorically speaking). They're only doing this because the woman's father is a religious leader trying to use his daughter as a tool in his campaign against same-sex marriage. This should really be a non-issue. There you go, that's my stance.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you have bothered contributing at all. I for one, had no misunderstanding of what Mooseman was saying, but I see now that I've misunderstood about half of what you have said.

I didn't misunderstand what Mooseman said. Who misunderstood what Mooseman said?

I'm not making a legal argument here and I don't intend to. If you don't believe that society is on a downhill cycle at the moment, then please step aside, but if it is, then we need to all do what we can to avoid it happening. If I'm right and we decide to do nothing because there weren't enough facts, then let's meet up again in 50-years and chat, okay?

You bring the soylent green. I'll bring the soma.

 

[Spiderman]

For what it's worth, it seems Oversoul has the same questions as I do in this discussion but asks them much better

I would argue that both are evidence of a decline in the moral fiber of society and that is the underlying cause of society breaking down.

<shrug> I would argue they aren't evidence nor are the underlying cause. Where does that leave us?

I don't recall having said anything to the effect. Teaching that homosexuality being wrong is a given, but the question of Hell is much more involved. Regardless, I am unfamiliar of any scriptural reference of Christ being accepting of sin, but there are plenty of examples of him telling people to repent and sin no more.

It was more implied, since you really didn't give an example of *what* you were teaching. I was just throwing the more extreme example that also is the subject of this discussion.

I still don't recall Christ saying homosexuality is a sin either. I do recall that he says "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Believe in me and you shall have eternal life". He also associated with "known sinners" such as tax men and alleged prostitutes and didn't shy away from their company. This might have not been accepting of their sin per se but rather their company and perhaps had hopes of causing them to repent, but the point is, he didn't *judge* their character or person by their sin and disassociate himself from them because of it.

 

[Mooseman]

Your "facts" are completely unsubstantiated. As for the fact that homosexuality is natural, I cite known genetic components to homosexuality, the fact that homosexuals respond differently to pheromones, the link between prenatal hormone exposure and homosexuality, and observed homosexuality in other animals besides humans.

And a simple search on google will yield many citations that your "facts" are only unproven theories. One example is a set of identical twins, where one is gay and the other isn't, same genetic components and same prenatal hormone exposure.

BTW-How can animals show homosexuality without homosexual behavior? Did they respond to a survey?

 

[EricBess]

For what it's worth, it seems Oversoul has the same questions as I do in this discussion but asks them much better

I disagree. You ask in such a way as to allow discussion. He puts up a wall and insists on his own rules without any more support for his stance.

<shrug> I would argue they aren't evidence nor are the underlying cause. Where does that leave us?

It leaves us agreeing to disagree. However, when I was growing up, kids could play in the streets and people knew most of the people in their neighborhood. People didn't sue McDonalds for not telling them that coffee was hot. People are far more selfish and greedy as a whole as seen by the recent housing trends. I guess we disagree that this is caused by the breakdown of family or perhaps we simply disagree that homosexuality and divorce are evidences of the same, but at least we can discuss it civily.

It was more implied, since you really didn't give an example of *what* you were teaching. I was just throwing the more extreme example that also is the subject of this discussion.

I'm actually a very friendly person. I just feel very strongly about this because I'm concerned for what it means for the future. People didn't belive Christ would come either. Obviously, I'm not a prophet and I don't claim to be, but I've seen my share of subtly and deceit not to recognize it here. And no, Oversoul, I give no evidence nor do I intend to because 1) I don't have anything to reference, and 2) it's really a topic for another thread.

I still don't recall Christ saying homosexuality is a sin either. I do recall that he says "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Believe in me and you shall have eternal life". He also associated with "known sinners" such as tax men and alleged prostitutes and didn't shy away from their company. This might have not been accepting of their sin per se but rather their company and perhaps had hopes of causing them to repent, but the point is, he didn't *judge* their character or person by their sin and disassociate himself from them because of it.

He did say, "the well have no need of doctors" or something to that effect. So yes, he associated with sinners with the hopes of changing their behavior. I don't know if the scriptures tell of any encounter between Christ and homosexuals, but his teachings lived on through his apostles, who made it clear that homosexual behavior (for Oversoul's benefit) was not acceptable. He also cleansed the temple, which indicates that while he didn't condemn the sinner, he was willing to take a stand when he felt it affected him.

I don't hate homosexuals, but whether you feel the same way or not, I see evidence of how the overturn of prop 22 will have a very significant impact.

And the one thing I will say to Oversoul - this was never about semantics, but about a trend. I presented it as evidence that there will be a breakdown in family identity. If you understood, you chose to ignore and turn it into a game.

 

[Mooseman]

It leaves us agreeing to disagree. However, when I was growing up, kids could play in the streets and people knew most of the people in their neighborhood. People didn't sue McDonalds for not telling them that coffee was hot. People are far more selfish and greedy as a whole as seen by the recent housing trends. I guess we disagree that this is caused by the breakdown of family or perhaps we simply disagree that homosexuality and divorce are evidences of the same, but at least we can discuss it civily.

I do believe that you are being influenced by the wealth of information that is now available. The problems you state were problems back in the day.... but now you are able to hear about them on TV, internet, newspapers from far away, etc.... back in the 1940s, 50s and 60s (aka the golden era of the Cleaver family), there were greedy people, pedophiles, serial murderers, promiscuous people, divorce, and a myrid of societal ills, but you didn't hear or read about them unless you lived in the nearby vicinity. Also, there were less people in the world, thus less total number of problems.

I don't believe in the doom and gloom of the disintegration of the "traditional" family unit. It will endure. But, I do think that there needs less yelling about rights and more discussion about responsibility.

 

[Spiderman]

I disagree. You ask in such a way as to allow discussion. He puts up a wall and insists on his own rules without any more support for his stance.

Oh. Well, his view/stance is very much like mine

It leaves us agreeing to disagree. However, when I was growing up, kids could play in the streets and people knew most of the people in their neighborhood. People didn't sue McDonalds for not telling them that coffee was hot. People are far more selfish and greedy as a whole as seen by the recent housing trends. I guess we disagree that this is caused by the breakdown of family or perhaps we simply disagree that homosexuality and divorce are evidences of the same, but at least we can discuss it civily.

Yeah, I definitely disagree about the causes of the above problems/trends you mention. I think it's much more than just family "breakdown", but even the family part is not related to homosexuality.

I'm actually a very friendly person. I just feel very strongly about this because I'm concerned for what it means for the future. People didn't belive Christ would come either. Obviously, I'm not a prophet and I don't claim to be, but I've seen my share of subtly and deceit not to recognize it here. And no, Oversoul, I give no evidence nor do I intend to because 1) I don't have anything to reference, and 2) it's really a topic for another thread.

I don't think you're not friendly There are lots of people who still believe Christ hasn't come. So who's "right"? Obviously those who believe he has come believe in their view and those who don't believe in theirs. But I also believe that even those who profess to believe in Christ has corrupted his message so it suits their own ends or have misinterpreted it, either knowingly or unknowingly.

He did say, "the well have no need of doctors" or something to that effect. So yes, he associated with sinners with the hopes of changing their behavior. I don't know if the scriptures tell of any encounter between Christ and homosexuals, but his teachings lived on through his apostles, who made it clear that homosexual behavior (for Oversoul's benefit) was not acceptable. He also cleansed the temple, which indicates that while he didn't condemn the sinner, he was willing to take a stand when he felt it affected him.

See, here you get into whether the apostles accurately depicted Christ's teachings. It's probably heresy for those who truly believe they did, but since it did not come directly out of Christ's mouth, there is always a chance the apostles pushed their own agenda (especially when Christ wasn't there to contradict or correct them). And yes, I think it's plausible because many atrocities have been done in Christ's name (meaning people can use Christ's name to justify their actions).

 

[BigBlue]

Dude, what if we don't exist?

What is existence?

What if we just think we exist?

Your question answers itself... you can't have a "we" and not exist. We exist in some form or another. Whether it's corporeal beings on a planet in a minor solar system of the Milky Way.... or in some other form where this "reality" is merely a Façade... We exist at some level. Perhaps we are only individual Neurons in some Godlike being's brain who is running a simulation... but even then, we exist. If we did not exist, then there would be no "We" for anyone to speak of. Of course, it could be that only I exist, and you are a figment of my imagination, but even then you exist as a figment... (Unless or until I somehow forget you, that is.)


- And, to answer your question of why I brought this up... it's because this thread is getting more and more about opinions and beliefs than about actual facts... which I postulate are merely facts for the moment... because later we will probably realize we were wrong, that's adaptation and evolution... not of an individual species physical attributes, but of it's society and culture.

They used to think the world was flat, they used to think everything revolved around the Earth, later as we developed new tools to study the universe we realized they were false... who knows what "truths" of today will be false tomorrow? That's my point... The world is in constant flux, and getting bogged down in semantics is perhaps "fun"... but pointless, especially since we'll be judged fools by the future when no matter which way society evolves (to the left or the right), our arguement will seem folly.

For the record, and to get back to the point of this thread...

They should make the fields blank, and for each "marriage", the people can fill in the blanks.

 

[DarthFerret]

I cannot just leave this alone.

Here it is. Define a fact. How much support does it have to have for it to be a fact. Should we discount the Theory of Relativity because it is merely a Theorem and not a law such as the Law of Gravity? To preface all of this, lets look at the scientific method itself.

First, you come up with a Hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis until you get several proofs that it could be valid. Then you develop a Theory based on those tests and the original hypothesis. Where it breaks down for me is the process of Theory to Law. I do not know what requirments must be met for a thoery to become a law. I could stand a little bit of illumination here. (Someone a bit more knowledgeable please help me out)

Ok that is the scientific method which is commonly used around the globe today. Yet there is another method which is also commonly used around the world today. That is theology. It is radically different because it uses less measureable items. Things such as Hope, Faith, Fate, Love, Morality, Peace, Kindness, Understanding, etc.... These things are not measureable because they depend on a persons point of view. A couple (be it male or female) may argue and fight all the time, and many would say they have a failed relationship, however the couple themselves may feel that they have a solid relationship and that thier interactions help solidify this. (I do not reccomend it, but it works for some) Some people believe that if you have unmitigated proof of the existance of God, that would mean that you lack Faith, which is a requirement of the majority of the worlds Major Religions. How do you measure hope? I hope to have an LCD television. Is that different or less powerful than a persons hope to have something to eat tommorrow? (I think it is, but others do not)

The whole point is that to have a productive discussion, all parties should try to argue on the same basis. I just mentioned two of several different ways of comming at an idea or value. There are others (Philosophy comes to mind, and I am sure there are more, but I don't know what they would be).

Personally, I do not think you can apply the scientific method to religion, any more than you can apply religious teachings to science.

 

[Spiderman]

They should make the fields blank, and for each "marriage", the people can fill in the blanks.

Sure. It still offends the people who want to see "bride" and "groom" on there though. But hey, no solution is gonna please 100% of the people

 

[BigBlue]

The Golden Rule is outdated - treat others as you would want to be treated... not everyone wants to be treated the same as I do...

the Platinum Rule is the latest iteration - treat others as they want to be treated...

Allowing a couple to define their own roles is following the platinum rule... sure, it doesn't conform to tradition... but as long as CA is going to allow non-traditional marriages, you might as well make most people comfortable with the paperwork...

You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time... you can only hope to be pleasing the majority.

DF... my stance is extreme, I know... and it is much more a philosophical discussion... Facts opinions and beliefs are all pieces of information - some of them are closer to being true than others... I believe in the 'theory' of evolution... but it's still just a theory. I have faith in it because it makes sense to me moreso than creation... I have always stated though at some point there was creation... I simply do not believe that creation necessarily occured as a result of divine intervention... Gravity was once a theory... no one has disproven it... we accept it as truth... but, maybe we will eventually learn it is not quite as we define it - it could merely be a subset of a larger truth, or be contradicted by something else. Same for Einstein's Theory of Relativity... I'm not saying it is necessarilly wrong to rely on what we call truth's today, but we should always acknowledge the possibility we are wrong, as we've proven our forefathers were on many occaisions in every field of human study.

And yes, I'm a mathematician, not a scientist... for me Proof has more weight than observation or trial and error. Mathematical Proofs are all based on assumptions and earlier proofs... But Math is different than science in that it's completely theoretical and artificial... numbers do not exist outside of math - so we can control Mathematics much more than we can Physics or Astronomy where we have absolutely no control, only careful observation with the best tools 'modern' science has to offer. Mathematics have been used to create models for the "real" world... But these systems are only as good as the assumptions made.

 

[Spiderman]

The Golden Rule is outdated - treat others as you would want to be treated... not everyone wants to be treated the same as I do...

I think those kinds of "treatments" are more in the minority...

 

[Mooseman]

the Platinum Rule is the latest iteration - treat others as they want to be treated...

I find this a lame cop out, a feel good way for society to avoid confrontation.
Just because you want to be treated a certain way, does not mean you should, or will want to tomorrow or that I should be forced to treat you that way. If society changes on the whims of the individual, then it falls apart.

 

[Oversoul]

And a simple search on google will yield many citations that your "facts" are only unproven theories.

Argh! I already said that the scientific method doesn't do proofs. "Unproven theory" is meaningless. Nor is "theory" a tier lower in some hierarchy of certainty than "fact." Theories are systems, models used to explain collections of facts. None of those individual observations can ever be a theory because they aren't systems. They don't have any explanatory or predictive power. They're just facts. A theory would be the thing that explains them.

One example is a set of identical twins, where one is gay and the other isn't, same genetic components and same prenatal hormone exposure.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that actually has happened several times. But identical twins do NOT have the exact same genes. That's a myth. In this case, the genes in question SHOULD be the same (I think so anyway). But that doesn't mean the genes are "turned on" in both cases. We don't really know what factors were at work there.

But at the very least, in a pair of twins it is more likely for both individuals to be homosexual than for one to be homosexual and the other to be heterosexual. That seems like a pretty good clue that something is going on there.

BTW-How can animals show homosexuality without homosexual behavior? Did they respond to a survey?

Yes. Well, I guess responding to a survey is a behavior too...

Maybe they did show homosexual behavior...

I disagree. You ask in such a way as to allow discussion. He puts up a wall and insists on his own rules without any more support for his stance.

What do you even mean? How have I insisted on my own rules? Why would my stance need supporting? Positive claims I'm making about something, sure. But my stance? How have I put up a wall?

It leaves us agreeing to disagree. However, when I was growing up, kids could play in the streets

They still do.

People didn't sue McDonalds for not telling them that coffee was hot.

The coffee was so hot that it crippled her. Literally. She was able to walk before spilling the coffee and not after. It gave her third degree burns and she needed skin grafts. People don't get to be 70 years old by failing to learn how to assess risk in a situation. It's not like she couldn't know that fiddling with the coffee cup lid to get it off so that she could add sugar and cream carried some risk of coffee being spilled on her lap. But it was reasonable for her to assume that in the unlikely event that this did happen, it would be only discomforting and stain her pants, not put her in the hospital.

I'm actually a very friendly person. I just feel very strongly about this because I'm concerned for what it means for the future. People didn't belive Christ would come either. Obviously, I'm not a prophet and I don't claim to be, but I've seen my share of subtly and deceit not to recognize it here. And no, Oversoul, I give no evidence nor do I intend to because 1) I don't have anything to reference, and 2) it's really a topic for another thread.

Here? Not to recognize it here? So who here are you calling a liar, then?

And the one thing I will say to Oversoul - this was never about semantics, but about a trend. I presented it as evidence that there will be a breakdown in family identity. If you understood, you chose to ignore and turn it into a game.

You didn't mention any trend in your original post. The only thing that's even close is "pushing a very dangerous agenda." And I disagree that this has happened. But of course it might have been about a trend TO YOU. I certainly didn't see Gideon Codding or Rachel Bird mention any trends. It sure looks like they're taking a stand over semantics.

I do believe that you are being influenced by the wealth of information that is now available. The problems you state were problems back in the day.... but now you are able to hear about them on TV, internet, newspapers from far away, etc.... back in the 1940s, 50s and 60s (aka the golden era of the Cleaver family), there were greedy people, pedophiles, serial murderers, promiscuous people, divorce, and a myrid of societal ills, but you didn't hear or read about them unless you lived in the nearby vicinity. Also, there were less people in the world, thus less total number of problems.

I completely agree.

I don't believe in the doom and gloom of the disintegration of the "traditional" family unit. It will endure. But, I do think that there needs less yelling about rights and more discussion about responsibility.

Whose responsibility? Surely not everyone has the same responsibility? What would you have us do?

Your question answers itself... you can't have a "we" and not exist. We exist in some form or another. Whether it's corporeal beings on a planet in a minor solar system of the Milky Way.... or in some other form where this "reality" is merely a Façade... We exist at some level. Perhaps we are only individual Neurons in some Godlike being's brain who is running a simulation... but even then, we exist. If we did not exist, then there would be no "We" for anyone to speak of. Of course, it could be that only I exist, and you are a figment of my imagination, but even then you exist as a figment... (Unless or until I somehow forget you, that is.)

Well, I actually was messing around with this part. But while I don't disagree with this argument, it would also lead me to conclude that "existence" is meaningless. If existing possibly only as the figment in the imaginary imagination of a neuron in something's brain counts as existing, then everything exists.

Here it is. Define a fact. How much support does it have to have for it to be a fact.

From the OED: Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

Facts require no support. Acknowledging them or not has no bearing on whether they are facts.

Should we discount the Theory of Relativity because it is merely a Theorem and not a law such as the Law of Gravity? To preface all of this, lets look at the scientific method itself.

You're probably thinking of Newton's law of universal gravitation: F=G([(m1)(m2)]/r^2). But there is also a theory of gravity. A rule of thumb I suggest is that when the adjective "merely" is applied to the noun "theory" in a scientific context, something is wrong. Theories are the most important and interesting part of science. They form our whole understanding of reality. They make things cohesive.

First, you come up with a Hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis until you get several proofs that it could be valid. Then you develop a Theory based on those tests and the original hypothesis. Where it breaks down for me is the process of Theory to Law. I do not know what requirments must be met for a thoery to become a law. I could stand a little bit of illumination here. (Someone a bit more knowledgeable please help me out)

In scientific terminology, laws are not things that "outrank" theories. Nor do theories "graduate" into laws. Laws are brief statements, usually ones that can be expressed mathematically. They're often used in experiments. For example, there's the gas law: PV=nRT. It's not something that used to be the "gas theory" and eventually turned into a law. It's something that has been experimentally verified and is short enough to see use as a tool for calculating things in experiments using gases, so it's generally regarded as axiomatic.

Wikipedia puts it this way: "A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law." By the way, the empirically determined constant in the gas law is "R" and the empirically determined constant in the universal law of gravitation is "G."

The Golden Rule is outdated - treat others as you would want to be treated... not everyone wants to be treated the same as I do...

Yeah, George Bernard Shaw phrased it: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."

And yes, I'm a mathematician, not a scientist... for me Proof has more weight than observation or trial and error. Mathematical Proofs are all based on assumptions and earlier proofs... But Math is different than science in that it's completely theoretical and artificial... numbers do not exist outside of math - so we can control Mathematics much more than we can Physics or Astronomy where we have absolutely no control, only careful observation with the best tools 'modern' science has to offer. Mathematics have been used to create models for the "real" world... But these systems are only as good as the assumptions made.

Quoted for emphasis. I like this.

 

[Mooseman]

Argh! I already said that the scientific method doesn't do proofs. "Unproven theory" is meaningless. Nor is "theory" a tier lower in some hierarchy of certainty than "fact." Theories are systems, models used to explain collections of facts. None of those individual observations can ever be a theory because they aren't systems. They don't have any explanatory or predictive power. They're just facts. A theory would be the thing that explains them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that actually has happened several times. But identical twins do NOT have the exact same genes. That's a myth. In this case, the genes in question SHOULD be the same (I think so anyway). But that doesn't mean the genes are "turned on" in both cases. We don't really know what factors were at work there.

But at the very least, in a pair of twins it is more likely for both individuals to be homosexual than for one to be homosexual and the other to be heterosexual. That seems like a pretty good clue that something is going on there.

Well, I'm done with this..... you seem to say that homosexuality is genetic and a "fact", but then say that "We don't really know what factors were at work there.", relating to homosexuality and genetics.

Don't even bother responding for my benefit..... I am done with this discussion.

 

[Oversoul]

Ugh. It seems like I'm alienating everyone. Well, not for Mooseman's benefit I guess, but for anyone who had a similar confusion...

I didn't say that it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic. I said that it's a fact that it's "natural." That's a vague word, it's understandable if there's some confusion. What's known for genetics is that genetic factors have been identified. This does not mean that it's 100% genetic. As I already mentioned, there are other factors.

When EricBess said that homosexuality was unnatural, perhaps I should have simply cited homosexual behavior in ancient times and among animals. Really, that seems sufficient. If the idea was that homosexuality is the result of some corruption in society, the fact that evidence of homosexuality goes back throughout recorded history would falsify this. If the claim of "unnatural" is something else, then observed homosexual behavior in other species still contradicts it. I hadn't thought about it, but I suppose that one could argue something along the lines that homosexuality is unnatural in animals too, but that would be using some definition of "natural" unlike any I've ever encountered and certainly unlike what society at large uses.

Now as for the other things I said, they aren't wrong. I brought them up because I wanted to provide more support. In retrospect, they seem unnecessary. Observed homosexual behavior in animals alone seems enough to me to refute the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

But it is true that there are strong correlations between certain genetic factors and homosexuality. There emphatically is not a "gay gene." But the evidence shows that genes play a role at least in making certain things more likely. The same goes for prenatal hormone exposure. Also, a large study using PET scans revealed that homosexual men respond to certain chemical scents differently than heterosexual men and in the same way as heterosexual women, while homosexual women respond similarly to heterosexual men.

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - you seem bent on your definitions being absolute. I've conceded that there is evidence that suggests that some individuals may be predisposed to homosexuality, just as others may be predisposed to alchoholism or to becoming serial killers. By the definition that you have chosen to use for "natural", then I supposed that these could be seen as evidence that any and all of these are natural.

However, you have ignored my challenge that no offspring has ever been produced from a homosexual relationship. I would argue that this is strong evidence that homosexuality is not natural. I will acknowledge that this is using a slightly different definition of natural, but a definition that is still completely valid.

But this again shows why I have been reluctant to argue semantics while you seem obsessed with doing so. Words in the English language may have multiple meanings and I think that you have avoided giving our arguments any context but your own.