It Aint’ No Gay Disease

Update: Bumped, Will and I have been going at it for a few days. Read the comments…

The Study:

In the UCSF study, researchers found that men in a clinic for HIV-positive patients who had a history of having sex with men were 13 times more likely than other HIV-positive patients to get a particular form of community-associated staph infection called MRSA USA300. But this does not mean that there is a new “gay” form of MRSA, the study’s authors say. USA300 has been around since 2002 and has appeared in at least 38 American states among heterosexual and homosexual patients. What is new is the rapid rate the bacteria spread among this particular population of gay men, studied between 2004-2006. Why these men are more vulnerable than the heterosexuals studied is still a question. Researchers stopped short of labeling USA300 a sexually transmitted disease, but they did note that the infections in the men they studied were commonly found on parts of the body where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity.

The Rebuttal:

Gay men’s health advocates point out that MRSA can be spread through any kind of skin-to-skin contact, either sexual or nonsexual, without regard for sexual orientation. And they have been very critical of the media for its focus on the sexual aspects of the story. “It’s very unfortunate,” says GMHC’s Stackhouse. “It’s very stigmatizing, it’s alarmist, it’s homophobic and it’s just unnecessary.”

There you have it. Just because the disease can be transmitted by other forms of skin-to-skin contact, the fact that it is 13 times more likely to occur in those who engaged in homosexual relations than in those who didn’t means it’s homophobic to consider homosexual behaviour an increased risk for MRSA.

Read it all on Newsweek.

28 thoughts on “It Aint’ No Gay Disease”

  1. This is a perfect example of manipulating facts to try to tell a different story. Certain type of staph are spread more often and with more facility through an*l s*x. Homosexuals, obviously, are more likely to engage in an*l s*x. But this is no different than saying someone who is a butcher for a living is more likely to cut their finger. Does that mean the solution is to hate and discriminate against butchers until no one ever cuts their finger again? No, it simply means continuing to educate people about safe sex, heterosexual and homosexual, is needed. If you use this as a basis for your own ALREADY INGRAINED prejudices, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are going to just read whatever you want into a given scientific study, it ceases to be scientific. Your own ideology is taking precedent. Bottom line: believe what you want, but it is simply a belief, it is faith. Leave science out of it, you just look, for lack of a better term, foolish.
    (edited as terms are causing the site to be blocked at certain readers firewalls)

  2. Using inflammatory language where the clinical facts are just as damning serves no purpose besides further polarization of this already polarized issue (why medical issues such as this can even begin to be polarizing is beyond my comprehension) and also alienates those who may still be willing to accept the obvious truth, which do not seen to be willing to do.

    Edit Heh, I should’ve read this better. I don’t agree with most of what you say Will. American Texan alerted me to my mistake here.

  3. Nothing like a nice rebuttal to a study with facts.
    🙂

    It’s a serious disease…EVERYONE should take it as such.
    God has it right. Anytime we deviate from that, beware, I don’t care who you are or what you are. If it’s off the path of the Bible, I feel there will be consequences, and lo and behold, there are.

  4. “If you are going to just read whatever you want into a given scientific study, it ceases to be scientific. Your own ideology is taking precedent. Bottom line: believe what you want, but it is simply a belief, it is faith. Leave science out of it, you just look, for lack of a better term, foolish.”

    Will, I think one would look foolish if they did leave science out of it. Science has shown us many things which are true. For instance, I know to take the prescribed amount of Hydrocodone because I would seriously injure myself by taking more. I know if I jump off of a 30 story building, I’m going to be hurt, and most likely dead (barring some miracle happening) when I hit the ground. The scientific discovery of gravity proved the fact that I will fall a long time ago. I would look awfully foolish if I jumped off a 30 story building believing I would be completely unharmed when I landed.
    In the same way, I’d be foolish to ignore a study that shows homosexual men are 13x more likely to get this certain kind of staph disease.

  5. again, you’re taking a fact, which has NO ideology behind it, and adding your own bias. The study says that this staph disease is passed more easily during a**l s*x, than vag****l intercourse. Gay men have more a**l s*x, so they are more likely to get the disease. THAT IS ALL THE STUDY SAYS. You jump from that to “homosexuality is a sin.” That is not science, that is religious dogma, and you have to be able to make the distinction.

    This is like saying, “a police officer is more likely to be shot at work than a waitress…so obviously the policemen are doing something wrong!”

    If you have ideological objections to homosexuality, that’s your right. But when you try to twist science around to justify your own predisposition, you end up with these straw man arguments, and you sound a lot like the guy arguing that people rode around on dinosaurs 5000 years ago because he can’t admit the overwhelming SCIENTIFIC evidence for evolution.

    edited to allow our readers behind filtering firewalls to access the comments

  6. Will, where am I jumping to making a value judgment in that article?

    I ask the completely relevant an scientifically and medically pertinent question whether it is right to consider it offensive that someone dares to ask whether we ought to consider homosexual men more likely to carry the disease and craft our response accordingly.

    We don’t ask waitresses to wear bullet-proof vests.

  7. Full Disclosure: I do believe that purposefully entertaining thoughts of and engaging in homosexual behavior is immoral.

    But please tell me: where in this article is that at all pertinent to either the arguments of the article or my brief commentary?

  8. Will, I find you a contradiction. In one comment you talk about science being foolish. In another comment you talk about a person being foolish for not believing the scientific evidence pointing to when dinosaurs lived.
    I simply defended the scientific evidence of the study in my last comment. Nowhere did I make a comment against homosexuals. I didn’t express my opinion.
    You seem rather defensive in your comments and on more topics than just homosexuality. Tell me, have you just read what science books say about evolution or have you done any research into it yourself?
    (If you wish to know, yes, I do believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that facts in science books have been presented in a way that favors evolution.)
    However, this is the first time I have expressed my opinion against them and did not originally argue from the standpoint of one who believes this way.

  9. when did I say science was foolish? and how on earth can you refer to the idea that dinosaurs lived with people as “scientific evidence”?

    I have read many books about evolution, as well as other books and articles proving the age not just of earth, but of mankind, mapping the human genome, etc. I have given up on trying to convince any creationist of the obvious existence of evolution, because their blinders are too strong. It’s ingrained from a childhood full of having this alternate reality beaten into them (not literally, of course), no different than the mosques that teach kids no one ever landed on the moon because the moon is God’s light, not just a lump of rock.

    I think it is interesting that none of you see a contradiction between saying, “yes, here are some deeply held beliefs I have about the morality of evolution and homosexuality…oh but that has nothing to do with my scientific problems with etc. etc.” Of course it does! You can’t afford to be this naive. The fact is, there are almost ZERO scientists who oppose evolution on a purely scientific basis. EVERY SINGLE “SCIENTIST” that is trotted out in support of some pseudo-scientific defense of creationism, does so for ideological and religious reasons. So speaking from a SCIENTIFIC basis, that shows bias, and is illegitimate.

    If someone says, “I know what science shows, but I disagree. I believe in the infallible word of God in the Bible, and it says Adam and Eve, and I believe it.” Well then, I respect that. But it is NOT compatible with science, which shows us that the Earth is MUCH older, and was NOT created in 7 days, and that we DID evolve from lesser species. The problem is, many people want to have their cake and eat it too. You want to be able to have your belief in the Bible, but still believe in science. Well, you can do that, but you have to accept the idea that maybe not everything in the Bible is literally true.

    And in fact, you already do that, don’t you? You don’t stone someone for working on the sabbath. You don’t condone selling your children into slavery. You don’t bleed your meat over a rock a certain way before eating it. You recognize that those are archaic rules, and not applicable today, correct?

    So why not similarly accept that genesis is just a parable, and homosexuals can be moral people not worthy of your vitrol and fake science?

  10. So why not similarly accept that genesis is just a parable, and homosexuals can be moral people not worthy of your vitrol and fake science?

    Bingo!! Child molesters and murderers are moral people too. Heck, rapists can even be moral. You go Will, your points are awesome!!

    (Please read above statement in a sarcastic tone)

  11. If you think a gay person, who may treat everyone with love and respect, and who might work tirelessly to make this world a better place, and who might be just like you except for the gender of who they love…if you think that person is equal to a murder and child molester, then I feel very sorry for you.

    If you’re so filled with rage and anger towards people simply because they don’t love the way you do…how does that keep with Christ’s word?

    I’m sure Fred Phelps is looking for more followers, you should sign right up.

  12. also Sunflower…you ignored my point about ignoring some scripture, and latching onto other parts.

    if you take a section from Leviticus about homosexuality, and use it to justify this anger and hatred toward homosexuals, then why don’t you similarly follow other sections of Leviticus to the letter?

    I think because people are afraid and untrusting of what is different from them, they take what they want to justify their fear and hatred.

    the same justification in your heart for hating gay people is the same justification in the heart of a racist for hating someone of color. “he’s different, he must be wrong somehow”.

    we passed legislation for the civil rights of all minorities, even though there were many bigoted people opposing it. we will pass legislation for the equal rights of people of all sexual preferences, even though bigots like you will oppose it. you can oppose it as long as you can, but in America, freedom and equality will always triumph over ignorance and fear.

  13. Who said anything about hatred? Just because we have moral qualms against the act of homosexuality and wish that people wouldn’t engage in it, it does not follow that we hate those who participate in that act.

  14. matthew, perhaps not you, but Sunflower Desert equated homosexuals with murderers and child molesters. that doesn’t sound very loving, wouldn’t you say?

  15. I do not support expanding civil rights legislation to include sexual preference, therefore, according to you I’m bigoted and hateful towards those of different sexual persuasion than myself.

    When you mention faith and belief being used to go against science, you assume that faith is applied to mean “I have no evidence, but I feel a certain way, therefore I will simply have faith and believe that my way is correct despite evidence to the contrary”.

    This is false.

    Faith and belief are always based on evidence. Perhaps in our culture and do to common usage, they have lost some of their surety, but in their true meaning they must based on concrete evidence.

    A simple analogy to illustrate the way faith and belief must be applied:
    I have faith a chair will support my weight safely.
    I show that I believe that statement when I actually sit on the chair and it does support me.

    Faith is substance or assuredness that something is some way based on evidence of it being so.
    Belief is taking action based upon that faith.

    If I have faith and believe in something that is demonstrably false or obviously ludicrous, you would be correct in saying that I do not have faith, but suffer from delusion and possibly insanity. My thoughts and actions both would be pointless and purposeless.

    The issue here is that you think my and some of the other commentors ideas are mere conjecture at best and abject lies at worst, with the continuum passing through stupidity and imbecility.

    You would neither accept our evidence nor our argument because it would go against what you are convinced of, even as you claim we are the result of some antiquated belief system which should have been relegated to the ash heap of history, but which guided our parents in their brainwashing and restrictive discipline.

    I assure you that just because my parents believe in a similar way to me on certain aspects of life, it does not necessarily follow that I must have been brainwashed by them.

    We are more capable of brainwashing ourselves than being brainwashed by others. We must give our consent to allow another to brainwash us While when we seize upon some thought for our life, it is usually because it appeals to us in some way, either coercively or cajolingly.

    So, you are just as likely to be “brainwashed” as any of us.

    Please consider carefully each and every thought and idea, because words mean things and ideas have consequences.

  16. Hebrews 11:1 says “faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” you may have faith the chair will hold you, and that convinces you to sit in it. but once you have sat down, you no longer have “faith” that the chair will hold you, you have proof. it is a fact. as much as you may you that analogy to describe your religious faith, it is inherently flawed. the whole essence of the mystery of faith is that there IS NO proof. you must take it on faith. it is the evidence of things unseen, not the proof of things tested.

    this is why I have faith in God, I do not have “faith” in evolution. I have scientific evidence, genetic evidence, logical evidence, fossils, bones, geological evidence. it is abundant. if you choose to ignore this overwhelming evidence, then you are ignoring science on faith’s terms, not on science’s terms.

    and if you refuse basic constitutional freedoms to people of different sexual preferences, how can that be any different than those who wished to deny rights to minorities? to women?

    bigotry and hatred are loaded words, and harsh words. but no more harsh than denying another human, another AMERICAN, basic human rights.

    the Bible, right after it tells me a man should not lie with another man, also tells me I can sell my daughter into slavery…why latch onto one passage as ultimate truth, and dismiss the other as archaic and implausible?

  17. Excellent question Will, and one we must each ask ourselves given the evidence we’re presented with: what standard do you use to read the Bible? Accept it all as incontrovertible, inerrant, accurate words of God, or as something to cherry pick and choose what you think is accurate or not.

    Further, there is no constitutional, fundamental, or AMERICAN, right to “marry”.

    The constitution protects each individual from governmental intrusion into the individuals rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and various other specific rights. The constitution does not grant any right, because no government has authority to grant a right, and to the extent it attempts to, it is acting outside it’s prerogative. Government only has the ability to respect rights conferred by our status as humans by our Creator (or, if you disbelieve that, the order of the universe’ demands).

    There is no human right to marry whom we please. Marriage is a bedrock institution, which as you accept the Bible, you will recognize it was defined by God and has been accepted by each and every society whether or not they accept the God who defined it.

    Marriage is defined by God as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and stability. Studies show again and again that children grow up better adjusted when they have one mother and one father, together, loving each other and them.

    I do not, in any way, wish to deny you, or anyone else, any rights granted by your status as a human, an American, or a child of God. But rights are neither defined, nor given by myself.

    I will not, though, sit idly by while rights are created where none existed, or while bedrock institutions or society are defamed, cheapened, and redefined by governments acting outside their purview, to make them into something they are not.

    You may be interested in reading more of my take on how Romans 1 informs my views on homosexuality in culture and the Christians responsibility, it may surprise you, not for any great new “truth” I’ve unearthed, but by it’s moderation relative to many people who claim the name “Christian” such as Mr. Phelps, who you equated some of us with earlier, or even by normal people who don’t hate the homosexuals but still have a misguided opinion on how to deal with the issue and those involved in it. I will be writing a article on this sometime this week, hopefully. I welcome and look forward to your feedback.

    But moving on to evolution. I know this is seriously off topic, but you’ve raised topics which must be dealt with.

    Currently, many scientists ascribing to the evolutionary hypothesis agree the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, to say nothing of the universe itself or (as in some, more odd, postulations)any of the infinite number of parallel universes hypothetically existing alongside our own.

    Their reasons are many, but basically all boil down to needing enough time for the likelihood of the current breadth of life to have developed through evolutionary channels to increase to reasonable levels.

    Now, if the earth were 4.5 Billion years old, we’d expect certain things to indicate it to be that old. Our planet is not a static lump, but a thriving, moving, changing sphere.

    Places we could look, or natural clocks, which would indicate to general observation, the age of the earth, are the shape of mountains, the processes of creating fossils and oil, the actual time involved in creating such massive geological features such as the Grand Canyon, the depth of dust on the moon, the principle of irreducible complexity, etc.

    When looking at mountains such as the Rockies and the Sierras, the Himalayas, and the Andes, we see sharp edges and crags. Lots of exposed rock. And massively corrosive and erosive weather and elements. If they were even millions of years old, thrust up by geological forces, millenia after the earth formed, we would expect them to be smoothed, rounded. The exposed material would be decayed and ground rock, dirt. Not towering spires of granite.

    When we look at the processes of creating fossils and oil, we’ve found that under extreme pressure and temperatures, the processes many scientists expected would take millions of years take only relatively short periods of time.

    Stalactites and stalagmites in caves were thought to take millions or at least thousands of years to create. But in the basement of the empire state building, 70 years after it’s built, stalactites pose a maintenance problem as their weight and size threaten to damage systems and structures.

    NASA expected several feet of dust on the moon when man first landed there due to the known speed of accumulation and the assumed age of the moon. Hence the large disks on the feet of the lunar module. In fact, this is one reason I find claims that we didn’t actually land on the moon, that we staged it on a sound stage, to be completely false. There was barely an inch of stellar dust found on the moon.

    Further, beyond the physical evidence, is the mindset which went into the search for an alternative to the accepted story of creation back when Darwin and his philosophical predecessors began seriously considering evolution. Instead of observing the facts and following them where they would lead. Darwin and his confederates stated publicly they would not accept any explanation for nature which relied on anything supernatural.

    Now you’ll say, well if it isn’t measurable it isn’t provable, and therefore, all explanations involving unmeasurable inputs, such as the supernatural, ought to be rejected out of hand.

    But the primary requirement of the scientific method is that we ought to allow the evidence to lead where it may, and excluding any possible (not plausible or probable, possible) reason is to deny the balance and strength of the scientific method and throw into suspicion any findings attributed to it.

    The final item I’ll mention here is irreducible complexity. Basically, this principle is an explanation of systems of interdependent and unique parts which are non-functional if any of the individual parts are missing. Take, for instance, the flagellum motor of a bacteria. The flagellum motor is an actual motor which runs on electrical impulses, spinning a flagellum and moving the bacteria. Each individual part of the motor is unique, not being found in any other known system. There is no way possible the individual parts could have come to be through evolution. Each part is useless and therefore by the process of evolution they would be destroyed and never “find” each other and eventually form this very necessary locomotion for bacteria.

    On a macro scale, the life of the Fluke is one of absolutely required interdependence on multiple independent organisms. Each independent organism is required in turn to bring the Fluke to maturity and procreation. Each individual organism in turn is required, not optional. There is no way the Fluke could have found each successive organism by random chance and evolve until it fills it’s current, convoluted, life cycle.

    It’s not a matter of the probability a bunch of monkeys typing away will eventually come up with the works of Shakespeare. Because if you believe evolution, you can’t start with monkeys and typewriters.

    Your definition of faith and belief and science and their compartmentalization apart from each other and their influence on your life are incorrect, Will.

  18. “Their reasons are many, but basically all boil down to needing enough time for the likelihood of the current breadth of life to have developed through evolutionary channels to increase to reasonable levels.”

    no, that is a straw man argument. you even use the word “reason”, as though they had an agenda. all of the pieces of evidence you list are straw man arguments. they are more sophisticated, but they are all iterations of the “evolution says the eye just evolved. but look at it! look how perfect it is! it must have been designed!”

    I hate to be so rude, but you’re just regurgitating these common and completely fallacious “intelligent design” arguments against evolution. what of human genetic mapping? we can prove absolutely and without a doubt that humans have been around in their present form, longer than Biblical scholars believe the entire EARTH was around…read “Mapping Human History” by Steve Olson. it’s a clear and fascinating example of how mapping the human genome can tell up more about our collective history.

    like it or not, although there are fringe scientific groups (all under the cloak of conservative christianity) who attempt to justify a young Earth theory, they are so far in the minority as to be unrecognizable to mainstream science. the VAST majority of people who disbelieve evolution have NO scientific background, and NO true scientific understanding. they latch onto the completely false claims of these scientists in order to justify their beliefs, while still believing they have not turned their backs on science. I’m sorry to see someone as intelligent as you buy into that as well.

    what of neanderthal skeletons? what of DNA mapping showing how similar we are to simians? (that was a fun alliteration). evolution is not understood 100%, but almost nothing is. you find a small hole, and stick in an argument about some tiny thing that can’t be explained, and use to to discredit the entire theory. this is similar to saying that skydiving without a parachute isn’t dangerous because some guy survived it one time.

    Wikipedia puts it very succinctly: “[…]creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events. The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court determined the creation science taught in Louisiana public schools was not a legitimate scientific theory, and ruled its teaching unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard because its true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.”

    but what does the Supreme Court know, right? you’ve got stalactites in the basement, and I have EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. what hubris to claim that someone could know more than them because of reading a few creation science websites. your ideology comes first, and science second. and you fit it in where you can, in little cracks and crevices because you can’t simply admit the truth: you don’t want to believe in evolution because you don’t want to agree with the people who believe in it.

    and not for nothing, but the right to marry whomever you choose IS a right in the constitution. it falls under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it may not be specifically enumerated, but neither is the right to federally enforce church doctrine. basically, the constitution doesn’t say who you can and can’t marry, therefore you can marry whomever you please. if the federal government intervenes on religious grounds, that is a violation of the separation of church and state.

    still waiting to hear why I can’t sell my daughter into slavery. it says so in Leviticus, chapter 25. that’s only 5 chapters after it says that any man who lies with another man should be put to death.

    talk about cherrypicking. not only are you (I hope) not condoning slavery, I doubt you really think all homosexuals should be killed. so you’re not even cherrypicking…you’re just sucking on the pit. people are afraid of those that are different from them. they find any reason to treat them as less then they are, in order to keep from confronting a dangerous but transforming thought: we are all equal.

  19. There is no point in discussion, debate, or argument, if no one is willing to concede anything.

    If we were speaking face to face, we’d need to buy carbon credits to offset all the hot air.

    I’ve enjoyed our discussion, but I’m not going to reply further because we each know the other will not concede either the validity of the others argument or the possibility of untruth in their own.

  20. However you want to spin it, this is a perfect microcosm of our differences.

    if someone posed challenging questions to me that I couldn’t easily answer, I would contemplate them, and look into them further. then continue the discussion.

    when faced with similarly difficult questions, you choose to end the discussion, for fear you might enter into territory where your standard answers fall short of sufficiency.

    “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” – Sir Isaac Newton

  21. Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. ~GK Chesterton

    No, you’re wrong Will. Very wrong.

    I have spoken of specific, empirical facts to support my scientific knowledge and experience, my religious faith, my personal ethos, and my morals and beliefs.

    You have said things such as “you’re just regurgitating these common and completely fallacious “intelligent design” arguments against evolution”, and “we can prove absolutely and without a doubt that humans have been around in their present form, longer than Biblical scholars believe the entire EARTH was around…read “Mapping Human History” by Steve Olson”, and “I have EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD” as though this is not a serious discussion of the merits of very disparate and absolutely contradictory world views.

    You have put up the straw men by claiming ALL research contradictory to evolution occurs under the guise of nefarious “cloak of conservative Christianity”.

    Despite your claims to the contrary, I have researched evolution, I do not shun argument or contrary evidence.

    There has not been a credible contrary argument to Behe’s Irreducible Complexity arguments. If there is that you have found, explain it here and do not shunt this audience to a book or a paper unless you can first explain it’s argument as I have here.

    What of the Neanderthals? Oh, you mean the pigs tooth found filed down, the kneecap which is a human with severe rheumatoid arthritis but otherwise completely normal and upright in posture.

    Or the hammer with the head of brass, an alloy found in stratum far below that which evolutionists agree had metallurgy to that level.

    Or Lucy, the skeleton of what evolutionists considered to be a proto-human but which turns out to be a completely normal, if slight of stature human which evolutionary scientists have stated they’d destroy if they had possession of it just as they would the hammer.

    Or the normal and modern human footprints in the stone in the bed of the Biloxi river in Texas juxtaposed with dinosaur footprints, running in the same direction at the same time.

    There is no point in any world view if all parts of life do not come together and agree: science, God, culture, etc.

    That is the whole point of a world view: the whole world is made sense of by it and all truthful evidence freely agrees with it.

    Romans 1:18-22:
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

  22. You sir, have gone off the deep end. PIg’s teeth and hammers? Your somewhat non-sensical comments on “Lucy” are a good place to start. Every credible scientist believes Lucy to have exists more than 3 million years ago. Whatever scientists you claim want to destroy it, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Even if you could prove that there were 10 “scientists” out there claiming that, and I have tens of thousands, how is your argument “empirical and scientific”? You’re claiming scientists wnt to destroy Lucy? that’s she’s just a short human? WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM? Because every major scientific organization in the world would not agree with that. So how am I giving you straw man arguments, when I am merely quoting an overwhelming scientific majority? It is you who is quoting a vocal minority, and although you might not want to admit it, that minority is wholly under the thumb of conservative christianity. How can you claim otherwise? Give me a link to a non-religiously affiliated organization, that believes the Earth is 6000 years old. One link. I’ll bet you can’t do it. And even if you find one that LOOKS like it’s actually scientific and objective, I’m sure I’ll be able to link it to a religious organization.

    One day we will look back on people with your ability for self-delusion the way we look at those who refused to believe the Earth was round.

    Again, your faith is yours, and you have that right. If you say the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, then fine. But that is NOT scientific. The science you are taking your talking points from is NOT accepted science. They do NOT consist of proven hypotheses, only pseudo-scientific theories who’s only goal is to poke tiny, and usually fictional, holes in accepted arguments, in order to convince people like you who are smart enough to realize that there should be a scientific explanation for your beliefs as well as a spiritual one, but not smart enough to break from the ranks of your religious peers and think for yourself.

    If you are unable to accept logical, scientific proof, because it goes against your religious beliefs, than you are choosing religion over science. Again, that is your right. But don’t pervert and distort science so it ceases to be in any way rational. Then you are pissing on my church, the church of logic and reason.

    If you want to keep discussing this, we have to set some parameters. I would argue that first and foremost, whenever you make these outrageous claims (evolutionary scientists want to smash Lucy’s skull), you have to link to where you got it from. and if I claim that evolutionary scientists believe Lucy to be a 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis, I have to link to my sites (I have about 20 credible scientific organizations).

    if I were you, though, I wouldn’t agree to that. You will be linking to http://www.creationscience.god and I will be linking to the international council for science. who do you think has more credibility? Not to mention that 99.9% of scientists support my argument. How can you argue that you are thinking rationally and scientifically on this?

    I want REAL answers, not avoidance, and defensive jabbing.

    you STILL haven’t answered my questions about Leviticus from like 3 posts ago. I assume it’s for the same reason as before: you don’t want to get into territory that would force you to reexamine your belief structure.

    That’s a pity.

  23. The comparison of Leviticus 20 and 25 neither a fear to me nor a challenge but rather an affirmation of the wisdom of God and his omniscience.

    Leviticus 20 contains a list of moral regulations primarily dealing with sexual relations not acceptable in God’s eyes. There is no comparison unless you believe that it is normal and natural and ought to be a protected freedom for people to have sexual relations with and marry their own biological parents and animals.

    If that’s your cup of tea, why are you calling me insane? There’s psychologists out there who’d love to take a long look at you.

    Leviticus 25 contains economic laws which are unheard of in that era in the surrounding cultures both for their liberality and their mercy to the poor, underprivileged, and enslaved.

    There were cases when, to pay a debt, you were indentured or contracted and it was required that you were treated not as a slave but merely as a poor member of society.

    True, the Israelites were allowed to enslave and treat as slaves the other nations. This was an acceptable practice in the time and at times God did require the wiping out of entire nations with the purpose of preserving the integrity of His teachings and His people.

    But you will also find that while moral prohibitions and commandments against sexual sins were repeated in the New Testament, slave owners were encouraged to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ, a position very different from that of “normal” slaves of those times.

    And in the modern era, it is cultures which have been Christianized which have led the way in the fight against slavery. And it is mostly among the unreached people groups that slavery still thrives.

    I was not ignoring this argument, I merely assumed that since the difference between the two topics was so obvious on it’s face that it must have been a specious argument.

  24. @ Jay

    I’m a little busy with discussions here to get into discussions elsewhere, but thanks anyway. Suffice to say, I don’t believe in “curing” homosexuals through faith, any more than I believe in curing schizophrenia through therapy. I believe homosexuality, BIOLOGICALLY and GENETICALLY, is a mistake, an error in nature. But I don’t believe that is morally an error. Errors in genetics are what cause our brains to grow, rabbits fur to turn white in snowy climates, butterflies to mimic eyes on their wings. That is where we differ.

    Love is not a word that should be used when we’re arguing science. It’s like dancing about architecture.

    @ Matthew

    I have to bid you adieu, I’m sorry. Your mind is made up. I gave you crap for giving up on an argument when it became to challenging, but giving up on it when it becomes a waste of time is a wholly different story. Your reasoning for Leviticus has convinced me that you’re pretty much decided, in that you will take what little pieces of a rational argument you can find, just enough to justify your general outlook, and then back away from the table, as though you’ve proven something. At that point, what can I do? It’s like someone saying they can fly, and I say they can’t. And they look at my slyly, and say, “Oh yeah? Well I saw the top of the Eiffel Tower yesterday when I flew up there…what do you think about that?” Not much to say, is there?

    The only thing I want to say at last, is that you seem to be an intelligent person. I can only imagine that sometimes you must struggle against accepting the common rational for supporting some of these positions you take. And I’m aware that your mode of thinking is not too far in the minority in America, I know there are many who share your basic viewpoints. When I rail against this tiny minority of people espousing your rational, it is not because the conclusions you hold true, but rather the means by which you derive them. The difference between the average creationist, for example, and you, is most of them are not as intelligent as you, and simply eat what is fed to them. You should not be barking at the heels of the Christian thinkers who promote these accepted reasoning for these fallacious scientific viewpoints, you ARE A CHRISTIAN THINKER. Only by intelligent people such as yourself questioning not only the motivation, but also the means by which faith can be reconciled with reason, can we ever hope to have a better understanding of both.

    I wish you the best of luck, and I applaud that you’ve spent so much time engaging someone with such converse opinions on your blog. Even if seems to have done no good (or no harm, you might say), it’s more than most people with blogs like yours would have granted.

  25. Thank you for your engaging and stimulation conversation Will. It has been (mostly) a pleasure, and when it wasn’t it was stretching a growing for me at least. It’s good to exercise the muscles of the mind.

    I, in turn, challenge you to realize that most people CAN be fooled most of the time, because they want to.

    Popularity is no gauge of accuracy or truth.

Leave a Reply