While California may be trailing other states in recognizing same-sex marriage, the state is poised to become the first state that would require public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.
SB 48, dubbed the “FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Education Act,” authored by Senator Mark Leno, would “amend the Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.”
It passed both houses of the legislature on Tuesday, awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation back in 2006, but the Democratic Governor has not indicated what he would do, either way.
“Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history,” said Senator Leno (D-San Francisco). “Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can’t simultaneously tell youth that it’s OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren’t even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement.”
Research indicates that bullying rates are double in schools where students do not learn about the contributions of LGBT Americans. Students in schools with inclusive education also report that all youth – straight, gay, and those perceived to be gay – are treated more fairly by their teachers and peers.
“As a gay young man, I struggled with accepting my identity for years. In school, I never learned that people like me had achieved great things like leading a civil rights movement. Instead, I had only learned stereotypes,” said Isaiah Baiseri, a senior at Glendora High School, who testified at a Senate committee hearing in support of SB 48. “I’m thankful the Senate passed SB 48 so that someday other students like me can learn our history.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
“Given the number of young people who tragically took their own lives after being bullied for being LGBT – or perceived as being LGBT, it is imperative that we do more to ensure that all children feel fully welcomed, and this legislation is an important step toward that goal,” said Geoff Kors, Equality California Executive Director. “LGBT people should not be pushed into the closet when it comes to what students learn about history. Educating youth about the contributions of LGBT Californians and our state’s rich diversity will help foster true acceptance of LGBT students and will ultimately create a safe school environment for all students.”
“LGBT youth are denied a fair education when they are exposed to harmful stereotypes in classroom materials and are excluded from learning about their history,” said Carolyn Laub, GSA Network’s Executive Director. “The FAIR Education Act is a key step in preventing discrimination in the classroom and creating safe, respectful schools.”
Republicans are angry and offended at the legislature. One Assemblymember, Tim Donnelly, said “he was offended as a Christian that the bill was being used to promote a ‘homosexual agenda’ in public schools.”
“I think it’s one thing to say that we should be tolerant,” Assemblymember Donnelly said. “It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good.”
“Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves,” Assemblymember Donnelly said.
A right-wing organization called the “Protect the Kids Foundation” called this “the worst school indoctrination ever.”
The Campaign for Children and Families explains that “the Democrat state legislators pushing this radical bill want to recruit boys and girls to support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, personally and publicly. They want them to become ‘LGBTIQ’ activists….”
They say if SB 48 becomes law, “children will be enticed into political activism in support of everything pushed by ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning’ political groups, as the bill requires ‘particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.’ ”
They further say that this bill would require that teachers “positively portray homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality … because to be silent opens them up to the charge of ‘reflecting adversely’ [on this new protected LGBT class.]”
“This is radical, in-your-face sexual indoctrination that parents genuinely don’t want and children certainly don’t need,” the statement says.
A spokesperson for another group, SaveCalifornia.com, Randy Thomasson, said, “This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods – that homosexuality is biological, when it isn’t, or healthy, when it’s not.”
The LA Times editorial board came out against the legislation, arguing that historians and not politicians should be writing texbooks.
“Does the idea have a better chance five years later, with Jerry Brown as governor?” they ask. “We hope not. Years ago, California made the wise decision to have experts draw up a balanced social studies curriculum that became a model for schools nationwide. Legislators aren’t improving education in the state by stuffing the curriculum with new politically correct requirements, any more than Texas board members improved education there.”
“Fables don’t make for solid instruction. History is the great story of people, groups and movements — their faults as well as their accomplishments — shaping the world up through the events of today. It is a story best told by historians, not by politicians,” they conclude.
However, Speaker John Perez, himself the first openly-gay speaker of the Assembly, said: “This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized.”
Catholics for the Common Good argued against the bill, not only because of the fear of “the sexualization of education,” but also the fiscal burden it could impose on the state: “In addition to its corrupting consequences for children about love, human sexuality, marriage, and family, it will cost California taxpayers millions to implement and have a disrupting effect on local school districts struggling with reduced budgets and burdened by state mandates that undermine their critical mission of educating our children.”
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano indicated that SB48 is crucial, due to the bullying that gay students experience.
Mr. Ammiano has pushed his own legislation attempting to deal with the issue of school bullying, Seth’s law, named in memory of Seth Walsh, a 13-year-old gay student from Tehachapi, California, who took his life in September 2010, after facing years of relentless anti-gay harassment at school.
“As a former teacher, I know how important it is for our students to feel safe at school. Each day throughout California, LGBT youth experience harassment. Seth’s Law will give schools the necessary tools to prevent any young person from being bullied, harassed or worse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression,” said Assemblymember Ammiano.
Senator Leno’s bill was modeled on Senate Bill 1437 (Sheila Kuehl) from 2006, which passed both houses of the Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
—David M. Greenwald
A lot depends on how the bill would be implemented. If the textbook were to say – “Mr. X made the following contribution to America”, and Mr. X happened to be gay, I have no problem with that. But if the textbook were to say – “Mr. X, a practicing homosexual, made the following contribution to American”, this is ridiculously PC and gratuituously superfluous with an ulterior agenda. A person’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with their contribution in general – unless the history book is talking specifically about the gay and lesbian movement itself. Then the question becomes whether the event in question is truly significant historically. Based on how sex ed classes are taught these days, I frankly don’t trust the schools to get this one right.
An example might suffice. I was brought up in the South in the days of segregation. Yet in our history books there was mention of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, both African Americans. George Washington Carver was described as a former slave who developed many uses for the peanut. Harriet Tubman’s underground railroad for slaves was discussed. Pictures of both of them were provided, so it was clear both were African American. The fact that they were slaves was made clear in the writings, bc it was pertinent to the discussion.
However, my guess is too much of this is going to be left up to individual school districts, and we are going to get some pretty wild results (I’m thinking San Francisco)…
And by the way, I’m not buying the bullying argument. Bullying in school is a fundamental problem for virtually all students who are in any way different, be they shy, short, tall, fat, thin, handicapped, look different, speak different, etc. ad nauseum.
I will be interested to read what others think on this one…
The only thing I can promise you Elaine, is that no text book will use the term “a practicing homosexual.”
I do however question your distinction between mentioned “happened to be gay” which you claim is acceptable and the latter “a practicing homosexual” which you ironically call “ridiculously PC” even though you use a decidedly un-PC term (homosexual). I see the distinction between the two as non-existent.
I can hardly see a problem with having a short but positive discussion on the contributions that gays have made to society as a problem. It is after all important that all people have positive role models is it not?
Here is the relevant passage. Other sections deal with non-discrimination by School administrators at all levels:
[i]SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans,[b]lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities[/b] , and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. [url]
Here is the link (that didn’t appear when I posted):
http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110706_enrolled.html
Neutral: The operational portion of that change is contained in paragraph two of the story, just as an fyi.
[quote]I do however question your distinction between mentioned “happened to be gay” which you claim is acceptable and the latter “a practicing homosexual” which you ironically call “ridiculously PC” even though you use a decidedly un-PC term (homosexual). I see the distinction between the two as non-existent. [/quote]
I wouldn’t put “happened to be gay”. I would just mention the person’s contribution, period, their sexual orientation notwithstanding, unless it was germane to the discussion of the accomplishment. For instance, George Washington Carver was African American, but his accomplishments were remarkable in and of themselves, and even more remarkable bc at one time he was a slave.
If I were writing the education code, I would amend it as follows:
[i][b]51204.5.[/b] Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of [s]both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups,[/s] [b]people[/b] to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of [s]these groups[/s] [b]people[/b] in contemporary society.[/i]
From the quotes in your story, it seems like the right-wingers are exposing themselves as prejudiced against gays (based on their religious views). It seems to me a much more logical view would be to teach California history with no prejudice for or against any group.
I think there is a danger of creating a backlash when you single out gays or Mexicans or blacks or whatever you like to emphasize the role some members of those groups played. Chances are the role played by someone who was gay or Swiss or whatever was the result of extraordinary efforts or circumstances of that individual, not the result of the group he was born into. For example, if the subject of Levi Strauss in California’s economy is being told, it is irrelevant that he was born a Jew. Same with virtually all of the moguls who created the film industry. Teaching about those men is not “Jewish history.” It shouldn’t be segregated in any way from teaching about the development of industry in California.
On the other hand, we have had a history of discrimination against some groups in California which substantially affect our history. You cannot teach the story of the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans from California without emphasizing the ethnic component of that policy and that period of history. The same goes for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. If the story of Harvey Milk is deemed important enough to tell, then of course teaching the fact that he was gay and he was a leader among gays is crucial to understanding his story and his death.
My belief is that the most important thing in teaching history is to have a great teacher who makes the subject interesting to the students, who figures out a way to make them understand how the things which took place in the past affect their lives today.
I’ve heard people say, “If you don’t know where you came from, you won’t know where you are going.” That doesn’t quite hold up to logic. Historians have no greater insight on the future than others. What I would change that phrase to is this: “If you don’t know history, you cannot fully appreciate what you have today.”
David: [i]The operational portion of that change is contained in paragraph two of the story[/i]
Yes, but I felt that quote didn’t provide the reader with enough context.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the attempts by legislators in other states to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism.
Recognition of the contributions of LGBT and disabled people in textbooks means more than simply mentioning that someone happened to be gay. Though, of course, not unique, these are groups that have historically and systematically been subject to physical and psychological abuses that are qualitatively different from and more extreme than the teasing and bullying that most school children endure. It is only recently that discrimination, segregation and exclusion of people with disabilities—in education, housing, employment, and community life—became unlawful. LGBT individuals are still treated as second class citizens. (See, e.g., Prop. 8.) “Retard” and “fag” are commonly used as insults, without awareness of the harm done.
The LGBT and disability civil rights movements are historically significant—particularly in California—and to ignore that part of our history is absurd. And it is not trivial to the self-esteem and pride of young students to teach that an historical figure had a disability or was gay. Knowing that FDR had a disability is of extreme importance to people with disabilities, as is knowing that many of the most revered people in history and the arts were gay to students in the LGBT community.
Bigotry and intolerance are largely based on ignorance. Teaching about the contributions of LGBT and disabled individuals is important—to raise general awareness, change attitudes, and impact the self-esteem of LGBT and disabled children and youth. As long as we continue to ignore the contributions of these groups in our educational curricula, societal ignorance and, therefore, intolerance and mistreatment will continue.
Im going to try to make some sense here. I think that to develop any curriculum on someone’s contributions based on sexual orientation is wrong. All people should be noted on good merits despite what their oriention is unless the subject is the gay movement then that would be relevent. In the good ol’ USA we are supposed to be a melting pot and undivided by any color, sex, creed,age, religion and so the civil rights continue. However, there are “groups” of people who band together based on being different, and try to make themselves individualized instead of blending in with other people. For example, the Ms Black America pagent. How do you think it would go over if we had a Ms White America pagent? It screams of racism. What’s wrong with just the plain old Ms America pagent? The blacks try to separate themselves out this way. The same point for the gays and lesbians. Why can’t we all just get along?
[i]”For example, the Ms Black America pagent. … The blacks try to separate themselves out this way.”[/i]
This strikes me as an unfair indictment against “the blacks.” I would imagine that the beauty contest you speak of is owned by a company trying to make money (just like all the other beauty contests out there). The other 99.9997983999 percent of “the blacks” have no say in the matter.
According to Wikipedia, the Miss Black America contest began in 1968 when its owner, J. Morris Anderson, believed that the Miss America pageant was excluding black women. I can understand, at this point in time, your thinking that such a legacy is outdated. However, if the contest is still making money for its owner, I can see why he would want to keep it going.
In terms of beauty contests, the ones I find the most disturbing are those where crazy mothers dress their 5 year old girls up to look like 20 year old hussies.
Im not trying to get into a debate here and I think you missed my point entirely. Although I agree with you on the child beauty contest, that does seem outrageous! The Black Entertainment Television (BET) network is a network geared primarily for black people. All shows have all black actors, etc. It is racist in my opinion. So is the Ms. Black America contest. If you go to the grocery store down the asian food isle, are asians the only people that eat rice? Labeling TV shows and Food by a specific race is wrong. Gays and Lesbians should not be separated, they should blend in with the rest of the world. When they start separating themselves it’s like segregation. If the history books need to rewritten to include that some body did something wonderful then fine, let them shine on their own merit, not because they are gay, black, white, old, disabled, etc. – That part really doesnt mean anything. Gays and Lesbians are just human beings to me, nothing below or above myself. If Im on the operating table and the dr that is performing surgery to save my life is gay – so what!
Tecnichick
I would agree with you completely if we lived in a world where everyone felt as you do. Unfortunately we do not and there is still a lot of discrimination going on based on race, religion (current anti Muslim sentiment for example ), and multiple other criteria including sexual orientation. It is only within the past year that “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been done away with. This was not gays separating themselves.
It was our military and social establishment discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. When you have a situation in which one group can talk openly about their relationship, show pictures of their partner, walk hand in hand openly, and others cannot, this is not the group isolating itself. This is imposed inequality and just as interracial couples faced this previously, it is now faced by gay couples.
Elaine
I agree with you that the means of implementation will be important. I suspect that the emphasis will be on the achievements of gays as a group in the promotion of civil rights rather than any superfluous commentary on sexual preference. And to the degree that this leads to an increased appreciation of the history this group I think it can only lead to a decrease in negative stereotypes. I am hopeful for this.
[i]”Unfortunately we do not and there is still a lot of discrimination going on based on race, religion ([u]current anti Muslim sentiment[/u] for example ), and multiple other criteria including sexual orientation.”[/i]
You used the word “sentiment,” so I won’t quibble with that for a moment. But you should know that in terms of actual violence, there is much more anti-Semitism in the United States than anti-Muslimism. It’s not even close.
From Commentary last November: [quote] The new statistics published on the U.S. Department of Justice website show that there were only 107 reported incidents of anti-Islamic hate crimes in the country during 2009. While each incident (not only actual crimes are reported, as the total published by the FBI includes all those reported or alleged without respect to whether or not the crime was proved to have occurred) is deplorable, this represents only 8 percent of all religious-based bias crimes and less than 2 percent of hate crimes tabulated last year.
Even more to the point, the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes dwarfed again the number of anti-Islamic attacks, as they have every year since such statistics were first kept: 931 anti-Semitic incidents, compared with 107 anti-Islamic incidents, a ratio of better than 8 to 1. The same was true in 2008, when the figures were 1,013 anti-Jewish incidents to 105 anti-Muslim incidents. Indeed, even in 2001, the worst year for anti-Muslim hate crimes, there were still more than twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as those with anti-Islamic motivations. Throughout this period, the vast majority of hate crimes motivated by religion have been directed against Jews, not Muslims.[/quote] Let me quibble now for a moment with your assertion that Americans are prejudiced against Muslims (“current anti Muslim sentiment”): There is some anti-Muslim feeling in the U.S. that shows up in polls. However, Gallup says only 9% have “strong” anti-Muslim sentiment; and another 20% have “some” anti-Muslim sentiment. When you consider that some of those people feel that way based on nothing more than relgious doctrine–they way a lot of conservative Protestants feel about Catholic doctrine–and others identify Islam with misogyny and hence dislike it for its treatment of women, 29% is not all that big of a number to my mind. But I won’t quibble.
One thing we do know for sure: Muslims have a very high rate of anti-Jewish prejudice ([url]http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176[/url]). This hatred of Jews is not limited to Israelis, either. Every poll in recent years has revealed a strong hatred of Jews by large percentages of Muslims all over the world. An interesting country in this regard is India*, where the polls suggest that there is very little anti-Semitism among the non-Muslims. (There used to be a substantial Jewish population in India who lived in the Portuguese colony of Goa.) However, the very large Muslim minority–India has the second most Muslims of any country other than Indonesia–is virulently anti-Semitic. Even in Europe, in countries like France and Germany, the Muslim minorities have extremely strong hatred of the Jews. This is found in Asian countries, too, where Malaysian Muslims, Indonesian Muslims and Phillipino Muslims poll being very prejudiced against Jews, when at the same time people of other faiths in those countries (mostly Buddhists and Christians) don’t express any substantial Jew-hatred.
*Pakistani hatred of the Jews is equal to that of India’s Muslims. You may recall when Mumbai was attacked by terrorists sent there by Pakistan’s intelligence service in cahoots with a major terrorist group, they set out to kill all the Jews they could find in Mumbai before attacking anyone else. It was also Pakistani terrorists who cut off the head of Daniel Pearl, because, as they said, he was a Jew.
Rifkin
My goodness. What a lot of “sentiment” I seemed to have uncovered with what I intended as a current example, not a statement of prevalence. My point was that prejudice and discriminatory behavior are destructive regardless of the target group. My hope is that including information about the positive contributions of all groups to our society will,over time, minimize these destructive attitudes and behaviors.
Rich-We all know that there’s plenty of race and religious hatred to share . What is hopeful is that we can have honest discussions and in the process discover and face our own prejudices toward others and their cultures ! For one who lives in a multi-ethnic culture, this all is taking much too long for my liking . The religion of my mother teaches tolerance and forgiveness, but too many of it’s proponents practice neither . We have wasted decades debating what amounts to a caste system . Do some humans have more native rights than others ? Whether we are gay, straight, bi, poly, Jew, Jain, Zoroastrian, Muslim, church of John Coltrane or transcendental Methodist, we are human and deserving of each other’s respect and regard .
[quote]Recognition of the contributions of LGBT and disabled people in textbooks means more than simply mentioning that someone happened to be gay. Though, of course, not unique, these are groups that have historically and systematically been subject to physical and psychological abuses that are qualitatively different from and more extreme than the teasing and bullying that most school children endure. [/quote]
While I appreciate your passion, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with your assessment that homosexuals are subject to worse bullying than any other group. My son (a WASP) was beaten several times in or on the way home to/from school, his property repeatedly destroyed, threatened, verbally assaulted, segregated and dumped into a class with all the troublemakers in school through no fault of his own. His public school years were miserable. My oldest daughter was sexually assaulted by another student at school. Look at what happened to Andrew Mockus or the child that was killed at the high school some years ago (sorry, his name escapes me). Bullying is endemic in our society bc the authorities, particularly in the school system, look the other way. It is shameful and unacceptable at any level. Kids are bullied for any number of reasons – bc they are short, tall, fat, slim, learning disabled, of a different ethnicity or sexual orientation, or were just picked out as a victim for no conceivable reason at all. Remember the little girl from Scotland who hung herself recently bc the bullying had become so extreme and vicious?
Forgive me for my passion on this issue, but bullying is an equal opportunity phenomenon not exclusive to any particular group.
[quote]I think there is a danger of creating a backlash when you single out gays or Mexicans or blacks or whatever you like to emphasize the role some members of those groups played. Chances are the role played by someone who was gay or Swiss or whatever was the result of extraordinary efforts or circumstances of that individual, not the result of the group he was born into. For example, if the subject of Levi Strauss in California’s economy is being told, it is irrelevant that he was born a Jew. Same with virtually all of the moguls who created the film industry. Teaching about those men is not “Jewish history.” It shouldn’t be segregated in any way from teaching about the development of industry in California.
On the other hand, we have had a history of discrimination against some groups in California which substantially affect our history. You cannot teach the story of the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans from California without emphasizing the ethnic component of that policy and that period of history. The same goes for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. If the story of Harvey Milk is deemed important enough to tell, then of course teaching the fact that he was gay and he was a leader among gays is crucial to understanding his story and his death. [/quote]
Nicely said!
“It is shameful and unacceptable at any level. Kids are bullied for any number of reasons – bc they are short, tall, fat, slim, learning disabled, of a different ethnicity or sex”
ERM, you hit the nail on the head. Should California mandate that history books show the contributions of fat people, ugly people, height challenged, redheads……?
ERM: Thong Hy Huynh
[quote]ERM: Thong Hy Huynh[/quote]
Thank you Don for helping me remember this young gentleman’s name. If I remember rightly, he was knifed to death bc of his ethnicity?
Yes, he was stabbed to death by a white student who had a history of racial harassment.
Gay marriage was just to allow them to get their foot in the door for crap like this.
I specifically did not say or imply that bullying and harassment are unique to LGBT students. In fact, though, LGBT students (and students viewed as not as masculine or not as feminine as others of their gender) report very high levels of harassment. In a recent survey of over 2,400 California students, as reported by the California Safe Schools Coalition (CSSC), many reported harassment at school due to gender non-conformity. E.g., 23% of California students reported being harassed because they were not “as masculine as other guys” or “as feminine as other girls.” Gender non-conformity-based harassment is more pervasive for LGBT students than for heterosexual students: 42% of students who identify as LGB and 62% of those who identify as transgender report harassment based on gender non-conformity. Furthermore, 14% of all students, 27% of LGB students, and 57% of transgender students report being harassed because of gender non-conformity more than once.
And, pertinent to Senator Leno’s bill, a 2006 research brief by the CSSC titled, “LGBT Issues in the Curriculum Promotes School Safety,” found that students who learn about LGBT issues in the curriculum feel safer and report fewer mean rumors or lies spread about them, fewer reports of being made fun of because of their looks or the way they talk, and less LGBT bullying at school, thereby creating safer school climates.
[i]”Yes, he was stabbed to death by a white student who had a history of racial harassment.”[/i]
The killer, James “Jay” Pierman, had just recently moved to the Davis area. He came from a very troubled home and his family had moved from place to place many times. Pierman’s actions were motivated by racial tension which he had brought to Davis from elsewhere. Pierman did not learn to be a violent racist from any upbringing in Davis.
One of the most unfortunate results of the murder of Thong Hy Huynh, himself a child who had recently come to Davis and was not well adjusted, was the creation of the Human Relations Commission. It was constructed on the basis of a lie: that the youths of Davis were increasingly violent and racist and we thus needed a city commission to solve this supposedly rampant problem. The reality then, and since, is that no community is perfect, but any race problems in Davis were quite small (compared with every other community in our region and further afield) and that in the instance of Pierman murdering Huynh, neither one grew up here or was influenced by the atmosphere in our community. The HRC then set out for years trying to stir up trouble in order to prove the myth of its founding.
“The HRC then set out for years trying to stir up trouble in order to prove the myth of its founding.”
Rifkin, I agree. I loved it when Ted Puntillo spearheaded the HRC’s disbanding. The HRC created more tension then it ever helped to relieve.
Bravo! Great posts…
So, to summarize… we generally reject giving preferential treatment to specific groups since bullying and bias are universal. Instead we should just treat all people equally and focus on what is factual and leave out the unnecessary group-ism labels.
I will vote for that.
This brings to mind the science fiction movie District 9. In the story, a large group of sick and malnourished extraterrestrials are discovered and subsequently are given food, shelter, and health-care on Earth. The aliens, derogatorily referred to by some locals as “prawns”, are confined to a government camp inside Johannesburg known as District 9. The plot dealt with racism in the extreme.
Assuming this scenario in reality, would progressives demand that we change all textbooks to use the term “humanoids” instead of “people” so as not to offend the extraterrestrials and make them feel accepted?
The point I am making here is that it would seem we can draw the line at some point for which groups are “similar” or “different” based on the facts and common sense. It would also seem that we can deal with rights and equality as separate tangible issues despite how we define some groups as different. The challenge as I see it is our innate tribalism. I think we are genetically wired to seek identification with a group. My problem is that I see growing group fragmentation at a social and cultural level, with activists and government dysfunctional attempted to force integration against our tribal sentiments. I am not gay, so I do not associate with the gay tribe. Yet they have their gay pride celebrations, and their gay political action committees, and a gay-rights movement. To me it feels a bit like tribal war of traditional straights against the gays and progressives. I would prefer that we all just celebrate human pride day or earth pride day… or at least American pride day. The same is true for black-only celebrations and events… or Hispanic-only celebrations and events. These things are exclusive to a particular group/tribe.
If we want to all be treated the same, we should practicing being part of the same tribe and stop demanding the rest of the world celebrate and embrace our group uniqueness, but instead focus on celebrating our uniqueness as individuals.
Rich-I was unable not to overhear a conversation among several well dressed and apparently anglo-european, or perhaps melanin deficient, American teens at the McDonald’s on Chiles Rd. one afternoon a few days ago . I heard more anti-black, anti-gay, anti-mexican expletives in 15 minute than I heard in a year in Texas . That is a fact ! Is it just talk ? Maybe, but if my kids were talking that way I’d want to put a stop to it in short order .
Elaine
In general I agree with your comments about the ubiquitous nature of bullying. I do think that there are a couple of important distinctions to be made however as this relates to at least some gay individuals. When a kid is bullied because of his stature or race or religion, it is very likely that other members of his family share those traits and will be supportive of him through this trying time. The difference I see is that for many of the gays I have known, they either did not feel they could come out to their family for fear of not being accepted, or in fact were not supported and in some cases actually rejected by their family. Bullying is painful for whatever reason it occurs ( for me it was based on a facial feature) but is even more harmful if you do not have a support system. Also, I do believe that bullying based on being a member of a socially stigmatized group has different implications from bullying because of physical size of facial features.
JB
It is not possible to “be part of the same tribe” when the rules are different for you than for other members of the tribe. For example, until this year, not attending gay parades would have done nothing to exempt a gay from the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I would have had no problem with this policy if it had applied equally to heterosexuals so that no one was allowed to discuss or appear public ally with their spouse, or to display their spouses photograph. But that was not the case. It applied only to homosexuals and was thus clearly discriminatory. This was a societally imposed difference, not one sought by gays.
Musser
“gay marriage was just to allow them to get their foot in the door for crap like this.”
What “crap like this”are you referring to? Sorry, but there I have been a lot of posts and I am not sure what you are referencing.
[i]”I do believe that bullying based on being a member of a socially stigmatized group has different implications from bullying because of physical size of facial features.”[/i]
I don’t. Bullying is bullying and it can leave similar scars no matter what differences the bullies fixate on.
[i]”For example, until this year, not attending gay parades would have done nothing to exempt a gay from the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy.”[/i]
Although there certainly is bias… and I think some of it is understandable given the nature of the military beast… there are practical considerations too. Integrating openly gay people into the military has required a huge policy change and training program that is still underway. Military teamwork requires complete reliance and trust. Variable sexuality literally makes strange bedfellows of soldiers. DODT was intended to take away considerations of sexuality. Since gays demanded to be out of the closet in the military, the policies and training for acceptable behavior had to be completely reworked.
You still don’t seem to get the point I was making… the having cake and eating it to… demanding equality while also demanding special attention… being your own tribe, while demanding the other tribe change their customs to accept you your way.
JB
I certainly do get your point. I just find it ironic that, as you have stated many times, you believe that others should adopt your beliefs and join “your tribe” since you believe them to be superior, but you seem to feel others are seeking “special attention” or somehow seeking a special status when they celebrate their traditions publicly.
The only reason this “huge policy change was needed”is because there were discriminatory policies to begin with. Noting the preexistence of discrimination does nothing to make it right.
And I notice with regard to bullying, you made no mention of differential family support. Do you really not think that could make a difference in how one coped with bullying?
Was Isaac Newton gay? Who knows but certainly worth mentioning. It said he was celibate and had a male room mate for many years. Maybe if we weren’t all so hung up about it we might have a better historical record. I’ve raised the issue in class while teaching about gravity. Some say he was gay because … the kids laugh and then we move on.
Maybe if we humanize people more the kids would feel better about their differences and wouldn’t be so inclined to hurt each other. I think this is the point. I like to point out that Carl Sagan was a pothead too. Probably smoked billions and billions of buds. How about the jews who left Germany and worked on the bomb or Meitner who correctly explained fission and was ostracized for being a jew in Germany. All of these things are worth talking about.
I wonder who else was gay that contributed to humanity. We need more of this just as we need African American History or Chicano Studies. We need to know who we are and where we came from. It makes us all richer.
As for comparing this to creationism that is ridiculous. Historical background provides context pushing religion as science undermines the integrity of science as a distinct discipline.
Medwoman,
My tribe is American. I think a person’s tribe is analogous with his/her adopted culture. I think I previously sent you the list of things that I think define American culture.
America is a melting pot… meaning other cultures dissolve by conformation into the host. What we see more of today is groups resisting conformation… demanding their unique group status while forcing the host to conform to them.
On the difference in family support… are you making the point that lesbian parents might not be as effective dealing with bullying of their male child or gay male parents may not be as effective dealing with bullying of their female child? I think you might be on to something there!
Actually, I stand by what I said. Bullying is bullying. It is recognized as the same no matter what “difference” is attacked. Parents that are skilled at dealing with the problem – keeping their kids safe while teaching them self-reliance and coping skills – will do so no matter what the target of bullying is about.
With some exception, the bullying I saw/experienced was less about physical features, and more about personality and behavior differences outside some range of normal. Frankly, in my experience, many of the kids that were bullied the most or did most of the bullying came from broken or abusive homes.
Which gets me back to my support for strong traditional families.
[i]”Was Isaac Newton gay?”[/i]
Which brings up a good point… how do we know? I mean most of the dudes that signed the Constitution wore frilly clothing and wigs.
what about bi-sexual people… do they deserve special recognition too?
Mr. Toad… on the subject of evolution and natural selection… assuming of course that you completely reject the theories of Intelligent Design… how do you account for the fact that 97% of animals have eyes (one of ten types) and 95% of those animals have two eyes. If Darwin was complete in his theory, why doesn’t the Gazelle have an extra set of eyes in the back of his head? Think about this before responding. Science has no real explanation for that and many other similarities between animals that supposedly accidentally evolved from a pool of tarry goop a few billion years ago.
[i]”Was Isaac Newton gay?”[/i]
Was Isaac Newton from California?
[i]”the theories of Intelligent Designers…”[/i]
Now those designers, they are gay. Even the ones who are not technically gay, seem gay.
What I do know is that of the entire electromagnetic spectrum we see only a small group of frequencies known as visible light. Coincidentally this is the part of the spectrum that our sun generates in the greatest quantities. So it seems organisms in the primordial ooze became sensitive to this part of the spectrum and their offspring had an advantage so great that all light sensitive life on this planet has evolved to besensitive to this part of the spectrum. As for eyes in the back of our heads we have ears instead.
[i]”So it seems organisms in the primordial ooze became sensitive to this part of the spectrum and their offspring had an advantage so great that all light sensitive life on this planet has evolved to besensitive to this part of the spectrum.”[/i]
So, now we are talking about intelligent primordial ooze. Fascinating!
Seriously though… is the theory of evolution any less fantastic than the theory of intelligent design? …that humans, with all their complex emotions and sense of self just happened to develop from pools of stinky sulfur goo or from God and/or aliens? Both theories are fraught with a large amount of wild speculation.
[i]”Now those designers, they are gay”[/i]
LOL! But, to counter… too many of my relatives have poor fashion sense…?
Intelligent design and evolution are not the topic of this thread; please stay on topic.
Does anyone know… has the percentage of gays to straights remained static, or has it risen? If we are evolving to be gayer, then it is inevitable that we will:
1) Demand we include more gay characters in our history text books.
2) Grow extinct unless we maintain artificial insemination technology, or otherwise allow some new manual extramarital practices to develop, or allow baby farming.
How’s that moderator… did I bring it back to topic?
JB
“has the percentage of gays to straights remained static, or has it risen”
Well now, we really wouldn’t know, would we, since until recently if you wanted to keep your job, or in some cases not be tied up and beaten to death ( Matthew Sheppard) you really couldn’t admit to being gay, many times even to your own family. Which makes me wonder if you
Include abandoning your son to die of AIDS supported only by his friends in your criteria of strong traditional family values. It was not unusual to see this as an intern and generalist in the mid 80’s.
Interesting and pertinent study:
[url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gay-and-straight-teen-suicide-attempts-higher-in-conservative-regions/politics/2011/04/18/18938[/url]
“The ground-breaking study, published in the journal Pediatrics today, shows that gay, lesbian, and bisexual teens are more than five times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.”
From Wikipedia: [i]”One of the major reasons for the difference in statistical findings regarding homosexuality and bisexuality has to do with the nature of the research questions.”[/i]
Which gets me back to a prior point. Are bisexuals considered gay, or are they considered straights who are confused or in an experimental stage?
Medwoman: you bring some strong emotives to the table. Those can be found in all categories of human existence. I don’t think the gay story has a monopoly on the tragedy market. However, I agree that these are examples of the worst impacts of gay intolerance.
continuing…
“Of note is that the study finds that 4.4% of the teens identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, similar to (albeit just slightly higher than) a recent study by The Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, “How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender?,” which showed that close to 4% of the American adult population identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”
“In the study’s Pediatrics abstract, Hatzenbuehler writes, “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were significantly more likely to attempt suicide in the previous 12 months, compared with heterosexuals (21.5% vs 4.2%). Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempting suicide was 20% greater in unsupportive environments compared to supportive environments. A more supportive social environment was significantly associated with fewer suicide attempts, controlling for sociodemographic variables and multiple risk factors for suicide attempts, including depressive symptoms, binge drinking, peer victimization, and physical abuse by an adult.””
[i]”Interesting and pertinent study”[/i]
The article uses information on 32,000 high school juniors only in Oregon. Straights were also more likely to commit suicide in this study.
Did the researcher just cherry pick the state to use?
I frankly don’t believe the conclusions. Although it certainly makes sense that kids would struggle more in a religious household, a 5x suicide rate is not explained by simple conservative versus liberal ideological views. The conservatives I know love their children as much as liberals love their children and support their kids the same. So what IS the difference? This study does not explore any other factors.
What if the exact oposite is true for another state… gay suicides higher in liberal-leaning areas. We don’t know.
Frankly, it is crap studies like this that makes me despise the gay rights movement. So conservatives cause gay kids to committ suicide… that is the conclusion?
Of course there is an evolutionary advantage to gender variability. This was shown in Jurassic Park when one of the females changes gender and becomes male. We actually see this in some species, sturgeon come to mind, where the fish can change sex if needed.
As for the eyes in the back of the head this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. In evolution nature selects. Just because we think something is a benefit doesn’t mean anything. Evolution is a process of trial and error where characters that arise giving an advantage to an organism are able to reproduce due their fitness and perpetuate themselves. Of course the Nazi’s thought they could select and we can see where that led.
The problem, Jeff, is that you dismiss scientific studies but don’t appear, from what I can tell, to have any scientific background or education in the basics of science. A study of over 32,000 participants is a significant study regardless of where it occurs; that is a very large study group. I see no reason why you would dismiss Oregon as being cherry-picked.
“I frankly don’t believe the conclusions.” Of course you don’t. It isn’t “a crap study.” Read it again. You didn’t read the results correctly. The 5x rate was simply of GLBT vs. straight suicide attempts. That is a huge difference, and tells us that growing up gay is very challenging. The lack of a supportive environment led to a 20% higher rate of suicide attempt. The liberal vs. conservative part was a correlation, not presented as causation.
You really need to quit being so dismissive of scientific research. This is a large study with significant policy implications. It tells us that providing a supportive environment for gay and lesbian youth can possibly reduce youth suicide.
Curriculum requirements like this aren’t that big a deal. If you’ve ever reviewed school curriculum, you know how this will be implemented. In a social studies or history text, there’ll be a sidebar with a picture of someone like Harvey Milk, and maybe some athlete who’s come out, perhaps some info about milestones in gay rights. We’re talking about a tiny amount of text in a book, a few discussion points. Some teachers will give it more emphasis than others, but they have a lot to cover.
The point is that marginalized youth will have a few role models and won’t feel so isolated. This is what makes the ‘It Gets Better’ campaign so useful and potentially effective. It is why gay adults need to be mainstream in housing, employment, and marriage. I think it’s more important that they have role models in their families and communities, but it doesn’t hurt to have some public figures lead the way.
Bullying isn’t exclusively a gay issue, obviously. Every district needs (probably has, nowadays) policies about bullying. Administrators need to be trained to recognize it and deal with it. Part of that is knowing which youth are at greater risk for being bullied, including gay, lesbian, and bi, those with gender issues, effeminate boys, masculine girls, and all those other characteristics that others here have mentioned.
My son had a friend who hanged himself in junior high school here in Davis. He was gay, depressed, and apparently felt he had nowhere to turn. It was very traumatic for those who knew him. I just don’t see the downside to this kind of curriculum change, even if it’s only a small step.
[i]”The lack of a supportive environment led to a 20% higher rate of suicide attempt.”[/i]
Wow, so what scientific methods support that conclusion? I know a bit about the subject of suicide and lack of a supportive environment – even if you could make the scientific case to quantify exactly what this means – is not a primary driver. Did you know that much of super-tolerant socialist Europe has a higher suicide rate than the US? For example (per 100,000): Sweden (18.9M/8.1F), Finland (31.9M/9.8F), Germany (20.4M/7.0F), U. S. (17.6M/4.1F). Japan is double the US for males and triple for females at 35.2M/12.8F. Even friendly little Canada has a higher suicide rate than the US. Are you going to make the case that these countries have a less supportive environment?
[i]”You really need to quit being so dismissive of scientific research.”[/i]
You really need to consider that your faith in science might make you blind to reason. I live in the world and see by my own well-designed eyes, and there is no way that a 500% difference in GLBT suicide rate exists between “liberal and conservative areas” (whatever that means). We can’t even get consistent estimates of the number of GLBT people from “scientific” studies. The study is either seriously flawed or incomplete.
I know you want data to support your worldview, but thankfully I know you don’t consider conservatives as bible-thumpers that would drive their sons and daughters to their grave before accepting them as gay. Because that would be the same kind of ugly bias that you generally agitate against.
[i]”Many spiders have eyes in the backs of their heads.”[/i]
Yes they do, and they have had since God or Aliens created them based on our fossil records. Or… maybe scientists just have not discovered those other older fossils yet that show how their vision evolved.
You will hang your hat on some unbelievable scientific study of people in Oregon , but dismiss a point that intelligent design might have something to do with a fact that over 92 percent of animals on the planet have two eyes, one on either side of their head… because… I guess because there are no scientific studies on this fact. Just read the science on eye evolution and it reads like scientific desperation. Charles Darwin even questioned it, but then gave in to his own religion with wild speculation over how the eye evolved in species.
[i]Wow, so what scientific methods support that conclusion?[/i]
The data was collected in surveys here: [url]http://public.health.oregon.gov/BirthDeathCertificates/Surveys/OregonHealthyTeens/Pages/index.aspx[/url]
“We created a composite index of the social environment in 34 counties, including (1) the proportion of same-sex couples, (2) the proportion of registered Democrats, (3) the presence of gay-straight alliances in schools, and (4) school policies (nondiscrimination and antibullying) that specifically protected lesbian, gay, and bisexual students.
A more supportive social environment was significantly associated with fewer suicide attempts, controlling for sociodemographic variables and multiple risk factors for suicide attempts, including depressive symptoms, binge drinking, peer victimization, and physical abuse by an adult (odds ratio: 0.97 [95% confidence interval: 0.96–0.99]).”
[i]there is no way that a 500% difference in GLBT suicide rate exists between “liberal and conservative areas”[/i]
For the second time:[b] that is not what the study said.[/b]
The only relevance of the suicide rates in the countries you cite would have to do with how the suicide rates of their gay, lesbian, bi, and trans-gendered youth compare. Overall suicide rates vary among countries for a variety of reasons, as you know.
Intelligent design is total nonsense, invented out of whole cloth by non-scientists, and is just a stalking horse for trying to get creationism back in the public schools. But I will not debate evolution with someone who is so consistently dismissive of science and who knows so little about it.
The AP states that SB48, aka the California bill, has passed the state legislature. The bi-partisan decide went 49-25 in favor of making California public institutions the very first in the nation to be forced to consist of a history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender achievements. SB48 now goes in front of Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated whether he will sign the bill, or say no to it as previous GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did to comparable regulation in 2006. Here is the proof: California gay history bill passes state assembly
While we are about it; what about Irish-American studies?
My ancestors were Irish, and I learned very little about the Irish-Americans in elementary or High School.
I know that there was a large population of Irish slaves and indentured servants in the American colonies. Initially the Irish slaves were cheaper than Negro slaves, being more abundant, but also less valuable because they had a lower survival rate on the cotton and other plantations. Around the time of the American Revolution laws against irish slavery began to be enforced; fewer irish slaves but more irish indentured servants. The English robbed, enslaved and abused the irish for centuries. There was very little aid from England during the potatoe famine in Ireland, large numbers starved (near a million or more, if I recall correctly). What about the story of privations of the irish, and their accomplishments in America?
And what about medical discrimination, jimt ? My wife has Irish Alzheimer’s, she can’t remember anything but the grudges…
jimt
I think you make a valuable point. American history is about the totality of experiences of our people. It is about great achievements, stunning innovations and the creation of great wealth and it is the story of attempted genocide (the native Americans), enslavement, indentured servitude, and denial of equal rights, sometimes through laws, sometimes through violence and intimidation. It is the full story that is the history of our nation and all aspects should be presented in our schools. I am sure that much has changed for the better in terms of presenting the whole story since I was in grade school in the ’60s but the fact that any group has ti fight legal battles to get their part of the whole story included tells me we still have more to do for our children to hear the full American story.
And as an aside, thanks for bringing this up. I also have some Irish ancestors, was unaware of this part of the story and will be researching it.
“Many spiders have eyes in the backs of their heads.”
Well good for them. But again nature selected them not humans. Just because something works in one instance doesn’t mean it will in all instances. What works in an Arachnid might not work in an Artiodactyla because the lines have different adaptations from which they can evolve or because of the different conditions under which they must compete.
Its one thing to hold religious beliefs about the natural world and that is fine but before you go around criticizing one of the fundamental theories of modern science it would be wise to understand how it works.
JB: [i]Just read the science on eye evolution and it reads like scientific desperation.[/i]
I have read science material on eye evolution, and it is straightforward to me in terms of conventional understanding of evolution. What did you read?
I find it interesting that the concept of intelligent design is never invoked (as far as I know) in discussions of evolutionary concepts in economics, business, and the marketplace. If I am mistaken, please advise.
JB
I would like to make one additional point about the nature of scientific studies. Twice in this thread you have posted criticism of studies based on their not being “complete.” This may be accurate as a description but is not a valid criticism. No researcher of any credibility claims that his or her study is “complete”. Each study claims only to provide a piece of evidence which is then judged on it’s individual merits such as the size of the study, the study design, the length of follow up for conditions that require observation over time, whether the study is prospective or retrospective, double blinded or not and a host of other factors. Studies worthy of peer review state clearly their methodology and what they perceive as the weaknesses and limitations of their work which they then submit for comment and criticism by their peers.
Most studies also make some attempt to discuss what other factors might be affecting their findings. This is why, in evaluating the findings of a study it is important to read the entire work, not just the abstract or conclusions. And it is especially important not to criticize as “unproven”
Conclusions that the researcher has not claimed. This not only detracts from your point, but makes it sound as though you do not understand the process, which may or may not be true.
[i]”I find it interesting that the concept of intelligent design is never invoked (as far as I know) in discussions of evolutionary concepts in economics, business, and the marketplace. If I am mistaken, please advise.”[/i]
wdf1, I think this is an intriguing question, but I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. Please elaborate.
[i]”I have read science material on eye evolution, and it is straightforward to me in terms of conventional understanding of evolution. What did you read?”[/i]
Here are some examples of bits from the Wikipedia post on the topic of the evolution of the eye. Don’t you find it interesting that there is a specific wiki on that topic?
[quote]The complex structure of the eye has been used as evidence to support the theory that they have been designed by a creator, as it has been said to be unlikely to have evolved via natural selection. In 1802, philosopher William Paley called it a miracle of “design”. Charles Darwin himself wrote in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed “absurd in the highest possible degree”.[/quote]
[quote]Whether one considers the eye to have evolved once or multiple times depends somewhat on the definition of an eye. Much of the genetic machinery employed in eye development is common to all eyed organisms, which may suggest that their ancestor utilized some form of light-sensitive machinery – even if it lacked a dedicated optical organ.[/quote]
[quote]Shared traits common to all light-sensitive organs include the family of photo-receptive proteins called opsins. All seven sub-families of opsin were already present in the last common ancestor of animals. In addition, the genetic toolkit for positioning eyes is common to all animals: the PAX6 gene controls where the eye develops in organisms ranging from mice to humans to fruit flies. These high-level genes are, by implication, much older than many of the structures that they are today seen to control; they must originally have served a different purpose, before being co-opted for a new role in eye development.[/quote]
[quote]Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes.[/quote]
From the four common mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow… there is simply not enough to explain the profound commonality of physical traits within and between different species. The science relies on scientific faith to combat other types of faith deemed in quarrel with science. I don’t deny the existence of evolution as a process; it is the origin of species that lacks sufficient science. We are missing fossil records that bridge the gap between micro-organisms and higher life forms. [quote]” Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[/quote]
The gaps in our understanding are filled with scientific speculation. If we are to allow this form of speculation, then any and all speculative theories are also worthy of consideration.
[i]From the four common mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow… there is simply not enough to explain the profound commonality of physical traits within and between different species. [/i]
Yes there is.
[i]The science relies on scientific faith to combat other types of faith deemed in quarrel with science.[/i]
No it doesn’t.
[i]I don’t deny the existence of evolution as a process; it is the origin of species that lacks sufficient science. [/i]
Completely untrue.
[i]We are missing fossil records that bridge the gap between micro-organisms and higher life forms.[/i]
Completely untrue.
We could take all the points you have raised one at a time, and refute them, and they you would bring up more that you have gleaned from creationist sites. Evolution is not the topic of this thread. All of the issues you have raised, and hundreds more, are dealt with here: [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/[/url]
“The gaps in our understanding are filled with scientific speculation. If we are to allow this form of seculation,then any and all speculative theories are also worthy of consideration. “
While I am open to exploration and consideration of all beliefs, I do feel there is an important distinction to be made between scientifically based and religiously based beliefs. That distinction is the assertion of absolute truth. I do not know of any credible scientists who believe that their findings are absolute truth. I do know of many religious leaders who cast their beliefs as the absolute and irrefutable word of “God”.
Sorry Don,
I also allowed myself to get side tracked from the thread and will attempt to stay on topic.
[quote]…20% greater [suicide rate amongst gay youngsters] in unsupportive environments… [/quote]
But I think the real question is what is a “supportive environment”? And frankly, I very much doubt saying – so-and-so great person who achieved thus-and-such but was also gay – is going to make a scintilla of difference in curbing the bullying problem, whether the bullying is against someone who is gay or straight. IMHO, and from what I know of bullying, it really has nothing to do with the victim, and everything to do with 1) the perpetrator; 2) the authorities who refuse to do anything about it; 3) a society that tolerates it as a normal rite of passage.
ERM
I think it is way too strong and misleading a comment to say that it “has nothing to do with the victim”.
Victims do have something in common. They are perceived by their tormentors as in some way weaker, either physically, emotionally or socially. It is not often that it is the football star or the prom queen that is singled out for bullying. It is the individual who is already identified as
In some way more vulnerable. Viewed from this perspective, and from the perspective of the suffering victim, it is very much about them
Don: [i]Evolution is not the topic of this thread.[/i]
Not per se, but the topic of evolution is being invoked in the context for what is appropriate to teach in public schools and what isn’t. I hope you can be flexible on that account.
JB: [i]The gaps in our understanding are filled with scientific speculation. If we are to allow this form of speculation, then any and all speculative theories are also worthy of consideration.[/i]
The field of science is based on discussing what humans can perceive with their senses on a broadly agreed upon basis. Introducing speculation of supernatural entities into scientific discussion (intelligent design) immediately takes it out of the realm of scientific discussion because you cannot get broad enough consensus on the nature of “God”, based on human senses, within the U.S., much less the world.
There are fields of knowledge and discussion in which the concept of God is appropriate. Until there is broad enough agreement as to who or what God is based on human senses, you go nowhere with a discussion of intelligent design. That’s why it is inappropriate to introduce it in a science class in the public schools.
The argument of intelligent design is basically, “this is too complicated so God (or a certain unperceivable supernatural entity) must be involved.” That argument could have been applied in the past to questions such as, why does the sun shine? why do natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc.) happen? why do organisms pass similar traits to offspring?
wdf1: [i]Until there is broad enough agreement as to who or what God is based on human senses, you go nowhere with a discussion of intelligent design.[/i]
Should have added, “…in a science class.”
wdf: [i]”Not per se, but the topic of evolution is being invoked in the context for what is appropriate to teach in public schools and what isn’t. I hope you can be flexible on that account.”[/i]
Yes, and my apologies to Jeff Boone for having directed my comment at him. My point is: if we start a debate about the specifics of evolution versus ID, this thread will get seriously off track. I am as guilty as others of having continued that topic. The general topic here is homosexuality and school curriculum. Let’s try to stay at least tangentially on that.
[quote]I think it is way too strong and misleading a comment to say that it “has nothing to do with the victim”.
Victims do have something in common. They are perceived by their tormentors as in some way weaker, either physically, emotionally or socially.[/quote]
The key here is your statement “They are perceived…”. In other words it is the PERCEPTION OF THE PERPETRATOR that is the problem, not the victim. The victim is not the issue – there is never an excuse to bully a victim. It is no different than rape – it does not matter one whit what the victim was wearing, where s/he was – the victim had a right to say “no” to being violated.
IMHO you are wrong in drawing the picture of the victim somehow being “weaker”. They may be perceived as being “weaker” BY THE PERPETRATOR, but that does not make the victims weaker in actuality. The Columbine case graphically makes that point. Bullies have all sorts of reasons for picking out their victims – sometimes it can be just for the pure heck of it and at random, as it often is with gangs who jump innocent bystanders as a ritual of gang membership. The victim doesn’t do the choosing; the perpetrator is the one who selects, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.
[i]”I do not know of any credible scientists who believe that their findings are absolute truth. I do know of many religious leaders who cast their beliefs as the absolute and irrefutable word of “God”.[/i]
Unless of course we are talking about global warming or any myriad of other theories that scientists believe to be absolute truth as vetted through their iron-clad peer review process… at least until the next discovery that leads them to the next new absolute truth as vetted through their iron-clad peer review process.
Any credible religious leader deals with questions about absolute truth on a regular basis. For example, the bible is a book of metaphors and the application of principles contained within them are subject to constant evaluation and debate in modern times. However, just like science, there are some well accepted base principles that serve as the foundation to build upon.
There is a great similarity between the two roles: both work in the knowledge domain for explaining the natural and super natural world, and both have the advantage of exclusivity that prevents the common man from challenging their opinions. For example, a Christian pastor having obtained a masters or doctoral degree from Seminary College would have a mastery of his professional domain no different than a person with similar academic credentials in the field of science. This academic exclusivity is exploitable and corruptible power. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights provides a reasonable check and balance over this power wielded by the church of God, but not the church of science. The politicization and media pop culturalization of global warming is a prime example of the dangers to our American way of life posed by the church of science. Likewise, studies by activist scientists to help the gay rights movement are also exploited by politicians and the media drive their social agenda forward over the desires of the majority.
While the profession of science continues to collude with politicians and the media to feed the ever-expanding egos of highly trained elite scientific people who think they will always know better than common man, I prefer to have the arguments of highly trained elite religious people to be given similar audience.
“There is a great similarity between the two roles: both work in the knowledge domain for explaining the natural and super natural world,”
Science does not explain the supernatural world/
JB
No,not in the case of ” global warming or any of a myriad of other theories that scientists believe to be absolute truth …”
This is simply not a true statement about how scientists think and proceed. If you believe I am wrong, show me a single, peer reviewed study that claims to have the absolute truth. While it is true that the media frequently makes generalizations and presents scientific material as though it were truth and politicians of all stripes attempt to use data to their advantage, this is not what the scientists themselves do.
Scientific information, as presented by scientists, is acknowledged to be limited and subject to revision as new information becomes available.
To me this is a major distinction between science and religion. Scientists are well aware of the limitations and experimental nature of their work. Pastors, while I agree have a similar degree of knowledge and mastery of their field as scientists, differ in one critical aspect. They believe, or at least preach, that their beliefs are the absolute and only truth and that all other belief systems are wrong.
As for collusion with politicians, scientists have no monopoly on this. Religious groups also collude with politicians to promote their interests.
If you doubt this, consider the efforts to have Intelligent Design included in science curriculum or the steady effort to limit abortion rights.
[i]”The argument of intelligent design is basically, “this is too complicated so God (or a certain unperceivable supernatural entity) must be involved.” That argument could have been applied in the past to questions such as, why does the sun shine? why do natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc.) happen? why do organisms pass similar traits to offspring?”[/i]
The Big Bang theory is just a theory and it is backed by much speculation and circumstantial evidence. There are just as plausible super-natural explanation for many of the theories of astrophysics. There are things that scientists have been able to explain sufficiently with real sensory measurements, but there are many theories with big gaps filled with speculation. For example, the entire field of quantum mechanics and time mechanics include theories lacking tangible evidence derived from real sensory measurement techniques.
See here where Steve Hawking struggles to take God out of the equation.
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html[/url].
Like many scientists he struggles with the strong anthropic principle; seeing it as a risk to his purpose and life’s work. He is waging a seemingly respectful battle, but a battle nonetheless.
Here’s the deal… science and religion do not need to be at war; they actually complement each other and expand the pool of potential theories of things we are yet unable to sufficiently explain.
If we are going to teach kids about prominent gays, then we should teach the theories of Intelligent Design. Neither topic is well supported by the scientific theories of the natural world, but both represent out current social and cultural reality.
[i]”Science does not explain the supernatural world”[/i]
Sure it does… scientists attempt to explain the supernatural world with theories related to the natural world. See my previous link to an article by Steve Hawking. The problem with these theories is that we lack the measurement capability to absolutely prove them or refute them. How strong is a scientific theory built on speculation lacking sufficient evidence to test it? How strong is a religious theory built on speculation lacking sufficient evidence to test it? They are both as weak or as strong in my opinion.
JB
I am failing to understand your linkage of gay studies with the teaching of the theory of Intelligent Design.
It you are proposing that both be taught as historical movements, I would agree. However, my understanding is that proponents of Intelligent Design wanted it to be discussed in science classes. I do not believe that the proponents of educating students about the achievements of gays are promoting “gay studies” as a science topic.
Or seen in a different light, if you favor teaching Intelligent Design as part of a science program, then perhaps you would also support teaching about the widespread presence of homosexual behavior amongst animals both in captivity and in the wild. Examples include wild birds including penguins, ostriches, flamingoes whose behaviors include nesting sharing and the rearing of foster chicks as well as a number of primate species as well documented by National Geographic. So much for the argument that homosexual behavior is “unnatural”.
In describing Intelligent Design, Wikipedia neatly explains why it cannot and should not be taught in public schools:
“Intelligent design is the proposition that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. [b]Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank —believe the designer to be the Christian God.[/b]
It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.
[b]Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings[/b] such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of “creation science” in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state….. They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that [b]it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”[/b], and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
I don’t know how you could teach ID without explaining who the ‘designer’ is. I’d go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I also don’t understand how teaching kids about prominent gays has anything to do with “scientific theories of the natural world.”
JB
This is exactly what I was alluding to. I would have no objection to a segment of a history course for example that presented the factual material that Don Shor has pointed out about the proponents of Intelligent Design as well as information about the contributions of gays.
That would be a more valid comparison that presenting creationism by any name as science.
” is just a theory “
Once again you are limited by you lack of understanding of basic scientific methodology. This its just a theory dismissal is a regular tactic of the no nothings, who, try to challenge evolution as a way to get into the schools to preach a particular religious dogma. There is no higher level of understanding in science than a theory. To be a theory something must have predictive powers, something the Theory of Evolution does quite well. It is not your fault science educators have been misusing theory as a substitute for hypothesis and fundamentalists have exploited that misuse. Still to claim that “its just a theory” is an oxymoron.
[i]How strong is a religious theory built on speculation lacking sufficient evidence to test it?[/i]
What is a “religious theory”?
JB: [i]If we are going to teach kids about prominent gays, then we should teach the theories of Intelligent Design. Neither topic is well supported by the scientific theories of the natural world, but both represent out current social and cultural reality.[/i]
[quote]To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method[/url]
[/quote]
If you can define who the intelligent designer is, measurably and empiracally so that most of Davis can agree with you, then you may begin to have a point. Until then, this idea is not scientific and not ready for prime time.
JB: [i]The Big Bang theory is just a theory and it is backed by much speculation and circumstantial evidence.[/i]
First, your use of the word “theory” is an implied equivocation, presenting two meanings of theory as somehow equivalent.
[quote]5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (ex: the wave theory of light)
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory[/url][/quote]
The term, “Big Bang theory” refers to definition 5, above. Non-scientists who use an argument equivalent to yours or “Darwinian evolution is just a theory” implies definitions 6a and/or 6b, which somehow minimizes the amount of observation, research, experimentation, review, and discussion that has gone into the scientific theory.
The Big Bang theory comes from the observation, from a very large number of galaxies, that the universe is expanding. If you run the expansion in reverse (back in time), then you get an event called the Big Bang.
JB: [i]There are just as plausible super-natural explanation for many of the theories of astrophysics.[/i]
I suppose so, but they aren’t scientific, and so we don’t discuss them in the formal context of science until we have measurable and empirical evidence.
Science is helpful at giving answers to many questions, but not necessarily to all questions. If you want a cure for polio or AIDS, science is a good bet. If you want to answer the question, “should I marry this person?” you would likely be out of your element if you thought this was a scientific question. “What is the meaning of my life?” likewise will not find satisfactory answers for most as a scientific question.
As an objective field apart from religion, science is helpful in answering some key questions to this topic, such as, “is homosexuality unnatural?” The answer is that it isn’t as common as heterosexuality in most sexual species, but it isn’t unnatural, and homosexuals can have full and satisfying lives, as long as social mores don’t interfere.
Don: [i]I also don’t understand how teaching kids about prominent gays has anything to do with “scientific theories of the natural world.”[/i]
Sex makes possible the perpetual mix of genetic codes that drives evolution. While evolution is the foundational force of biology, sex is the mortar that holds that foundation together. So advantageous is sex that despite the high biological cost of sex most animals, including 99% of all vertebrates, reproduce sexually.
So if we are to teach this departure from the theories of evolution (theories that explain the natural world), why not other theories that depart from the bible of politically-correct science?
Don: [i]”What is a “religious theory”?[/i]
First, on the definition of “theory”… although I appreciate the work of wdf1 and Mr. Toad to assign some higher scientific meaning to word, it simply refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to absolute actions or complete provable facts. So, in that respect theologians can generally only theorize, and the meaning and intent of God’s word is always a theory… but one anchored by faith in God assuming you are faithful.
Medwoman: [i]” I would have no objection to a segment of a history course for example that presented the factual material that Don Shor has pointed out about the proponents of Intelligent Design as well as information about the contributions of gays.”[/i]
We appear to agree. I am fine with any factual and relevant education. Explain the origins of theories, the politics surrounding them and the arguments for and against them. Let the students develop their own understandings and beliefs based on a full and comprehensive education, not just the current politically-correct curriculum.
Wdf1: [i] “JB: There are just as plausible super-natural explanation for many of the theories of astrophysics.
I suppose so, but they aren’t scientific, and so we don’t discuss them in the formal context of science until we have measurable and empirical evidence.” [/i]
Of course you don’t. It must be quite a burden to bear… being a scientist and carrying the self-assigned weight of responsibility to explain all observable phenomena within a secular bubble. I find it interesting that American Indians were as spiritual as they were scientific in their approach to understanding the natural world… and secular science-lovers in the US sure seem to admire those old indigenous cultures. Travel to Sedona and meet the spiritual Christian-haters that “feel the natural vibrations of the earth” while they rage about global warming and illegal gay marriage.
An old friend and coworker of mine used to have great conversations about religion and science and where they intersect and compete. He was/is a Jehovah Witness and he was/is also an aficionado of science. You would think his head would explode from the conflict between his JW interpretations of scripture and the pages of Discovery, and Scientific American magazines… but instead he was the most well-grounded person I knew.
Science does not have to reject religion and demonize the religious. However, more importantly, by rejecting religion they narrow their field of view for theorizing the state of the natural world and the processes that comprise the universe. I believe that science will never be able to explain us and it sufficiently, but in their frustration they will grow increasingly antagonistic about religion. Scientists should stay out of the culture wars…
Steve Hawking is quite stupid in my opinion for going down this path:
[quote]”I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,”[/quote]
Then he says this…
[quote]”Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,”[/quote]
So, Hawking rejects God but believes he can explain our existence with wild super-natural theories. It appears he is just making up his own religion on the fly.
[i]although I appreciate the work of wdf1 and Mr. Toad to assign some higher scientific meaning to word, it simply refers to contemplation or speculation,[/i]
That is not, by any stretch, the meaning of ‘theory’ that would ever be used in a science curriculum. But ID and other supernatural explanations of the natural world don’t belong in a science curriculum.
Jeff:[i] “Sex makes possible the perpetual mix of genetic codes that drives evolution. While evolution is the foundational force of biology, sex is the mortar that holds that foundation together. So advantageous is sex that despite the high biological cost of sex most animals, including 99% of all vertebrates, reproduce sexually. ” [/i]
[url]http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html[/url]: “…sex makes possible the perpetual recombination of genetic codes that drives evolution. While evolution is the foundational force of biology, sex is the mortar that holds that foundation together. So advantageous is sex that despite the high biological cost of sex most macroscopic animals, including 99% of all vertebrates, reproduce sexually.”
I would urge you to read more carefully the article you lifted that text from. It leads to a very different conclusion than your “[i]so if we are to teach this departure from the theories of evolution (theories that explain the natural world), why not other theories that depart from the bible of politically-correct science?[/i]”
The author concluded:
“Relatively recent is the scientific understanding that homosexuality is (a) present — even widespread — in the animal kingdom, (b) it has biological causes, and (c) it can be accounted for by evolutionary theory.”
But nobody is proposing that homosexuality be included in science curriculum.
Don: [i”I would urge you to read more carefully the article you lifted that text from…”[/i]
Whoops… I lifted that text from another blog post I had made a few days earlier (to another site) and forgot that I “borrowed” it from another author. My bad. Good Google work!
In any case, I used this point to illustrate the main argument. I reject the author’s final conclusion which is just his theory (the speculation type) and cannot be proven. Frankly, that article is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. However, it points to a growing and fundamental problem with science in that in can concoct any self-serving hypothesis or theory using a library of other hypothesis and theory as the basis. In this respect science is growing more and more like a Godless religion every day.
Note that I am taking risks voicing my opinion in this liberal town similar to an atheist in a conservative religious community. I have an opinion that humans need spirituality like they need air and water, and people lacking other religious convictions gravitate toward science and politics and protect them both as Catholics would protect the Pope and the Christian bible. Think about how non-religious liberals would like to squash the voices of people like myself and other conservatives who dare to challenge the opinions of scientific elites. It is breathtaking in similarity to the Inquisition less the burning at the stake.
Regardless, it is laughable to me that science would work so hard to argue against the rational conclusion that procreation is a fundamental requirement for the survival of species and in this context homosexuality is biologically incorrect. It is another indication of the science has become more interested in being politically correct.
Note that I would not tolerate material bias against gays in any social context. However, I don’t agree that homosexuality should be accepted as being biologically normal.
[quote]In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
“Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,”
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”
The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition[/url][/quote]
If you would like to be an equal opportunity theory dismisser (using your definition of all theory as being conjectures and hypotheses and rejecting that there are other uses of the word), then you’ve got to question the theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, the cellular theory of life, the germ theory of diseases, plate tectonic theory, theory of electricity, etc. Why bother making observations and experiments to understand anything? Let’s sit around and make shit up. This leads to a kind of relativism that would drive anyone, including conservatives, crazy. If science is no better than medieval tradition, then let’s let all humans live and express their reality equally. Burning people for witchcraft, heresy, or any range of arbitrary social deviations shouldn’t be astonishing.
We can live with each other in societies because we commonly agree to a certain degree on empirical evidence. Science is one effective way to organize that evidence.
Being a scientist doesn’t make one atheist, but it does make you more aware of where the boundaries of science are. Being a scientist doesn’t necessarily make one a killjoy in relishing beauty, love, wonder, and transcendent experience, though you can find some scientists who are notable for being a little flat in these areas.
I would point out that the field of science flourished in the enlightenment, which was a period when thinkers of the time realized that society didn’t have to be governed by religious dictum. This was also the period that inspired the founding of our country. Finding a secular (and empirical) basis for agreement allows each of us to have fuller individual freedoms (which includes religious thought).
[i]”then you’ve got to question the theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, the cellular theory of life, the germ theory of diseases, plate tectonic theory, theory of electricity, etc.”[/i]
Gravity is not completely understood by scientists. Atomic theory is still evolving and old assumptions are subject to being changed based on new developments (what new partials have they discovered today?). Cellular and genetic theory is advancing every day. Etc., etc., etc.,…
In fact, there are very few absolutes in science. It keeps evolving with new technology and methods. Maybe one day before he dies, Hawking will peer into another one of his parallel dimension/universe and see God before him. Might that cause him to change some his well-established scientific “theories”?
JB: [i]Think about how non-religious liberals would like to squash the voices of people like myself and other conservatives who dare to challenge the opinions of scientific elites.[/i]
I presume you’re calling me non-religious. There you go again defining other people with your Jeff Boone-centric generalizations.
Now you’re flailing, Jeff. Your voice hasn’t been squashed. You’ve indicated through your statements that you don’t have much background or as thorough an understanding of science. I have tried (politely as I can muster), to explain what you may not have known before. You can express doubt because you’d like to know but don’t, or you can express doubt because you don’t want to believe otherwise. It seems that you’re approaching many these topics from the latter perspective. Learning new stuff isn’t always easy.
As for being a scientific elite, I’m no more elite than you are a business elite.
If I indicated ignorance on the topic of small businesses, I’d hope you’d extend the same courtesy, and that I could offer some indication that I understood things better as a result.
JB: [i]Gravity is not completely understood by scientists. Atomic theory is still evolving and old assumptions are subject to being changed based on new developments (what new partials have they discovered today?). Cellular and genetic theory is advancing every day. Etc., etc., etc.,… [/i]
Of course. If everything was known, then scientists would be out of work, huh? But we know enough to make many intelligent decisions based on science.
[i]In fact, there are very few absolutes in science. [/i]
So you’re an empirical relativist?
[i]It keeps evolving with new technology and methods.[/i]
And some scientific conclusions have been around so long that they’re certain, as far as humans are concerned — that Earth is spherical, that Earth is about 40,000 kilometers in circumference, that Earth goes around the sun, for starters.
By the way, I appreciate that you used the word, “evolving” with a certain amount of comfort. 😉
wdf1:[i]”I presume you’re calling me non-religious.”[/i]
No. Please don’t be so hyper sensitive! 😉 I used the term “non-religious liberals” in recognition that religious liberals exist. You might very well be one… I can’t remember if you admitted this or not.
[i]”By the way, I appreciate that you used the word, “evolving” with a certain amount of comfort.”[/i]
Note that politically I consider myself a conservative libertarian, who was once a semi-devout Christian, then an atheist and now believes in God… but also believes in both creationism and evolution. I am also a big fan of science… and I have an education and professional background in business and computer science (but I am NOT a scientist!)
It is the libertarian in me that recoils at the current involvment of science in our social and cultural life. For Hawking to claim heaven and God do not exist puts him and science square in the crosshairs of our left versus right cultural war. Global warming too is a social and cultural debate and not just a scientific theory.
JB: [i]It is the libertarian in me that recoils at the current involvment of science in our social and cultural life. For Hawking to claim heaven and God do not exist puts him and science square in the crosshairs of our left versus right cultural war.[/i]
Whether God exists for Hawking or not makes no difference to me. I wouldn’t expect him to have any proof on the issue. There’s nothing in that article that is astonishing or controversial to me. To me his focus is on understanding cosmology; I don’t consider him an authority on “culture wars” any more than I would consider him an expert on Chinese cooking. It’s puzzling that you place him in the context of political-cultural debate.
If you were a pure libertarian, then I’d expect you really shouldn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage.
If you believe both creationism and darwinian evolution, then I have to imagine that you’re substantially redefining creationism from how it has traditionally been defined — very young Earth, everything in 6 24-hour days, everyone literally descended from Adam and Eve, a literal 40-day/night flood. Otherwise you must entertain some serious cognitive dissonance.
[i]”If you were a pure libertarian, then I’d expect you really shouldn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage.”[/i]
The libertarian in me says accept separate but equal civil unions so government doesn’t change my traditional cultural definition of marriage. Remember, libertarians don’t like government telling us what to do. If it comes down to government telling us what to do based on some minority view of progress, we often prefer to stick with the way it is. If government would just focus on equalizing the rights of civil unions, that would keep it in the government’s domain and this libertarian would support it.
[i]”If you believe both creationism and Darwinian evolution, then I have to imagine that you’re substantially redefining creationism from how it has traditionally been defined — very young Earth, everything in 6 24-hour days, everyone literally descended from Adam and Eve, a literal 40-day/night flood. Otherwise you must entertain some serious cognitive dissonance.”[/i]
There is no agreement in the religious community over biblical time. Most respectable religious people accept the bible as a book of metaphors and not for a literal source of history.
Until science shows me a definitive fossil record of our evolution from those early bugs suspended in sulfur goo… I am of the belief that humans and other animals originated in some more complex form and then began to evolve… and that the process of evolution is a component of intelligent design.
Another or related option is that God, knowing he would create some humans with unstoppable curiosity to explain the natural world, was/is smart enough to have distributed puzzles for them to play with and be distracted. That would be a hoot.
Moving the goal posts again.
We’ve gone from [i] “Seriously though… is the theory of evolution any less fantastic than the theory of intelligent design?… Both theories are fraught with a large amount of wild speculation.”[/i]
to
[i]We are missing fossil records that bridge the gap between micro-organisms and higher life forms.[/i]
to
[i]Until science shows me a definitive fossil record of our evolution from those early bugs suspended in sulfur goo… I am of the belief that humans and other animals originated in some more complex form and then began to evolve… and that the process of evolution is a component of intelligent design. [/i]
There are loads of transitional fossils.
[url] http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html%5B/url%5D
If you are even slightly interested, spend some time at the link above. If you are genuinely interested in the topic, I suggest you take a course in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think that should be mandatory for any college student at any college or university. The problem is, I don’t think you care enough to look into it. You just keep posting anti-evolutionary comments, setting up impossible levels of proof, and thereby creating a whole series of false dichotomies and fallacious claims about science and scientists.
Then, having demonstrated that you don’t understand science, don’t accept published research, and don’t have any background in biology, you make the claim “However, I don’t agree that homosexuality should be accepted as being biologically normal.”
Well, based on what? If it occurs in all populations, across many species of animals, in every culture, and it isn’t “biologically normal,” then what is it?
This is precisely why the history of gays in society belongs, at least in some small way, in our curriculum.
Don: Those goal posts are all on the same field. What game are you playing?
[quote]The Cambrian explosion – At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It’s as though you “turned the light on” in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat’s principle and Abbe’s Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
Insects – When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises… when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates – Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian – Fin to feet… Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish –> Amphibian –> Reptile –> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.
Mammals – Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals – whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight – supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.
The primates – lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial “missing link” between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
The most often cited “example” of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven’t been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin’s time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.
In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic “tree” in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.
[/quote]
Don: The oldest primate hominid fossil is only 7 million years old. Don’t we need to go back at least a couple billion years to prove humans evolved from simple organisms?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis might be one of Adam’s early ancestors and within many interpretations of biblical timeframes.
Is your believe that this fossil flash-evolved from 6.999999 million year old goo?
Jeff, to be blunt: you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just cutting and pasting from creationist web sites. Please answer my question about homosexuality if you want to discuss the topic of this thread. Other than that. we’re done here.
Don: Got it. You are the boss. I appreciate you playing for a while. We did get off topic a bit.
I like your suggestion about taking a class, but my guess is that the intructor and I would not get along. I have had similar experience where science instructors are not really very open minded about the theories they have invested many hours in memorizing. However, I think I might find a class to take with my college age son. That would be worthwhile.
something JB quoted: [i]At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners.[/i]
That’s heavily glossing over things and leaving out plenty. What you see at the beginning of the Cambrian are animals that were better capable of being preserved as fossils. That’s when organisms began evolving hard shells and teeth. You can preserve shells in a number of different kinds of rocks. Soft-bodied organisms existed well before the Cambrian, but were only preserved in ideal settings (calm, low-energy muds on the ocean floor, but not on higher-energy, wave-battered beaches). There are soft-bodied fore-runners of trilobites.
[i]Gish[/i]
When you start referencing Duane Gish, then you’re quoting someone who takes a literal view of the Bible, and carries all of that baggage. Basically a young Earth creationist. Are you sure you want to be holding him up to support your position?
Gish and many other creationists definitely cherry-pick their evidence. And if you cherry pick just right, then you can come up with any narrative that suits your interest.
Don’s right, you know, about taking some science classes. You’d also benefit from taking a geology class in Earth history.
JB: [i]The oldest primate hominid fossil is only 7 million years old. Don’t we need to go back at least a couple billion years to prove humans evolved from simple organisms?[/i]
Sure. We can. What’s your point?
If humans arrived by special creation, as you seem to propose, why do their DNA use the same four chemical compounds as pond scum? Why do humans and chimpanzees share about 94% DNA? Why do humans have vestigial organs that other animals utilize but we don’t? (ear muscles, appendix, goose bump mechanisim to make hair stand up straight) Why do human fetuses resemble other animal fetuses in their early stages of development?
With that kind of evidence for starters, I think the onus is on you to present a more plausible scientific explanation beyond “God showed up, waved his wand, and POOF!” That kind of explanation isn’t science, unless you present measurable empirical evidence.
Personally I don’t find anything undignified in humans being descended from common ancestors of other life forms on Earth. All of the elements on Earth once formed in the stars, including those in you, your wife, kids, Barack Obama, and your favorite conservative politician. There is wonder to be derived in science with that realization. Why spoil what is already a really good story, based on empirical research?
And to bring this somewhat back to topic, bonobos, a close genetic relative to humans and chimmpanzees, exhibit bisexual behavior in nature, and are noted for being sexually promiscuous.
Perhaps it allows for easier objective study of ourselves to witness some recognizeable human-type behavior in other species.
bonobos are near extinct.
We will have to take this up at another time, since we are off topic and I have been told to stop.
Don/wdf1:
Here is someone that does a much better job explaining my position and beliefs. I would be curious to know what you think, but at another time when this topic comes up.
[url]http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/stephen_meyer_gives_a_primer_o048071.html[/url]
I am especially interested in his point about “perceived consensus” in the academic and media culture.
This last piece of the video interview of Stephen Meyer should make the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
The presence of digital code (DNA) is evidence of an intelligent source.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LRk8HC791y0[/url]
[i]The presence of digital code (DNA) is evidence of an intelligent source[/i].
Nonsense.
Are you going to answer my question?
Don:
[i]”The presence of digital code (DNA) is evidence of an intelligent source.
Nonsense.”[/i]
I’m sorry but it seems I am being treated to that “perceived concensus” backlash explained by Mr. Meyer. It makes much sense.
[i]”Biologocally normal?”[/i]
In the context of two animals of opposite sex mating to produce offspring so the species continues, homosexuality is biologically incorrect. It is very simple to understand. I don’t care that 1%-6% of humans are homosexual (I understand we have no reliable numbers), or that some monkeys play with other monkeys of the same sex. It serves no specific useful biological purpose other than making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside that love is in the air.
Here is the test… what if rates of homosexuality increase to 20% or 25% or maybe even 50%? If it was biologically normal that would not be a problem, right? What if the monkeys were 50% homosexual… meaning they selected to mate only with a member of their same sex? Would you still consider it biologically normal as their species grows extinct? Now, if they hump the same sex for fun, but they go create babies with a hookup of the opposite sex… then maybe you can make the case that they are biologically correct for their species. Is this the model you support for humans?… because that brings up and entirely new set of points to discuss.
Maybe you want to make the case that some percentage of homosexuality is normal for all, or most or some species. If so, what percent is that?
I will continue to recognize it as something special and socially accepted… but not biologically normal. I frankly don’t know why you would argue that point.
JB: [i]I will continue to recognize it as something special and socially accepted… but not biologically normal. I frankly don’t know why you would argue that point.[/i]
Do you think that left-handedness is biologically normal? Why or why not? How do you decide that a trait is biologically normal or not?
JB
In the context of two animals of the opposite sex mating to produce offspring so the species continues,, sex with a post menopausal woman is biologically incorrect. So perhaps you would support male polygamy as the more biologically correct model ?
Producing offspring is clearly not the only function of sex and I have the feeling that there are more than enough couples of opposite sex in their reproductive years to avert your disaster scenario of homosexuality killing off the species.
“it is the libertarian in me that recoils at the current involvement of science in our social and cultural life. I am wondering why the libertarian in you does not seem to recoil from the involvement of religion in our social and cultural life. If, as you have claimed in other posts that you believe that science is some people’s religion, then surely it should have equal rights with other religions to weigh in on our social and cultural life. And if it should not be involved, then surely no other religion should be involved either.
[i]”Do you think that left-handedness is biologically normal?”[/i]
That is a silly comparisons. What is the biological function of sex for a species? The pleasure provided by sex is a sub biological function to encourage mating. So, socially and with technology we have found ways to enjoy sex without procreating. Fine then, homosexuality is socially correct from that perspective and growing more politically correct, but it will never be biologically correct. Polygamy and Polyandry are biologically correct, but not socially or politically correct.
A gay friend of mine argued that a macro biological function of controlling population might account for a percentage of homosexual individuals. However, I would have to be shown the science to prove that… especially since Western society is doing fine with hetrosexual couples reducing the population with an unsustainable birth rates.
[i]I am wondering why the libertarian in you does not seem to recoil from the involvement of religion in our social and cultural life.[/i]
I would recoil if it was forced on me. However there are many aspects of Christianity and Judeism that have been long woven into our American culture and have been accepted as normal and traditional. Progressives seem to wake up every morning to demand more things traditionally American be stripped and replaced with more things foreign. I might grow to accept these demanded changes based on their merits; but force them on me and I will generally recoil and fight against them. That is what most libertarians do.
JB: [i]That is a silly comparisons.[/i]
Okay. I asked because I was curious where you’re coming from in defining biological normalcy. So anyone incapable of biological reproduction, for whatever reason, is not biologically normal? That seems to open up a can of worms for you to justify.
[i]”So anyone incapable of biological reproduction, for whatever reason, is not biologically normal?”[/i]
Are you making a case that gays are disabled or somehow physically damaged or spent? Because that is the only other comparison I can see from your comments. Assuming this is not the case, and assuming the people are healthy and of the age where their reproductive organs all function, homosexuals couples cannot reproduce without technology, or some new social customs I don’t even want to consider. Assuming those customs would be required for homosexual couples to conceive children, it would definitely justify a different definition of marriage.
We are talking about sex here… the biological function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Gays cannot reproduce. They cannot fulfill the biological function of creating offspring that perpetuates the species. They require a percentage of straight heterosexual couples to do that work (although some might not consider it very hard work) for them.
Again, I suppose it makes sense that there is some macro biological function for a percentage of humans to be homosexual. From that perspective I could accept that homosexuality is biologically correct similar to how there is a percentage of humans born with red hair or Autism. However, there are not scientific theories on this that I can find. The gay and gay-rights crowd bristles at any attempt to find any genetic markers that can identify the cause of their gayness. In any case, how does homosexuality fit into the theories of natural selection assuming we lacked the technology for artificial insemination and our social and cultural rules prevented the practice of sex outside of partnership for conception… limitations that existed in Darwin’s time?
JB: I think you reveal more individualistic perspectives to culture and politics. It seems that in your perspective, if you end up having more kids, grandkids, great-grandkids than I do, then you “win” the game of genetics. You would have an interest in propagating you and your wife’s genetic material as a very high priority.
But another way to look at it is that humans as a species succeed relative to other life forms if their genetic material lasts longer than that of other species. If humans last longer than cockroaches, then humans “win” the game of genetics. From that perspective, it may not make sense for every single individual to have offspring. Instead some individuals may be useful in helping other offspring to succeed. Such would be the case for perhaps a school teacher who doesn’t end up marrying and having kids, but perhaps busts her butt to do a good job for her school kids.
If you look at it from a species perspective, then I think you can explain a lot of differences in politics and perspectives. It explains why all these modern day socialists have those collectivist tendencies that you find distasteful. There may be times when it is better to have an individualist perspective, other times when it’s better to have a species (“collectivist”) perspective. In politics, I guess it’s an argument over which direction is the best to go.
If a person has an individualistic perspective, then for his/her kid to come out as homosexual would violate the individualistic genetic game, so there might be a tendency to see the offspring as “not playing for the team”, and maybe it would be easier to justify ostracism.
JB: [i]A gay friend of mine argued that a macro biological function of controlling population might account for a percentage of homosexual individuals.[/i]
Maybe somewhat related:
Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation[/url]
Evolution and this biological imperative to reproduction refers to the population, not the individual. The curriculum proposal addresses a problem facing gay youths — individuals. The best role models for such youths are gay adults — individuals. The effect on the ultimate survival of Homo sapiens is almost irrelevant to this discussion. Our impulse to do the things that lead to procreation far outpaces the need for viable zygotes.
wdf1: like I wrote, you make a case for what is socially or culturally correct, but not for one that is biologically correct. It is really quite simple… the biological mechanical ability to conceive children does not exist between homosexual partnership. Left to themselves, without social and cultural norms and rituals to procreate outside of their partnership, they would not have children even if they wanted children. With a high enough percentage of homosexual couples in a group, that group population would grow extinct. The replenishment birth rate is 2%… that is two children per couple so when the couple dies, there are two individuals to replace them. Anything less than 2% of a population and the population is not sustainable. For me, that is a very strong argument for homosexual being biologically incorrect.
I will share a bias I have… it is a bias against married couples that chose to not have children. Of course there are reasons that some married couples cannot or should not have children or more children… but for those capable that chose not to, I consider them selfish… taking exotic vacations, shopping, eating at nice restaurants. Meanwhile looking down their noses at “all those poor mommies and daddies dealing with their little brats”. Most of these childless couples I know are liberals. Some of them I love and many of them I like. However, I will always consider them a bit selfish. It fits with the rest of their behavior in the baby boomer “me” generation that I am embarrassed to be a part of (barely). What I find interesting too… with smaller and smaller families, I think more of the population looks to nanny government to care for them in their later years. I haven’t seen any demographic facts on this point… but my bet is that there is a strong correlation between larger families and conservatism, and small or childless families and single people and liberalism.
[i]Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation[/i]
wdf1: Wow that is very interesting. I had never heard of this before. I have two younger brothers. I am right-handed. However, I apparently am the most sensitive and have a strong decorating and design tendency.
However, there is not an ounce of homosexuality in any of the Boone bothers.
I guess we should all thank my mother for taking her vitamins… not that there would be anything wrong with one of my brothers being gay!
JB
Our life experiences have led us to very different conclusions. In my career, I have seen many couples who choose to reproduce without a full awareness of the life time commitment they are making to the well being of another human being. Many people, for many different reasons apart from selfishness are not well suited to this task. I consider it an act of appropriate self assessment and restraint to choose not to have children if you know in your heart that for whatever reason, you are not well suited to parenthood. Also, you chose as your example to portray your couple as some disagreeable egotists who “look down their noses” at others. What about the couple who chose not to have biological children of their own, but devote their lives to raising orphans, or any other charitable work for that matter? Are they also selfish ? Surely there are many ways to make a positive contribution to our society besides having children. Ways that should be equally available to all people regardless of their sexual orientation.
[i]”What about the couple who chose not to have biological children of their own, but devote their lives to raising orphans, or any other charitable work for that matter? Are they also selfish ?”[/i]
No they are not selfish… I was too broad in my explanation. Certainly not ALL married couples that choose to not have children are selfish. And I agree that some married couples know they would make lousy parents and so maybe are better off trusting their instincts. We also have no fault divorce, and other invented barriers to marital longevity, and this throws a big wrench into the child raising process. It makes sense that everything be considered when deciding to have kids, because I think raising babies to functioning, happy adults is the most complicated and difficult, but most important, project we humans undertake. What I should have said is that I see many childless married couples as being selfish by comparison to those making the sacrifices and doing the hard work to raise children.
I watched my parents split in a “War of the Roses” type divorce, and pledged to do better. This led me to very careful consideration about marriage and children. My wife and I were together three years before marriage, and married for seven years before we had our first child. We had our second son two years later. Marriage was a cake walk before kids. It was after they were born that the real relationship work began. The challenge of balancing job-marriage-kids-self is profound hard work… but I think it is the cost to admission for married life and what we are supposed to do. Those married couples that choose a live void of kids are much less impressive in my book.
I am also worried about the drop in Western birth rates below sustainable population rates while other backward cultures crank out 6 or 7 babies per mother. I see this as just another in a long line of Western social and cultural destruction provided by the post WWII generation. Post WWII was the beginning of the “me” generation. We burned through mountains of debt trying to find happiness… and what most of us will discover in our late years is that we screwed up deciding not to create a family, and we also screwed the future of children from those that did.
Vatican Reverses Stance On Gay Marriage After Meeting Tony And Craig
[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/vatican-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-after-meet,20912/[/url]
😉
Governor Signs Bill Requiring LGBT Contributions Be Taught In Schools
[url]http://www.capradio.org/articles/2011/07/14/governor-signs-bill-requiring-lgbt-contributions-be-taught-in-schools[/url]
[i]After signing the bill, Governor Brown said “history should be honest.” But many Republicans opposed the measure, saying it was agenda-driven. Randy Thomasson with the conservative “SaveCalifornia.com” says the bill amounts to sexual brainwashing, and says the Governor has trampled on the rights of the state’s parents. He urges them to remove their kids from public schools.[/i]
I like Brown’s quote. If schools are an environment in which homosexuality is only mentioned in disparaging and insulting ways (boys taunting each other for not displaying enough masculinity, for instance), then it amounts to “sexual brainwashing” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) for kids who begin to realize that they are homosexual.
I have to wonder what it must be like for a child of a staunch social conservative, who turns out to be homosexual. A parent can’t choose the sexual orientation of their kids. It would be enlightening to learn how Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing had to deal with homosexual prejudice in their day. I don’t see how learning about Harvey Milk or Martina Navratilova would be a bad thing, either.