A wrong choice for Obama to be a major figure in his inauguration, but also wrong in general.
I know that Obama’s big deal is supposedly inclusiveness – to include all in his cabinet and the decision making, even those who may disagree with him. Well OK, including some people who may disagree with you, and who won’t be afraid to stand up to you, can be a good thing. We could have done with some of that over the past eight years. But having someone who disagrees with you is one thing. It is OK to disagree at times. What is not OK is to include someone who is just plain wrong.
Warren is wrong on so many things. Many people have pointed out that he is wrong on Proposition 8, and everything to do with the treatment of gay people. But then Obama has also said he’s against gay people being allowed to marry, so perhaps Obama agrees with Warren on this topic, on some level at least. So it’s not this thing that surprises me so much about this pick. It disappoints me considerably, but it doesn’t totally surprise me. What I do find incomprehensible though, for a President-Elect who has promised to reinstate the importance of science in his administration, is that he will give so much prominence to an evolution denier.
For example, this is Warren during a debate with Sam Harris:
If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.
Warren’s ignorance of science most likely informs his other positions on gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights. Such a man should not have any place in Obama’s inauguration. Inclusiveness is OK, wrong is just wrong at any time.
Wow, I have not disagreed with you this much in the 1.5 years of reading this blog.
Warren may have his head totally up his ass. At least there we can agree. But his administration is poised to do the greatest comeback any country has ever seen. The only way that can be done is if idiots like bill o'reilly and that ilk are silenced to some degree for some time. to help bring some optimism to a country mired in dispair, that has had two teams that have been fostered to hate each other. The only way to do that is to show some inclusiveness.
"Obama’s big deal is supposedly inclusiveness"
Its not just his big deal, its the only way we can get out of this mess 12 years of conservatism has done to this country. As freethinkers we may not like religiots being a majority of this country, but we certainly have to face that fact. And that fact requires some tending to.
I think this is a brilliant move, one that can help to heal the huge divide between the left and the right and hopefully get back on the same planet together.
You'll also note, that he hasn't put warren on anything important. no legislative importance, no executive importance .He's just going to be pretending that god is on his side for a little while. so what? This is a move we have not seen in this country for decades. Something like this wouldn't have even crossed bushes mind.
Its not like he appointed Warren to be the head of the energy department or science liaison. He deployed very good candidates for those positions. I'd say you had something to gripe about if we see Warren on at the rudder of whoever doles out research money for biology, or family planning.
but this? Its simply a non-issue.
vjack has also discussed this. and has a similar opinion as you.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 20, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Maybe I should have just shortened my verbage and said what Zeno said over at pharyngula.
"Warren doesn't matter. I wouldn't have chosen him and I'm sorry that Obama's inauguration committee did, but all Warren gets to do is mumble some meaningless words on January 20. He's not a member of the administration and he's not a policy advisor. I hope his selection for the inauguration ceremony is just a sop to the Christians, but I doubt they can be bought off that easily.
The science appointments, on the other hand, those are of cosmic importance. And they're stellar. (And I have no opinion yet on the selection of Salazar.)"
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 20, 2008 at 09:22 PM
TechSkeptic...you have articulated what I have been unable to. Thank you.
Posted by: GAgal | December 21, 2008 at 05:28 AM
TechSkeptic is right. Like it or not, Christians -- even bigotted Evangelical Creationist morons -- are citizens of this country too, and are thus part of Obama's constituency, even when they're wrong. I salute Obama for making good on his promise: "I will be [their] President too."
Posted by: WScott | December 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I agree re the need for inclusiveness. I argued, and I still say, that there is a limit to who you include in the inauguration, and that limit is where someone is totally wrong.
The inauguration is not a small thing. (Via atheist Revolution), Barney Frank explains:
Exactly. This move implies Obama agrees with Warren. Inviting him to a discussion, a meeting to discuss how to handle things, would be different. There, Obama could express the areas he disagrees with Warren (assuming he does), and he could ignore Warren’s opinions if he wanted. (I would prefer Warren not be included even in this, actually, but that’s a separate issue.) But including him in the inauguration implies validation and a degree of respect. Warren doesn’t need any more validation. He actually should be given less validation, not more. He was already given far too much by allowing him to moderate a Presidential debate at his church – something that both candidates should have said no to anyway in my view.
If it’s important to Warren and his followers because of what it do for Warren, then it’s a bad move. If it’s not important, because it’s just a sop, then why do it? If it’s done to pander, then it’s not change I can believe in. It only makes sense if Obama agrees with Warren. I hope he doesn’t. In which case it was just a lousy decision. And one he should rescind.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 22, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Warren doesn’t need any more validation
But Obama does with almost 1/2 of the country. The invocation and inauguration are not about Warren, they are about Obama.
What if we do not hear one word about gays or gay marriage and nothing about abortion. Would that make it better? Or does just the mere presence of this guy spoil the dinner?
If it’s done to pander, then it’s not change I can believe in.
I highly doubt this was a move to delineate anything that you can beleive in. It has nothing to do with you or most liberals or any gays. It has to do with Obama needing to get the support of people who do not support him.
What about the dude talking for the benediction (I dont even know what the hell that is) I hear that guy is more tolerant and like minded. Shall we ignore that? Shall we ignore all the sigh ratings Obama has previously gotten from gay rights groups? Why does this pandering cancel out the clear line of evidence of Obamas support of the gay community?
Vkack copied an article from someone who went all godwin and pointed out that asking warren to speak at this is like asking Himler to speak at an inauguration of someone who won on a pro-jew platform. And I agree, it is like that. But so what?
We just went through 8-12 years (depending on when you start counting) of not being listened to. How did that work out for you? Did you feel during that time that you were represented? Did you feel the upcoming inevitable doom? I did. do you think putting that same feeling on the other side of the country will help?
One year from now, no one will care who spoke at this event. All people will care about is what actions were done and whether they resulted in negative or positive changes.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 23, 2008 at 08:53 AM
"Genesis is literal, but..metaphorical terms are used"
WTF? Seriously, is that supposed to make sense?
Posted by: Badger3k | December 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Techskeptic:
I can’t believe you wrote this:
You’re saying that would be OK? I presume that’s what you’re saying because you agree it would be the same thing. I just want to be sure though - is that what you meant? If not, what did you mean? Some other questions spring to mind. Would it be OK in your view, if they had enough supporters in the country, to ask someone who:
Would those be OK for the inauguration? If not, why not?
And yet you debunked this claim, later, in your own words:
Well which is it? Will he be getting support from these other people because of his asking Warren to speak, or will no one remember it a year from now? Will it have an effect or will no one remember it? Because it can’t be both. Obama can’t be getting benefit from including Warren if no one will remember it.
And that is part of why this is such a bad idea. It’s lose lose.
I never cared about being “represented”. I cared that the government was headed by a bunch of liars who were also anti science. What I wanted was for them to be honest, to be intelligent, and do the right thing. That’s what I believed Obama will be. Until this. This is the wrong thing.
I never said it cancelled it out did I?
I’ll say again, this validates a nasty little bigot. It was unnecessary. It will be unlikely to gain him anything with Warren’s people long term (unless he caves some more). And make no mistake, neither Warren nor his supporters will budge one inch from their fundamentalist bigoted positions. That is the error in thinking you can somehow win over these people by playing nice.
It has pissed off his base for no reason. And it damages him. It damages him because he is making a very bad decision, and for apparently craven reasons. The first really bad decision he has made.
As I wrote, some beliefs are just wrong, and have no place at this inauguration.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 23, 2008 at 08:12 PM
I can see both sides here, techskeptic's and skeptico's...
Skeptico is right 100%. I couldn't see the point of having a religious figure doing it in the first place. Obama doesn't need the support of the christians in this country, because he got elected by the majority. Why should he care if he is popular with the christians from the gate? Why not win them over with policy decisions and leadership skills, rather than having a batshit insane godbot from my hometown preaching at his inauguration?
it's not win/lose, or lose/win... it's lose/lose for everyone. Christians will hear Bill-o say "he's just doing it for the ratings" and will resent him for that; atheists will shake their heads and say "business as usual"; and people who really supported obama as a catalyst of change will be disappointed in him.
Who's winning, here?
Posted by: genewitch | December 24, 2008 at 01:52 PM
How do we know it won't have an impact on the Christian community? Maybe O'Reilly won't dismiss it out of hand. Maybe it will send a powerful message that he wants evangelicals (the people who sent all those nasty e-mail chains about him) to feel okay about his presidency. Obama has stated emphatically that he does not agree with Warren on gay rights. Throughout his candidacy, he promised to engaged with people he disagrees with.
It could fail. But why not take an opportunity to make up some symbolic ground with them? I think it says something about Obama's character that he would extend that olive branch in favor of self-congratulatory back patting. It's easy to demonize others and feels satisfying to call them out on being Nazi-esque shitheads. It's much harder to seek some common ground and see the best in someone. If symbolizing Obama's desire for unity is the best Rick Warren has to offer, then so be it. The true rewards of Obama's administration (if all goes well) will be policy based. I'll sacrifice a little symbolism if it helps. And with a young, African-American becoming POTUS, there's surely enough symbolism to go around.
Posted by: noOnecalledjones | December 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I think there's a difference between extending an olive branch and giving a dangerous, fanatical dumbass a prominent platform. There was no need at all for Obama to make such a choice.
From here in Europe, it seems to me that Obama's administration will be a bit like Clinton's, only with the war on "terror" added, as well as all the other destructive legacies of the Bush era.
Posted by: yakaru | December 26, 2008 at 01:55 PM
Give morons an inch and they'll want a mile. Just sayin'.
Maybe we should just be pissed that the future leader of the country still takes orders from spirits? Or does that just go without saying?
Warren is a moron and deserves no credit or recognition for anything apart from that, especially a position in a presidential inauguration. I'd like to hear a cogent argument that this is an insignificant role for any preacher to the faithful to have.
Love,
Your Rockstar
Posted by: Ryan W. | December 26, 2008 at 04:45 PM
I must admit that I too was annoyed at Obama's choice of Warren, but I realized he's just kissing the butts of members of the religious right. It is a gesture towards inclusiveness, and it's not like he tapped this bible-thumping schmuck for a major Cabinet post.
And it could have been worse--he could have picked Billy Graham's yahoo son, Franklin.
Posted by: SFGiants | December 27, 2008 at 09:13 AM
I wort a whole response to that, being shocked that I wrote that also, but then I thought about it more.
I was remarking on a comment at Vjacks blog. Its a common theme amongst atheist and freethinking blogs. Warren=bad. My position is simply that it isnt that bad, and may be good.
Back to the remark. It was due to an analogy, that having him speak is like himler speaking after someone who is pro-jew has won an election in germany, or some such thing. As you know argument by analogy, is inherently flawed becuase the analogy breaks down somewhere.
In this case, Warren simply is not like Himmler. If you took away the fact that himmler is one of the biggest mass murderers of all times, who thought experimenting on the underpriveledged was a right, and produced the world most efficient eugenics program....if you took away all that, then yeah, perhaps then its like warren speaking at this invocation.
Warren simply is not as bad as Himmler. He is dead wrong on lots of things, but having him speak at this is not like having Himmler speak. Warren is not responsible for the death of millions of gays, he has not sought a plan to exterminate gays, etc etc.
Not only is Warren not Himmler, the circumstances by which Himmler rose to power are not the same either here. If there was a pro-Jew candidate in germany and only one half of the population was against this candidate, then yeah, wouldn't it be prudent to have this non-mass murdering, but perhaps jew hating, dude speak there in order to help bridge that gap?
Come on, I even know gay people that vote republican. I for one have never heard of Jews voting for anyone in the Nazi Party. Clearly the right to marry is not the same as trying to stay alive. Yes it sucks, y4es I totally agree that they should have the same rights as everyone else. But we aren't talking about the same scale here.
OK, that is what I meant by that, it was not that I agreed that it would be OK to have the real Himmler speak at a pro-jew inauguration. it was that if the analogy were true, Himmler wouldn't be Himmler.
As for your examples:
Yes, IF most of the country also subscribed the the examples you had above. It doesnt mean they are right, it means that in the process of getting it right, you must win over the large numbers of people who are against you. do you actually want to get more people to believe that the earth is round and that those 'sciency' types who claim roundness arent out to get them and take away their flatness? Then yeah, you need to have some wacko from their side, speak highly of the roundness leader.
Any other method is simply divisive and what has been done these last 8 years. Are you feeling more conservative due to divisive politics? Has that worked for you? put yourself in the shoes of a religious nut who has been told that the new president is a mulsim terrorist. Wouldn't you need a little help raising your trust?
Sorry you are dead wrong here. It CAN be both. Here is why, you may not remember exactly why ultraviolet light may be bad for you, but you probably know that it is. You may not remember exactly how you get your energy from food, but you know that it does.
Whether Warren spoke or not, may or may not be remembered, but if (and I certainly don't claim any certainty here) it does in fact help to bridge the gap between reps and dems then I am all for it. They may not remember exactly what it was to help them be comfortable with Obama as president, but they would know that they are. Clearly having warren speak will not be the only thing that does that, but it may (or may not) be one link in that chain.
Perhaps, i guess we will see.
I hope government gets out of the marriage business altogether, civil unions for everyone.
p.s. what is this timeout thing on editing comments?
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 27, 2008 at 01:51 PM
TechSkeptic
I guess we’ll have to disagree. I think leaders have to lead with principle, not pander. And maybe this is one reason why:
No, but then pandering to me wouldn’t have changed me either. Persuading me with evidence (for example, if there really had been WMDs ready to go), might have changed my mind. Warren’s people aren’t going to change their minds though, in my view. No matter what we do. Oh well - we’ll see, I guess.
You get five minutes to edit your comment after you’ve posted it. After that you can’t change it. That prevents woos from going back and changing what they wrote. AFAIK you have unlimited time to edit in preview mode before you post. Although the preview screen is now small, for some reason. Is it a problem?
Posted by: Skeptico | December 27, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Warren's ignorance on science need have nothing to do with his views regarding gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights because, quite frankly, none of these issues have anything to do with scientific literacy at all.
When you conflate your reverence for rationality with your aesthetic preferences regarding gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights you sound no more intellectually honest than any ole preacher.
Short refresher course:
There is zero evidence to suggest that 10% of human babies are born as genetically ordained exclusive homosexuals, regardless of later environmental factors (such as how homosexuality is viewed by the society in which they're raised).
One's policy positions regarding stem cell research speaks to the issue of what is to be regarded as "human" and thus valuable to fellow humans. Wherever one draws the line it's an arbitrary line and a secular case can be made for being a "hardliner" on the subject so that human life is never considered as something with any room for negotiation.
Women's rights have nothing to do with science either as is blatantly evident even without entering Larry Summers territory. Can one not support a policy of enslaving all Sumatrans without being ignorant of science? The things have nothing to do with each other.
Posted by: mnuez | December 30, 2008 at 02:48 AM
Warren's ignorance on science need have nothing to do with his views regarding gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights because, quite frankly, none of these issues have anything to do with scientific literacy at all.
Wrong
When you conflate your reverence for rationality with your aesthetic preferences regarding gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights you sound no more intellectually honest than any ole preacher.
What total nonsense. My "aestheic preferences", stem cell research has nothing to do with scientific literacy?
There is zero evidence to suggest that 10% of human babies are born as genetically ordained exclusive homosexuals, regardless of later environmental factors (such as how homosexuality is viewed by the society in which they're raised).
You do know that homosexuality is found in animals other than humans, don't you? Guess not. You fail. Damn that scientific illiteracy.
One's policy positions regarding stem cell research speaks to the issue of what is to be regarded as "human" and thus valuable to fellow humans. Wherever one draws the line it's an arbitrary line and a secular case can be made for being a "hardliner" on the subject so that human life is never considered as something with any room for negotiation.
And how might we determine what it is to be human? Geography literacy? English literacy? Baking? You know, I'm sure there is a human endeavour that might help. Something to do with the pursuit of knowledge. It's just on the tip of my tongue. Anyway, whatever it is I am thinking of I am sure it has nothing to do with the scientific field of stem cell research.
Women's rights have nothing to do with science either as is blatantly evident even without entering Larry Summers territory.
Right. Because science might not have anything to add to this. Like, maybe, that we are all similar and related in some fundamental way. That despite outward appearing differences we are essentially all the same. No, science would have nothing to offer there.
Can one not support a policy of enslaving all Sumatrans without being ignorant of science? The things have nothing to do with each other.
Sure, but you can't support it on the grounds of inferiority without being ignorant of science. The suppression of womens rights was based on their supposed inferiority. Something science demonstrated is not true.
Try again.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 30, 2008 at 08:52 AM
hmm.. Look at me, being all wooey here again. I think both of you (jimmy and mnuez) are a bit extreme.
mnuez said:
ok thats right... but then you went overboard.
Nothing at all?
I agree with what mnuez is trying to say (I think). Its true, science doesn't bring us the answers to what is right and what is wrong. However, they often bring us the facts that allow us to debate what is right and what is wrong. It also brings us information by which we can use to fight our own emotions in our quest to improve our lives.
As Jimmy pointed out, how do we choose what it is to be human, or what consciousness is and so forth? Well we get some information from biology but we also get information from sociology. We can choose what it is to be human based on purely biological benchmarks, or we can look at how different definitions might and do affect the prosperity of a society as a whole. Same with stem cells, same with gay marriage.
You are right mnuez to some degree. Yeah, science doesnt define right and wrong, nor does it define any of our human rights, nor does it give shape to our morals. All it does is provide information by which we can shape and debate our opinions of right and wrong.
as for Warren, how can he offer any rational opinion to what right and wrong is if he refuses to look at the available information. This is why being wrong
(logically or scientifically) is actually bad when it comes participating in the debate and definitions of human ethics.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 30, 2008 at 09:30 AM
There is zero evidence to suggest that 10% of human babies are born as genetically ordained exclusive homosexuals
Correct, which is why genetesists don't talk like that and journalists shouldn't write like that.
When they say there is a gene "for" something, they just mean it occurs with an unusually high frequency in a particular group. On an individual level, however, much depends on the combination of genes as well as a host of other influences. A person may have the gene and not be gay. There isn't a "one to one" correlation between a particular gene and a particular behaviour.
What it does pretty much establish, however, is that homosexual behaviour can be genetically influenced. I guess that is what you are trying to argue is not the case, and in that, I think you are completely wrong.
Posted by: yakaru | December 30, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Yakari, if you think that I'm trying to argue that there's never any genetic influence in what's later manifested as homosexual interests or behaviors then you really are strawmanning me in your head. I believe no such thing whatsoever, was not attempting to make any such case and I agree with everything that you wrote in your comment. The fact remains however that the widespread belief (particularly among people angered by Warren's position) is that homosexuality is genetically (or otherwise innately) determinate and in this they are taking an extraordinary leap of faith against common sense, historical experience and the growing continent of scientific data.
Posted by: mnuez | December 30, 2008 at 01:49 PM
...citations to back that up?
Posted by: Skeptico | December 30, 2008 at 01:56 PM
I'd expand the request...
How is it against common sense? Homosexuality among animals has been observed in 100's of species. How is it common sense to think that humans wouldnt display homosexual behavior when our closest relatives in the animal kindom do?
I know what you are going to say: becuase they don't reproduce. When you drink coffee in the morning do you do it to increase your chances of reproduction? or do you do it because it feels good? We are not solely products of the drive to reproduce, we are social creatures.
How is it against historical experience? Way back in the days of ancient greece. In sparta it was encouraged in the military.
Then as Skeptico asked, what growing body of scientific data shows that homosexuality is not part of the genetic or normal developmental process?
Here once again we see that science can provide the data for its occurrence, the circumstances in which it occurs, is it harmful or not to the individual or society as a whole and so forth, but says nothing about right or wrong. That is a value we have to debate and decide amongst ourselves.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | December 30, 2008 at 02:55 PM
TechS, I enjoy your final paragraph and will address the other paragraphs as follows (and pardon the strange literary style here but I happen to be inebriated at the moment):
When you're a lone voice of rationality in an irrational world it's pretty useless to keep shouting. I believe that were you to read my comments more closely and to note that most of my words are there for a reason, you might find the answers to some of your queries. One example would be the fact that in no place and at no time did I say anything for which your references to other primates or sparta would be relevant. I spoke quite clearly about the prospect of some 10% of the populace being calvinistically ordained to be EXCLUSIVELY homosexual REGARDLESS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (and would thus turn out to be internally devoted to the exclusive homosexuality in both modern Iran and ancient Greece).
Again, while granting that while not every single word that should ever enter the internets by my hand has been weighed and measured for accuracy (particularly when under the influence) I do allege that I'm a far more precise writer than most people are readers. I request that you regard my comments as such and therefore save yourself the trouble of assuming that I'm saying time-worn silly things that I would never consider saying.
Oh and happy new year to you and yours. And furthermore, I'm currently in Vegas, currently heterosexual and currently interested in any acceptable looking female who would be interested in my services. Shakespeare made some comment on the effects of drink in his Comedy of Errors but I would agree to only part of his poetry. ;-)
Posted by: mnuez | December 30, 2008 at 04:21 PM
As regards my closing invitation as well as other inquiries, I believe that my email address should be readily accessible via my blogger profile. Being unaware as to whether any comment of mine here is responded to in this space, I can't confidently speak to my futurely seeing it. I'll check back to be sure but it would be helpful if typepad offered the "email future comments" option that blogger does.
A freilichen ~
Posted by: mnuez | December 30, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Techskeptic:
I think both of you (jimmy and mnuez) are a bit extreme.
I am not really sure I understand in what sense my point was extreme, but I'll plow on nonetheless.
Its true, science doesn't bring us the answers to what is right and what is wrong.
Science does not deal directly with the morality of an issue, but it can tell us what is right or wrong based on what it does deal with.
Based on the scientific evidence, it is absurd to call homosexuality wrong in any sense. You can no more call homosexuality right or wrong than you can call having brown eyes right or wrong. You cannot simply one day choose to be homosexual anymore than you can choose how many digits you have on each hand - but this is the simplistic view many overly religious people take. If it is a property of your physical being, only the scientifically illiterate or the unrepentant bigot can call it wrong.
The "homosexuality, right or wrong" debate stems directly from scientific illiteracy or ignorance.
I think this is partly what you are saying when you go on to say:
However, they often bring us the facts that allow us to debate what is right and what is wrong.
But I disagree somewhat. You cannot debate the right or wrong of something that just is, and the scientific evidence strongly suggests that homosexuality just is in most cases. It is neither right nor wrong, and arguing that point is arguing on the bigots terms.
Once you understand the scientific basis (and the scientific evidence is growing for a biological origin) for homosexuality then you are no longer talking about an "aesthetic preference regarding gay rights", you are talking about a section of society being denied basic human rights for no good reason. That is why Warren's scientific illiteracy has everything to do with his views on homosexuality.
It also brings us information by which we can use to fight our own emotions in our quest to improve our lives.
This is a more eloquent expression of the point that you can be scientifcally literate and still racist. But that would be a case where science does tell you that you are wrong.
As Jimmy pointed out, how do we choose what it is to be human, or what consciousness is and so forth? Well we get some information from biology but we also get information from sociology.
I would count sociology as a science though, don't you? I would suggest however that sociology is mostly concerned with the varieties of humanity, rather than what it is to actually be human, which is the domain of the biological sciences. So the answer to what is consciousness and what is human would come from that arena.
Societies can debate a definition of what human is, but if they disagree with a biological defintion of it, then they are wrong. Science can show us what is right or wrong, just not the morality we invent for some issues.
mnuez:
The fact remains however that the widespread belief (particularly among people angered by Warren's position) is that homosexuality is genetically (or otherwise innately) determinate and in this they are taking an extraordinary leap of faith against common sense, historical experience and the growing continent of scientific data.
And your source for this growing continent of scientific data is what? Provide your sources or retract the statement. It certainly appears that you are not as aware of the science here as you think, see the links at the end of this post.
The people taking a leap against common sense are the people who deny that homosexuality is largely biologically determined before birth.
You cannot choose to be sexually attracted only to people of the same sex. Sexual attraction is a biological function, you can no more turn it on and off than you can turn the biolgocial need for sustenance on or off. It can be repressed, or it can be encouraged, but not turned on or off. You can act on it or you can choose not to. But you cannot turn it off.
Do you argue that people make a choice to be heterosexual based on environment? Did you choose to be heterosexual? When? Can you define what criteria you examined before choosing? What about your environment controls your sexual attractions? Could you change tomorrow and decide to be homosexual - that is, not just engaging in sexual acts with someone of your own sex but finding people of the opposite sex completely sexually unattractive and to only be sexually attracted to people of the same sex?
No, you can't. Hence, people don't simply choose to be homosexual, they just are. This is partly demonstrated by the fact that there are many instances of homosexuality in animals. Or do you argue that canine society, for example, can force canines to be homosexual? Do you actually think that dogs can wake up one day and say to themselves "You know what, I think I am going to be gay since it appears to be accepted now."
Bear in mind here as well that there is a difference between engaging in homosexual acts and being homosexual.
Furthermore, if you think that scientific literacy has nothing to do with the stupid debate over whether homosexuality is right or wrong, try this:
Without reference to scientific criteria, and without reference to arbitrary religious dogma, define why homosexuality is wrong. We can wait.
I spoke quite clearly about the prospect of some 10% of the populace being calvinistically ordained to be EXCLUSIVELY homosexual REGARDLESS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (and would thus turn out to be internally devoted to the exclusive homosexuality in both modern Iran and ancient Greece).
Incidentally, the 10% figure is widely accepted to be much to high. Usual estimates are between 2 and 7%, and most tend towards the lower figure.
This also ignores the point that Kinsey demonstrated, people are not exclusively one or the other but inhabit a continuum between the two. You don't choose to be homosexual anymore than you choose to be heterosexual. Try actually speaking to someone who is homosexual and see how far you get with this argument without looking a fool.
Now, studies have shown that through extenuating and often extreme circumstances like child molestation people have been, and here a better word escapes me, "forced" into homosexuality later in life through psychological damage and needs but this is not a choice.
Are you also arguing that it is ok to think 90% of human babies are born to be exclusively heterosexual (ignoring the fact of the existence of bisexual people for now), but the 10% who are not choose to be so because of other environmental factors? If 90% can be born one way, why can't 10% be born another way? If this is not your point, then how and when do you think heterosexuality is determined?
Again, your position also forces you to conclude that environmental factors cause other animals to choose to be homosexual.
Your original statement about homosexuality and the reference to how it is viewed in society also opens up a weakness in your position - homosexuality has largely been repressed by western (in particular) societies and viewed with nothing short of horror and revulsion for much of recorded history. And yet many people were still homosexual during this time were they not? How can this be if homosexuality is not largely if not completely genetically determined before birth? Environmental factors would make people choose to be heterosexual in this circumstance surely. Unless homosexuality is determined by biology.
So, before I post some links, bear your own words in mind:
My emphasis added.
Scans see 'gay brain differences'
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
The Biological Basis of Homosexuality
What causes sexual orientation? Nature, nurture, both, or neither
Finding the Switch
Zero evidence indeed.
And furthermore, I'm currently in Vegas, currently heterosexual and currently interested in any acceptable looking female who would be interested in my services.
And currently desparate and single it would seem. Can't imagine why.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Still waiting for your reply providing backup for this claim:
It's been a week. Surely, not just another woo who can't back up his claims?
Posted by: Skeptico | January 04, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Obama actually claims to be a Christian. How does this sit with atheists who ostensibly can't stand the idea that a man of faith will be leading this country? If atheists think Christians are reprehensible, why did they vote for Obama?
Posted by: SoCalGal | January 04, 2009 at 05:40 PM
Which atheist candidate should they have voted for?
Posted by: Skeptico | January 04, 2009 at 06:20 PM
uh thats a big IF isn't it. Could you please find me the source that you are using that has surveyed some significant portion of atheists and found that they think Christians are reprehensible?
You are conflating our disgust for how religion is infecting a secular society (or how stupid we think religion itself is) with an idea that we hate the people who are part of that religion. If there are Christians I dislike its the tiny minority of religious leaders and politicians who base their decisions and actions on religious dogma instead of facts and logical thinking, not the large majority of religious followers who are usually perfectly decent people (albeit misguided). Note: I think, so far, Obama has shown himself to be a pretty clear thinker, even back in the days when he was unpopularly against the 2nd gulf war. This Rick Warren thing, well we will see i guess.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 04, 2009 at 06:29 PM
Jimmy:
You are treading dangerously close to a naturalistic fallacy are you not?
no, as you said, science can show us the is and is not, not the right and wrong, a moral construct, which is essentially what I was trying to delineate.
You are saying homosexuality is fundamentally right because it is. It is a factor in our genetic makeup, in our development and so forth. I grant that of course (not sure if mnuez does). But here is where the fallacy comes doesnt it? Infanticide is common in the animal kingdom, so is cannibalism. Both certainly happen to humans. It is perfectly plausible that those women who are killing their children, a reprehensible act I can't even fathom, are a direct result of genetic or developmental realities. I'm not sure if we really have looked to genetic and developmental factors for these things in humans, but I bet they are there (granted I have not looked, but its pretty hard to believe these things arent coded in there somewhere). If they are, is it now OK? Can I eat my baby now?
Right and wrong are the morality bits that we made up. Often we didnt make them up, we simply have verbalized feelings that are innate which is why murder is a commonly held as an atrocity regardless of culture or background.
As an example, why didnt you adopt? (yeah i made a huge assumption there, just correct me if I am wrong). There is simply no rational reason to have your own kids (if you want to debate I'll start a post at my blog). But I did, you did and people keep doing it even though there are literally millions of parentless kids (hundreds of thousands in the US). Just because the urge the spread our own genes is strong, super strong, doesn't mean that it is right.
As for homosexuality, the answer of right and wrong is obvious. Unlike the other two, it doesnt hurt anyone else. That is what makes it right when it is. Infanticide doesnt share that quality.
We, as a population of social creatures need our morality bits to survive. We have the ability to counter our intuition, as even the act of critical thinking shows. By that I mean its more natural for us to ignore paredolia as a fact and actually see the faces in noodles, its more natural for us to believe in fate, meaning for random events and so forth. Its much harder to have the discipline to reject magical thinking. but the critical thinking is the path to betterment, its against our emotions and innate desires at least for the great majority of humans, its not the natural way, but it is the right way.
There is another thing you said that bothered me:
By this reasoning (which I agree with), how do you reject the idea that extreme circumstances can't turn someone straight? By extreme, i mean perhaps repeated demonic exorcisms, or even intensely "positive" events like the group dynamics that happen in pentacostal churches where people "feel the lord".
I don't know the answer to this.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 04, 2009 at 07:03 PM
OK, I'll start off with saying that I hated using the terms right and wrong in my response to you and I think that has led to possibly some misunderstanding. I am not even sure if I know some other terms I would consider more accurate - right and wrong unfortunately still carry overtones of emotion or morality which were unhelpful here, my bad.
You are treading dangerously close to a naturalistic fallacy are you not?
Firstly, I am not sure that I am that close to the naturalistic fallacy:
I do not see how I am arguing for any of these, apart from down to some misunderstanding caused by my sloppy language.
On top of that, as skeptics have pointed out many times before, a fallacy alone does not necessarily mean that what I argued was wrong.
I am merely arguing that it makes no sense to apply notions of morality to something that just occurs in nature. You can no more debate the morality of the existence of homosexuality than you can the morality of the existence of oxygen, photosynthesis or having brown eyes. Good or bad, right or wrong are meaningless here except to those people who invent a problem because of their own bias.
The existence of homosexuality is no more a moral issue than the existence of gravity is. So why do we debate the morality of homosexuality? The answer is primarily because of the prevailing religious attitudes of the dominant cultures we grew up in. If you doubt that the debate over the morality of homosexuality is a cultural, religious or social construct and nothing to do with the related science look at it this way:
Who is debating the morality of heterosexuality? Anyone? Why not?
Science is neutral on morality. The existence or not of an entity or property is not a moral issue if the existence or not is a natural occurrence.
no, as you said, science can show us the is and is not, not the right and wrong, a moral construct, which is essentially what I was trying to delineate.
This is where my sloppy language caused a problem - perhaps I should have said is or is not or maybe even correct or incorrect. So my apologies for the confusion because I think we agree on this point.
You are saying homosexuality is fundamentally right because it is.
Actually I am not. I am saying that homosexuality just is. It exists; but it is neither right, wrong, good, bad, correct or incorrect. It is a morally neutral property of being just like having brown eyes is. Hence, it makes no more sense to discuss the morality or wrongness of sexuality than it does to discuss the morality of hair or eye colour.
I think this is the confusion that led you to believe I was committing the naturalistic fallacy.
I'm not sure if we really have looked to genetic and developmental factors for these things in humans, but I bet they are there (granted I have not looked, but its pretty hard to believe these things arent coded in there somewhere). If they are, is it now OK? Can I eat my baby now?
This is mere speculation, and I certainly don't see how a gene for killing your offspring could survive unless it was selective in its death dealing and granted significant evolutionary advantages at the same time. If infanticide was developmental then this is not simply a property of nature that just exists or does not, it is subject to the human constructs of morality so no, I'm sorry, it isn't ok to eat your baby!
In any case, I think this is not the same as merely being homosexual. It is the act of committing infanticide that is immoral, the possible existence of a biological cause that drives this is not. In the same way, the existence of a biological cause for homosexuality is not immoral, but I am sure someone could argue some homosexual acts might be.
Right and wrong are the morality bits that we made up.
Noted. Again I think this is a result of my sloppy language.
When I was talking about science being able to show racism as right or wrong I was thinking in terms of the majority of racism being down to thinking someone of another race is inferior mentally or physically because of their race. Science shows this view is incorrect because there is no significant difference between races, and there is no real scientific case to be made for there being different human races. I meant wrong here in the sense that 2+2=5 is wrong, not in the sense that stealing is wrong.
So, again, my bad.
There is simply no rational reason to have your own kids
Oh you'll get no argument from me!
Just because the urge the spread our own genes is strong, super strong, doesn't mean that it is right.
Agreed, that is not what I would argue though. This again stems from the term "right", which seems to have too much baggage for this discussion. It is biologically correct to want to have your own children. However, I also don't think this is the same as what we are discussing in relation to homosexuality. You don't choose homosexuality, but you can choose to have your own kids or adopt others. Morality is all about the choices.
As for homosexuality, the answer of right and wrong is obvious. Unlike the other two, it doesnt hurt anyone else. That is what makes it right when it is. Infanticide doesnt share that quality.
I mostly agree, but the term "right" is still causing problems. Homosexuality is not right or wrong when it is. It just is. Glad we cleared that up...
And I certainly agree with your paragraph about humanity as social creatures and critical thinking.
By this reasoning (which I agree with), how do you reject the idea that extreme circumstances can't turn someone straight?
I don't necessarily or immediately reject this. However, I would argue that it would cause lasting psychological damage, and it is more likely to be a masking of homosexuality than a complete change of sexuality. After all, when do these conversions ever happen outside of massive peer pressure or cult like organisations?
I didn't come close to making my whole point clear enough before, but in my defence it was getting very late by then and I wanted to wrap up quickly.
So let me expand a bit.
I think it more likely that extreme emotional and physical trauma can lead not to homosexuality but a propensity for homosexual acts and emotional attachment in same sex relationships. Unfortunately, the science is just not in on this in any significant detail, as most of the articles I looked at complained. The extreme trauma referenced resulted in some negative and emotionally harmful manifestation of homosexuality, not just normal healthy relationships.
I did mention previously that sexuality could be repressed, and that sexual urges could not be acted upon, and I think it is more likely that this is the case when people talk about becoming straight through finding Jeebus etc.
To put it another way: People are not turned biologically heterosexual or biologically homosexual by extreme circumstances, but they can be turned psychologically heter- or homosexual. They can be encouraged to repress sexuality or participate in sexual acts and to even convince themselves and others that they are hetero- or homosexual.
In the end though, it is because of psychological damage and can cause psychological problems.
This is an area where more study needs to be done, and I think that here a similar mistake is being made as the one many religious people make when condemning homosexuality. Homosexual acts and sexuality are being confused, and the terms are used (incorrectly) almost interchangeably. Performing a homosexual act does not make you homosexual, and just because a homosexual act may be moral or immoral it does not follow that homosexuality is moral or immoral.
Hopefully, that clears some of my loose ends up!
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 05, 2009 at 07:12 PM
:)
OK, well then, that was fun!
Posted by: TechSkeptic | January 05, 2009 at 08:39 PM