I contend we are all gay to varying degrees.
While I've seen no science that supports the notion that humans, both male and female, can be exclusively gay or straight, I have seen studies done that suggest sexual orientation is not an either/or proposition but rather a matter of percentage. Sexuality should be seen as a continuum.
It's a lot like handedness. People are primarily right or left handed, but that doesn't mean there aren't some things a righty does better with their left hand or a lefty with their right. I'm probably 80% left handed, maybe you're 80% right handed. but no one I've ever met has been exclusively left or right handed. In the same way I don't believe anyone is exclusively gay or straight. They might prefer to live a life that appears exclusively gay or straight, but that's behavior, not orientation.
Many people who self-identify as exclusively gay or straight are horrified by the suggestion that they might harbor even a small percentage of the opposite orientation within them. That's understandable but I believe mistaken.
I see nothing wrong with accepting that we are complex sexual creatures who are by varying degree both gay and straight, realizing that fact only in a particular circumstance or context or perhaps never at all. If societies hadn't demonized homosexuality the way a majority of them have, based on purely emotional and unscientific beliefs, perhaps we'd have an easier time coming to grips with our own sexuality and our lives would be that much richer and rewarding. As it is very few even among the most open-minded of individuals are comfortable considering the possibility that we are only predominantly gay or straight and not exclusively one or the other.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Where creationists go wrong in their opposition to evolution and their support for Intelligent Design is their failure to understand that the natural process of evolution and the theory of evolution are two entirely separate things.
The theory of evolution is the attempt by scientists to explain the process of evolution. It’s an incomplete and ever improving theory. There may be better explanations for evolution but so far none have been put forth that can explain evolution as well as the theory first proposed by Charles Darwin and that can be successfully defended by the scientific method.
The process of evolution has been observed in nature and replicated in the lab. It’s a natural process that practically every biologist understands and relies on to explain the changes in populations over successive generations.
The ID crowd errs in offering a replacement explanation for those changes without ever attempting to explain the observed phenomena known as evolution. They simply want to ignore evolution and suggest another unproven and untestable idea instead.
Creationists often say evolution requires faith, that they can’t believe in evolution. That’s like saying they don’t believe in gravity. While it’s true to a degree that one can believe or disbelieve the theory of gravity, one would be a fool to say they don’t believe in gravity. It’s no different for evolution. Both are observed and documented natural processes. The theories of both gravity and evolution are simply our best attempts to explain how those processes work. The theories could be wrong, there could be better explanations that account for the observations. But neither creationism or ID attempt to provide a better explanation, they want to offer an entirely unique process that hasn’t been observed in nature and can’t be replicated in the lab.