For Those Who Argue "Scientifically" Against Homosexuality

The Alchemist, by Joseph Wright of Derby
Image via Wikipedia

Hey guys I do appreciate your attempts at arguing against homosexuality with scientific arguments and proof, but all you’ve written was either based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what you’ve read, selective quoting and of course citing people with biases against homosexuality as doing genuine research.

Allow me to rephrase something I read somewhere I can’t quite remember: I’m as likely to have a real scientific argument with you as with an alchemist or someone who’s convinced that the earth is flat… what you speak of is not science and I refuse to acknowledge it as such. please spare me and save my time and yours.

Wish you all the best,

Anas

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



  1. I dont find it surprising that none of the bloggers who opposed the campaign against homosexuality claimed that they’re qualified enough to make any scientific or theoretical argument or approach concerning a very broad and controversial topic. Only those have already made up their minds for “nature”, “morals” and “religious text” have clicked few links online and found the discovery of the century-there is no such thing as healthy homosexual!
    In fact, those who defend human rights continue doing so by admitting the academic process of any scientific answer.
    But tell me, since when morality advocates weren’t so self-righteous?

  2. AN@S says:

    “I’m as likely to have a real scientific argument with you as with an alchemist or someone who’s convinced that the earth is flat…”

    This is exactly the same conclusion I’ve arrived at after long discussions with pro-gay activists, who look at themselves as ‘human rights defenders’, and of course the anti-gay is ‘against human rights’. They are the ‘good guys’ and we’re the ‘bad guys’, and ‘poor us’, we think that we’re the ‘good guys’ while we’re the bad ones.
    Very funny how you look at things guys :)

    • Anas says:

      Hey An@s,
      you didn’t answer what I said, the facts:
      - you misquoted the wikipedia article in your blog
      - you referred to “conversion therapy” as being one of the effective ways, while it’s stated that there’s no proof of that, while evidence exists of it being harmful, causes depression and leads to suicide.
      - your friend Jabi relies on the works of a “scientist”, Dr. Francis Collins who turns out to be an Evangelical Christian which lays questions abut his impartiality and the methodology of his research.
      - you said you can’t have a scientific argument then you fail to respond to any of the issues people raise against your proposed scientific arguments and you come with this rhetoric about the good guys and the bad guys.. give me a break.
      - forget everything I just said, I honestly couldn’t care less about the science part of this issue; someone’s sexual orientation and their choice of a sexual/life partner is none of your business and morality has nothing to do with that. PERIOD… at least if you said that you were arguing from a religious point of view I would’ve respected your belief but quietly asked that you don’t try to enforce upon others.

      PS: I’m not a “pro-gay” activist, and my first post about homosexuality was a response to your ridiculous campaign… and unlike you guys, I don’t have the need to label people, especially in the cartoonic way of “good” and “bad”, the real world is a bit more complicated than that.

      • Jabi says:

        Oh cool I’m mentioned in your reply.

        I doubt Dr. Francis Collins impartiality is affected by his religious beliefs after all he does say that there is genetic evidence of homosexuality being inherited, however he says the evidence is not conclusive. I also doubt his methodology is incorrect, 1) he was the head of the Human Genome Project and 2) he bases his information on other peoples’ research in this matter.
        The only reason why I decided to argue with you and others on your blog is because obviously most of them don’t believe in religion, and in order to prove a point I must argue on grounds that we both accept as being completely true and existent.

        The problem I find is that most people who say that another persons sexual orientation is their choice to make, will not accept if someone in their family, siblings or children had a different sexual orientation. What would you do if your son walked in the house with another male saying he has a relationship with him?

        • Anas says:

          Hey Jabi,

          I’ll say it again, I don’t care if it’s genetic or not. that wouldn’t change a thing to me.

          As for your last comment, I don’t have double standards. If I ever had a son and he walked home with a male boyfriend, I’d say: “make sure he treats you right son!”

          accusing me of double standards won’t help your cause.

  3. ميسلون says:

    I’ve just stopped by here and it is a bit late, but in dealing with these so-called alchemists, I think after reading your post that you are stretching it a bit when you assume that you yourself are capable of having any scientific discussion at all. I guess it depends on what you call science.

    • Anas says:

      Basically I’m not interested in the scientific discussion on this topic, because genetic or otherwise, Homosexuality has nothing to do with a poerson’s moral sense.

      I’m just sick of people using ‘science’ as a guise for their religious or plain homophobic views.

      Let’s not start hurling insults here.

  4. ميسلون says:

    Hi Anas,
    I assure you I’m able to communicate my point quite well with no need for insults. That is too crude. Anyhow my position needs no guise, it is my religious view which helps me make the necessary judgement regarding this topic and the only one I need.

    As a Muslim, my only obligation is to say that normalising Fah-sha’ is haram, and that the matter you are referring to is forbidden by Allah. This obligation concerns anybody who is trying to spread it, encourage it, or support it, as your eminent self is doing. So my comment about your capacity for a scientific discussion is more a wake up call than a snide comment.

    Salam

  5. SEO Company says:

    Hi, perhaps this post may be off topic but anyhow, I’ve been surfing around your blog and it seems really cool. It is obvious that you know the subject and you are fervent about it. Thanks

  6. Anas says:

    Hey An@s,
    you didn't answer what I said, the facts:
    - you misquoted the wikipedia article in your blog
    - you referred to “conversion therapy” as being one of the effective ways, while it's stated that there's no proof of that, while evidence exists of it being harmful, causes depression and leads to suicide.
    - your friend Jabi relies on the works of a “scientist”, Dr. Francis Collins who turns out to be an Evangelical Christian which lays questions abut his impartiality and the methodology of his research.
    - you said you can't have a scientific argument then you fail to respond to any of the issues people raise against your proposed scientific arguments and you come with this rhetoric about the good guys and the bad guys.. give me a break.
    - forget everything I just said, I honestly couldn't care less about the science part of this issue; someone's sexual orientation and their choice of a sexual/life partner is none of your business and morality has nothing to do with that. PERIOD… at least if you said that you were arguing from a religious point of view I would've respected your belief but quietly asked that you don't try to enforce upon others.

    PS: I'm not a “pro-gay” activist, and my first post about homosexuality was a response to your ridiculous campaign… and unlike you guys, I don't have the need to label people, especially in the cartoonic way of “good” and “bad”, the real world is a bit more complicated than that.

Leave a Reply