...
Wow...I have a lot to say.
Spiderman:
Yeah, I probably still don't understand, unless we're talking about two different things. To me, since science has (now) determined that homosexuality is determined by a gene, I was reading your statements as science has come to the point of affecting the "direction" of the gene so that homosexuality might becoming more dominant. It pretty much boils down to that. Psychology or society effects have nothing to do with the determination of that gene itself.
No, my suggestion is not one of "science has come to the point of affecting the 'direction' of the gene so that homosexuality might becoming more dominant." In fact, that statement flies right over what I've have been saying Spiderman.
What I am saying is that science is, to be blunt,
not responsible to all or much alternations in our behavior and our existence in general. Science is, for a lack of better terms, spiritless. How science can be of an influence is only indirectly - it opened the ways to so many different roads, and we, for two thousand years now, have chosen to take the following road:
Science is truth. Science is the only truth. Science as the leading force in man's life. With that, we have downplayed the power of all other facets of life. Psychology, for example, is unimportant. But the way science can influence our minds, our view of the world...does that not need a psychology, to know exactly what happens, for example, when a three year-old child is born surrounded by computers, cars, everything remote-control, and everything so
"spiritless"? But where has there been a study that's "keeping up" with science? Philosophy shies before science, it
kneels before science, when more honestly it should stand
over science
because it is the foundation of all our civilizations. Any society that you believe to be well-going is due to
philosophy, firstly, and not science. Science is only an aftermath, a "spoils of war,"
after a philosophy had been successful enough to generate a well-thriving society. Like America.
But, as soon as science takes flight, philosophy must take flight with it to keep the basis of society and science close together, and then psychology must fly as well to keep man
healthy as he investigates the science and rebuilds with philosophy - to keeps morals, social duty, social foundations
and science all tied up together, to make sure that man moves with balance, and not with distortion, as such been the case.
Today science is "truth." It is nothing but "truth." Anyone who suggests otherwise has got to be either religious, philosophically strayed, or mad. But is science indeed the only truth, the only “fact” out there? Is it a scientific fact that science is the only fact? In the long run, our reliance on science must
necessarily be our downfall for a simple reason: science moves at lightspeed...the foundation to sustain science, however, moves at a slugspeed. The foundation of science is society - a well-off society to be exact. This well-off society is no longer well-off when its science flies over it, when science leaves it behind. A reevaluation of all values must accompany all science so as to keep a certain needed balance...yet where has this been present? Science plays by itself, in its own playground, while philosophy and psychology, which are in themselves very slow subjects, strive to catch on. At the end, you'll see a society of too much science but with
a lot of mental problems. Does it surprise you that in the West children are generally diagnosed with depression? That suicide rates are in general increasing? That rape is way more popular in the West than in the East? That mental disorders such as schizophrenia and insanity are more popular in the West than in the East? Back in the Middle East, for example, we
don't have schizophrenia or suicidal cases. When someone commits suicide we tremble in disbelief. In the West, in America, it's a very probable case. It’s “natural.”
Third world countries they are indeed, indeed, but when it comes to mental health? They are
first world countries. There is no balance yet, in society and civilization, no balance between science and philosophy and psychology. In all cases where science is seen as "truth" and necessary, it always leaves other human-related studies back in the corner.
At the end, statements like “Psychology or society effects have nothing to do with the determination of that gene itself” really show the general attitude and misunderstanding amongst people. They treat science as a “thing of itself,” that it doesn’t interrelate and intermuddle with other affairs, that it does not intermeddle with anything else. “Science as truth; science as necessity” – when that becomes the motto, expect the worst. Yes, psychology and society, and philosophy, don’t shape genes, but the unexamined science does. In turn, all of life shapes our genes. The lack of psychology and philosophy shapes our genes, how? It enables science to do whatever it wants without having the proper moral level, proper social foundation, proper philosophies and human analysis.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Ericbess:
I don't agree with much of what has been said…
I’ve taken it upon myself to show Chaos Turtle how what I have been saying does indeed have basis. Now it’s your turn. You say you don’t agree. That’s noble. Now I above all want to know why. As long as children and little no-nothing kids don’t join the discussion, it will keep going like it has been: hot but civil.
Ericbess:
However, I do not believe, as some, that homosexuality is "natural".
Well, many people don’t believe many things. For example: you believe that what happened on September the 11th was an act of “evil,” of “terrorism” I believe pigs can fly at night. Please tell us why you don’t believe it’s natural – no – why its’ not
completely natural.
Ericbess:
From what I have seen of people that I know that are homosexual, there seem to be patterns within their history. Perhaps this leads to the inclination and perhaps it doesn't.
I’m sure you haven’t been in contact with more homo and bisexuals than I have. In general, most of my friends are either homosexual or bisexual. There is no “repeated pattern” in their history. In fact, their history is as natural and as original, if not average, as any others.
Ericbess:
Perhaps it's a case by case thing or perhaps it is not.
It’s a case by case thing.
Ericbess:
Regardless, we have been given divine powers of procreation and while these powers may also be used for intimacy purposes, there are certain things which are perversions and which ultimately serve no purpose in the eternal scheme of things.
And how does your God fit into the eternal scheme of things? Other than, say,
rewarding you with an eternity which you so desire, an immortality, a reconciliation with your
own desires? Once again, you need your God because you
need yourself, you need your body, you need, above all, your
desires – the supererotic and the other desires. Your God, too, serves no purpose but to
reward you. Or I suppose you’re willing to tell me that God will
judge you, that you are not yet of the “saved,” that there is a chance you are a one to be scorned by this God? I suppose if this was the case, you would not need your God – you would go on a quest once again for a more
loving God: a God that rewards you
invariably. To put in your own words: nothing fits the “eternal scheme of things” unless
we make it so, unless we
interpret it to be so.
Ericbess:
I believe that everyone has challenges and things to overcome here in this life and that manifests itself differently in different people.
And that’s the popular belief. Everyone will tell you that there are challenges and things in one’s life to be “overcome.”
Everyone. Even me.
Eric, I myself sway towards the belief that homosexuality is
not Natural. But I have been trying to support my viewpoint without recalling the “divine” into here. I do not understand the “divine.”
You do not, have not, and will not understand the “divine.” So let us speak
our language then.