Is homosexuality normal?

[angus]

PS:  do not confuse physicians, which are basically engineers (i.e., they do not add to the body of knowledge, but rather use knowledge to solve, or create, problems), with scientists.  they are very different creatures.

[migrendel]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean is it statistically normal, it isn't. It is relatively rare, and certainly more than two standard deviations from the mean. However, if you mean does it occur in nature, it certainly does. Just off the top of my head, I know it occurs in manatees and the Atlantic gull as well.

[angus]

frogs too I hear.

and I had a gay cat once.  actually, unlike most other cats, who are filthy beasts, he was rather neat and clean.

[John Dibble]

I hear it's prevelant in rams.

[migrendel]

We're not a terribly messy group, so we make ideal domesticated animals.

[angus]

 one in nine.

think it's the same way with cats?

I'm serious about that gay cat, by the way.  Felix we called him.  yeah, I know not very creative.  remember I'm the guy who had a python named Monte.  Anyway, Felix was the cleanest, neatest cat you can imagint.  Finicky eater too.  As far as I know, he only harassed other male cats, never females.  Also, as an aside, he was not a very good climber like other cats are.

I can't tell whether fish are gay or straight.  anyone know how to tell?

[??????????]

No.

[Blue Rectangle]

angus, let me give you some examples of what I am talking about:
Center for Science in the Public Interest is mainly interested in health and nutrition policies.  As you pointed out, the realm of medicine is primarily concerned with engineering, not science.  The CSPI claims to be representing science (hence the name), but their mission is not to present scientific facts, but rather to constantly tell policies makers what they "should" do.  Read their press room: "Hardee's Monster Thickburger More Porno Than Ever"  Is this presentation of fact, or a sensational attempt to browbeat consumers into making CSPI-favored choices?

Here's another example, from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Provocative point--but not science.  Scientists are not foreign policy experts; they are not in a position to decide what the greatest security threats are.  Scientists are not engineers; they rarely have a feeling for what is currently possible with technology.

There is no shortage of scientists willing to tell the public what they should do.  The worst part is the arrogance; the belief that "I'm right because I'm a scientist" is bad enough.  It gets worse when it becomes "I'm a scientist, therefore I'm super smart, therefore I am an expert in all fields."  As a local example take Carl Wieman, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for studying Bose-Einstein condensate.  Dr. Wieman is active in pushing for the Kyoto treaty for carbon emissions, but he has little real authority since he is neither a climatologist nor an economist.

Policy makers have to balance the input of many different experts to come up with the best decision.  There are too many scientists who proclaim that only their beliefs matter.

[angus]

interesting example.  as a matter of fact I recently met wieman and we discussed cold molecule formation, as it was a problem I was working on at the time, but we never discussed politics.  I'll try to goad him into a kyoto treaty conversation next time we meet.  it should be fun.  well, as I said, some scientists do.  any group has its lobbyists.  I only disagree with the statement that they "rarely have a feeling for what is currently possible with technology."  I don't really think that's accurate, but I do agree that they're neither lawyers nor engineers, and would do well to leave the law to lawyers, and the engineering to engineers.  In any case, I agreed with your point originally which was that scientists shouldn't be trying to settle public policy.  getting a scientist to write law would be like getting a carpenter to fix your pipes.   sure, he probably could, but you'd be better off with a trained plumber, right?

but, back to the relevant discussion:  one in nine, at best, can hardly be considered "normal"  that's like saying that the left-handed are normal.  see what I mean?  Look I got nothing against homosexuality or gay marriage or homosexual adoption, but let's not do a mental circle-jerk.  normal, all jokes aside, is clearly not gay.  and it's quite okay.  hell, I'm a real weirdo in many ways.  not normal at all.  but I don't think that in any way makes me a weirdo, or says that I shouldn't be allowed to marry or to adopt. 

[angus]

hey, you wouldn't want a lawyer teaching your son's chemistry class would you?

same thing.

[nclib]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean is it statistically normal, it isn't. It is relatively rare, and certainly more than two standard deviations from the mean. However, if you mean does it occur in nature, it certainly does. Just off the top of my head, I know it occurs in manatees and the Atlantic gull as well.

Well said, migrendel. It is not normal in the statistical sense, but is normal in the way we usually define normal.

[Jake]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean is it statistically normal, it isn't. It is relatively rare, and certainly more than two standard deviations from the mean. However, if you mean does it occur in nature, it certainly does. Just off the top of my head, I know it occurs in manatees and the Atlantic gull as well.

Well said, migrendel. It is not normal in the statistical sense, but is normal in the way we usually define normal.

No, it's not normal in any way.  It just is.