One of the arguments I hear most of the times against the issue of gay marriages is morality. Well, different people have their own definitions of morality. So if something is right in one reference frame, it could be wrong in the other. I have no issues what-so-ever, with it.
But certain arguments tend to appeal to the science inside us. One of them is, like poles should repel as a law of nature. Hence do not fiddle with this law. Without taking names, let me just tell the readers that I personally heard several 'sane', 'respected' people talking this way. I have the following comments about this:
a. Lame !
b. Like poles repel, alright. In solution thermodynamics, like solutions attract. You could choose to use which ever statement suits your side of the argument to make it sound scientifically convincing
c. Why do you want to wrongly explain something using psuedo-science (infact nonscience or nonsense) and claim that there is a scientific explanation for it ? Some sense of insecurity or something, that morality arguments are not good enough?
There are infact several instances where people try to give scientific explanations to some well established practices. While some of them carry merit, I do not see any science in constructing a house with bathroom on the north eastern side, and facing terrible consequences with my life if it is not done so.
1 comment:
first of all morality that has no basis is equally bull shit
people get away with almost anything
under the whole cloud of relative morals
and as to the science argument thats the fundamental weakness of language at play
like poles repeling is used as a metaphor
you cant deny that straight sexual tendencies is dominant in nature
offcourse there is very little absolute science
every statement that you make can have some counterpoint
in some domain
and that has to do with how you define them as well
so if some one tells you the laws of nature funda
if he is saying that is the norm then he is correct, if instead he is saying likes always the case, then his definition of words just differ from you or he is just plain wrong in an empirical sense
Post a Comment