@Randall - Yes, of course BTWB makes the claim that gay people are born gay. I never suggested otherwise. (As you point out... it's in the name of the blog.) All I'm saying is simply that they do not advance this claim as a justification for gay equality.

Now, your free will argument:

Yes, we have free will. Yes, people who do not control their actions are a menace. But we're talking about instinct here, not actions. And whereas I have control over my actions, most of my instincts are indeed preprogrammed.

I can't just decide not to feel pain, not to get hungry, not to get scared. That's hardwired - I was born that way, I can't help it. Does conceeding that point mean surrendering free will? Of course not. I can choose to steel myself against pain, I can choose to fast, I can be brave in the face of fear. The instinct is preprogrammed, but I decide what to do about it. THAT is free will.

Sexual orientation is the same way. I've been gay my whole life - no matter what I do, I find myself attracted to men and not attracted to women. Am I ruled by these instincts? Again, no. My decision to obey those instincts is both conscious and deliberate. I could pursue women if I so chose, whether I'm attracted to them or not. But even if I did that, I'd still be gay. And since I can think of no reason to follow that path, I don't.

See what I mean?

@RyanS - That's not the point I was making.

I apologize if it sounded like I was trying to stigmatize your position - that was not my intent! I do think your reasoning is valid and I don't think you're being anti-gay. I just think your original argument presented a straw man.

As you put it, saying that people are born gay "is a really bad argument for the social acceptance of anything." I agree! That's a lousy line of reasoning, and (as you also point out) one that is potentially dangerous when applied to other social questions.

What I'm saying is that the Born That Way Blog makes no such argument, so I don't understand why you're picking it apart. You suggest that the proper argument for gay rights should be based on "the meat and potatos, ones own personal freedom," and again - I agree! As you put it: "if its not hurting anyone else, do whatever you want." I said basically the exact same thing: "Why is homosexuality acceptable? Because it is no more or less harmful than heterosexuality."

In other words, I think you have focused your critique on a line of reasoning that no one is actually using. In fact, the major organizations supporting gay rights follow your preferred argument! They conclude that homosexuality falls under the realm of personal liberties - not because they think it is natural, but because they think it is harmless.

As for your new point about self-esteem and hypersensitivity, I'm not buying it. I'll grant you that we should encourage people to be thick-skinned and resilient, children included! However, encouraging kids to change something about themselves that can't be changed and doesn't need to be changed is just a huge waste of energy, whether or not it happens to hurt their feelings. Again, this is like telling kids to try and live without sleep - confidence notwithstanding, they end up focusing lots of effort on a task that is futile and without benefit. Kids do need to be challenged, but challenges like turning straight are wholly unproductive.

@RyanS - I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of this blog.

Of course being gay should not be considered acceptable simply because it's innate. "Natural" and "ethical" are not the same thing, as your examples demonstrate.

However, BTWB never tries to make that point. Their goal is to help vulnerable young gay people. The false, pervasive claim that being gay is a choice does serious damage to these kids. It's used to pressure them into trying to change their sexual orientation, which is sort of like trying to live without sleep - you just end up doing yourself serious harm for no good reason.

Yes, this is entirely separate from any moral/political question. Why is homosexuality acceptable? Because it is no more or less harmful than heterosexuality. There is plenty of evidence to this effect on other sites and from other fields. Whether or not it also happens to be a "choice" is irrelevant to that debate.

But given that homosexuality is both innate AND acceptable, we should not be encouraging gay youth to torture themselves. THAT is unethical, and that is what BTWB is trying to address. They are simply telling people to be who they are, not trying to add to the case for gay rights. That case is already quite solid.

This video makes Scout cry

Myst, Stoneship Age, hologram projector in Achenar's room.

How geeky is it that that's the first thing this photo reminded me of :)

This has to be a joke.

By definition, an emotion that the vast majority of people have felt on a regular basis since the beginning of our species CAN'T be "statistically abnormal". "Abnormal" means "uncommon" - if something as ubiquitous as happiness can be consider abnormal, then almost anything can.

Either A) Bentall is satirizing that point, B) he's an idiot, or C) he's done a really poor job of outlining his thesis.

This is the comment where, long after the original post, I provide links to other studies disagreeing with the article, footnoted by a smug, self-righteous quip.

I'm with a bunch of the other commenters, here - everything credible I've read suggests that there is no effect to explain in the first place. The Bermuda Triangle is just a place where ordinary (though still tragic) wrecks are considered ominous, even though they're no less explainable and no more numerous than wrecks occurring in other parts of the world.

Proposing methane bubbles to explain the Bermuda Triangle is like proposing solar storms to explain Sudden Kitten Levitation - since the phenomenon itself is a fantasy, there's really nothing to explain!

Yes. The great thing about Garfield Minus Garfield is that the altered comics are funnier than the originals. With Calvin Minus Hobbes (and sure, this is subjective, BUT:) I think it's totally the opposite.

As a parody it's okay. Judged on its own merit it really falls flat for me.

This isn't anywhere near as sensational as the headline makes it sound. Skeptic's Guide to the Universe did a good analysis of this story in their March 31st episode.

Oh yes. THOSE.

My middle school tried switching to bagged milk at our cafeteria in the mid-90's. They even showed us a little marketing video to introduce the product: "MiniSip - It's Maxi Cool!"

That went over great, let me tell you.

Yyyyeah... James Randi is very much alive. Every skeptical blog on the internet would light up immediately if Randi died. He's undergoing treatment for cancer, I believe, but just last month he made a live appearance by teleconference and did an interview with Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. By his account, treatment is going well and he's working on a new book.

If Randi is dead, then there's been a cover-up of epic proportions :)