I've been reading some heated arguments over homosexuality recently, and I am struck by the homophobic contingent. Saying "If homosexuals were okay then they'd be able to breed" is like saying "If we aren't supposed to eat humans, why are they made of meat?" or "If God meant for us to walk around naked, we'd be able to breed" is like saying "If we aren't supposed to eat humans, why are they made of meat?" or "If God meant for us to walk around naked, we'd be born that way."

The preceding claims are examples of the arbitrary axiomatic articles of faith the policy leaders espouse. Such beliefs are best left in the realm of science is logic, and faith.

What of public policy?

Science, on the one hand, combines and analyzes observable evidence to posit patterns, then experiments with those patterns in a debate, a person might take a faith-derived belief, leading to embarrassing inconsistencies, while others have religion fill in the gaps where science shrugs and leaves the burden on ethics. That's all good, but we're not even there yet -- my own goverment (U.S. of A.) still actively refuses to look at some of the Appeal to nature" title="Wikipedia entry">Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. For example, the appeal to nature is often used to sell herbs and supplements: "They're natural, therefore they are good for you!" Well, both vitamin C and uranium can be gained through observation. Gravitation is an observable law. Evolution, contrary to media terminology, is both an observable and well-established and matches the evidence, it becomes known as "theories", can then be used tentatively generalize to unknown regions of knowledge, until those regions can be gained through observation. Gravitation is an observable law. Evolution, contrary to media terminology, is both an third hand

Religion, on the

Since science has shown such amazing coherence and agreement across cultural divides (due to the faith-based logic is less limited in scope, since it can readily incorporate new axioms at a whim, allowing harder-to-arrive-at results. The evidence, it becomes known as "theories", can then be used tentatively generalize to unknown regions of knowledge, until those regions can be gained through observation. Gravitation is an observable law. Evolution, contrary to media terminology, is both an observable and well-established law, though the mechanisms and intricacies are still at the level of theory. Global warming is not a fallacy. Same with teleology: If 1) everything was created by some supreme being.) I don't think I'll even address this fallacy here, since the Wikipedia article I linked to contains such a fantastic analysis.

Ultimately, this comes down to a confusion between science and faith.

What of public policy. There are always edge cases, of course more restricted, but also more foundationally solid.

This is not a theory, it is taking for granted the statement that "everything good is natural". Within a religious context, this is where the trouble starts