Gay Watch

I've been checking back regularly on Conservapedia since blogging about it here yesterday. It's not a huge surprise to know that homosexuality is a controversial topic. It's always somewhere in the recently updated list, and since I posted an extract yesterday from the entry that was up at the time, it's changed something like 30 times. And the bit about Adam and Steve is gone. I'm pretty sure that one was a hijack from a pisstaker, luckily it's been corrected, though the editors can't seem to agree on just exactly what should go up there. At the moment the page is divided into these categories:

1 Biblical Views on Homosexuality
1.1 Old Testament
1.2 New Testament (Epistles)
2 Homosexuality and Marriage
3 Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment
4 Homosexuality in Nature
5 References

1 & 2 are pretty straightforward with bible quotes and some actual facts. The subtopic "Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment" tell us:

Statistical studies give ample evidence that homosexuality is not caused by
genetics, although it is influenced by environment. For example, research has
shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the
biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is
reported that, "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but
rather an environmental component shared in families"...

I'm rather skeptical of this claim, and I rather wonder if the "homosexuality is not caused by genetics, although it is influenced by environment" phrase isn't just badly worded but plagiarised and slightly changed though clumsily as to not to correct the grammar, but what would I know. Anyway..

Homosexuality in Nature
In some jurisdictions, some forms of sexual activity
are referred to by the legal term "unnatural act," a term which originated in
church canon law. Non-zoologists have sometimes made the incorrect inference
that homosexual behavior does not occur in the zoological world and have used it
as a talking point when attacking homosexuality. This has created an interest in
the side issue whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically "natural."
This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even
if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as
the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed
behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation."

It then goes on to admit that there are actual reported cases of gay animals, or at least animals "acting gay" but it already doesn't count because even if you can prove that it's natural (though the previous paragraph claims that studies show it's the influence of the liberal media) it doesn't count because it's still icky..

Ok those are my words, but y'know. I'll keep an eye on it though, and see how it evolves over time.