Amalaha tells us his background and how he’s revolutionised a number of fields. Not everything there is particularly clear and, if he has changed the consensus about some of those things, I’ve certainly not heard of his work. One thing I did check was his claim that he won an award for science reporting. Scarily enough, he did! Whether that’s a problem with Nigerian reporting or whether he’s just fallen since then I can’t say.
The Physics of Gay Marriage
Does physics proves gay marriage is wrong? He is kind enough to let us in on his methods so that we can judge them for ourselves. North poles of a magnet attract South poles of a magnet. North poles will repel other North poles and South poles will repel other South poles. Similarly, charged particles repel particles with the same charge and attract particles with a different charge. Therefore gay marriage is wrong.
That has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A person’s sex is not the same thing as a magnet’s polarity or the charge of a particle. He’s just taken a completely arbitrary physical property and tried to twist into having the meaning he wants. One could just as easily point to diatomic elements, like Oxygen which occurs in the air as two oxygen atoms fused together, as proving that homosexuality is good. It’s an easy thing to do but it actually says nothing about homosexuality.
The Chemistry of Gay Marriage
If you bring a base either sodium hydroxide and you pour it on top of a sodium hydroxide you find out that there will be reaction showing that a man on top of a man will have no reaction. A woman on top of a woman will have no reaction, that is what chemistry is showing.
It’s an interesting hypothesis. Too bad for him, reality shows that it’s not true. There are plenty of men and woman who have quite the reaction when they’re on someone of the same sex. They could be lying but it’d be a really odd and pointless lie. Of course, their reaction is certainly not disproving all chemistry. It’s almost like the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other! That’s not all though, once again we have to consider how charges behave…
Instead, the negative ion is attracted to positive electrodes and why is it that the negative is attracted to the positive? It is because they are not the same. Likewise a man cannot be attracted to a man as negative ion is not attracted to the negative electrode instead negative ion is attracted to the positive electrode. That is what electrolysis is showing us that gay marriage is wrong in the area of chemistry.
Again, this has nothing to do with morality. It’s taking something completely off topic and mutilating it until it says what he wants it to. He might as well have said, “Life and death are entwined. You can’t live forever and you can’t die without living. Therefore man and woman must be together.” I should be careful, he might start taking that as more “evidence” that homosexuality is wrong.
The take-home message is that chemistry says nothing about morality. Not only that but this is a biased sample of chemical processes. If he looked at solvents he would have to conclude that homosexuality is correct. Like dissolves like. If you mix a polar and non-polar substance together they just don’t mix, like oil and water. There’s none of that opposites attract going on.
The Biology of Gay Marriage
At least we’re getting to a slightly more relevant field. Let’s see how things go…
We have never seen where a cock is having sex with a cock and we have never seen where a hen is having sex with another. Even among lions when you go to the zoo you find out that lion does not mate with a lion instead a lion will mate with a lioness showing that a lion being a male will mate with lioness being a female.
Well that’s just plain wrong. Homosexuality has been observed in around 1500 different animal species. That said, even if there were no homosexuality in other species it would not mean that homosexuality were wrong. This is the appeal to nature. It’s easily falsified by remember that illness and death are natural but not good. Homosexuality would be as wrong as healthcare. It is, that is to say it’s not wrong.
The appeal to nature actually fails even earlier as it posits a distinction between humans and nature that just doesn’t exist. We are part of nature and everything we do is natural. There is nothing that is unnatural. Even the supernatural, if it existed, would just be something natural. In these situations, “natural” is a completely meaningless term.
The sperm in the man alone doesn’t produce a child and ovary in the female alone does not produce a child, they need each other for reproduction to occur. So that shows how biology proves that gay marriage is wrong.
Technically true but taken beyond what it can safely mean. Perhaps we are evolutionarily constructed to reproduce but that’s not our only purpose any more. Once again, that would be an appeal to nature and it’s not a valid way to construct an argument. It also says that marriage is purely for the purposes of reproduction. That is wrong too. We don’t say it is wrong for infertile couples to wed, or force those that have passed child-bearing age to divorce. There certainly are religions that prohibit contraception but we can’t take them seriously.
The Mathematics of Gay Marriage
Now he’s really stretching things thin at his point. I can’t even begin to fathom the thinking he went through to get these results but you can be assured they are meaningless, unless you think A + B = B + A is good evidence that homosexuality is wrong. He also gets so absorbed in his maths that he doesn’t even realise that men and women are not just interchangeable. They are individuals! Recognising that fact pretty much invalidates his whole rambling idempotency “proof,” not that it really needed any invalidation.
And that’s it!
So these are the principles I have used to prove gay marriage wrong in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and by the grace of God I am the only one that has proved this in the whole world.
No, no, no, no, a thousand times no! Nothing was proved other than how good he is at torturing any possible observation to conform with his preconceived ideas. There is no objective morality, not from god, not from nature and not from man. We can use science to inform morality but not determine it. Morality is the way we see the world and how we should act to bring about the world we want. It would be nice if there were an objective morality but that’s not the case. We must forge our own path, but that path needs to be based on sound reasoning. He included none of that.
You know Nobel Prize is the highest award anyone could ever win and no African has won Nobel Prize in science. So I am aspiring to win Nobel Prize for Africa.
There is no way that this is going to win a Nobel Prize. If this were given by a high school student they would fail. It is not science, it is not philosophy, it is rubbish. And for the record there are multiple African, though not Black African, Nobel Prize winners in science. Ahmed Zewail (Egypt) won the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Sydney Brenner (South Africa) won the 2002 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine, Allan McLeod Cormack (South Africa (birth)/America) (I went to the same school and university as he did.) won the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and Max Theiler (South Africa (birth)/America) won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.