.png){kind=logo}
July 27, 2010 at 3:53 pm 
Daniel Fincke I apologize for the sparse original writing the last two weeks. Between going on a brief vacation to Chicago for the Pitchfork Music Festival and now getting mired in all the details and grunt work involved in packing and moving from the Bronx to Manhattan, the all important rhythm which enables my usual rapid fire blogging style to work has been effectively broken for the time being.
There are a number of reader comments I still want to address which have accumulated within the last few weeks (and even some left from my dissertation hiatus from blogging about philosophy and atheist topics and from late June). Be assured, many of you, that I am not ignoring you but just behind.
Anyway, in the meantime, I am deciding to officially take the rest of the month off since I am already not accomplishing much here (outside of Sunday’s new essay outlining some major positions in my theory of ethics) and since I foresee both moving and academic responsibilities nearly completely sapping all of my energies until Saturday.
But, never fear, I’ll be back with a vengeance Sunday for what should be an August filled with vigorous blogging.
In the meantime, this is our first official* “Your Thoughts” thread—an open thread providing you an opportunity to bring up Your Thoughts on whatever topics you would like to talk about with other Camels With Hammers readers. I want to make “Your Thoughts” threads a Tuesday tradition for at least the next five months at Camels With Hammers. Consider this thread a space for you to dictate the course of conversation on the blog, you can either go way off of the normal Camels With Hammers topics or raise issues on familiar Camels With Hammers topics that I have not yet. You can even feel free to shamelessly draw attention to your own blog by linking to and discussing something you posted there and bringing conversation about it over here.
For this first Your Thoughts? thread, though, I think it would be best to break the ice a little. So I think it would be great if readers might introduce themselves a bit. Who are you? What do you do? Where are you from? What makes you most distinctive and memorable? Of what are you proudest and of what are you most ashamed? What are your thoughts on philosophy and religion? How much formal training in philosophy do you have? Just talk about yourself. Whatever you want to talk about about yourself, just talk about it. Just make it about you. And about what everyone else says when they talk about themselves.
And you, the quiet lurker over there who never says anything–yeah, YOU, I am especially curious to learn about you, so chime in!
And then what first brought you to Camels With Hammers and what brings you back? What are Your Thoughts on possible site improvements? What are Your Thoughts on what I should
be sure to keep doing? Do you have any questions for me or about me? I’ll try to answer most questions, maybe in the comments below and maybe in a future post.
And, what else is on your mind? From now until at least Sunday when I formally return, bring up whatever you want to talk about here.
Your Thoughts?
Posted in 
Howdy. Shall I nick the “Hello I’m..” page from my blog?
35 – this is for anyone who cares.
Female – this will become apparent.
Canadian – this will be obvious.
Atheist – this is worth mentioning to avoid confusion.
Geeky – this is to be expected.
Weird – this can’t be helped.
Learned – I earned a B.A. in Sociology yet paid a lot for it.
Witty – at least, I think so.
Snarky – things annoy me. Such is life.
Inept – I’m not high-tech.
Bookish – Literacy rocks and don’t let anyone tell you different!
Musical – life without music is a rainbow without red. (read: impossible.)
(not quite) Single – Do not email me about your penis. I’m not looking.
I wind up reading Camels with Hammers via Planet Atheism most days, so I’m not really up on specific themes this blog has focused on. Mine’s been wavering a little off atheist topics lately on account of this fledgling fling I’m currently experiencing, but then again, atheists have hearts and capacity for love as much as anyone else so maybe it’s not as far off the topic as it first seems.
While I’d never be able to pick a post is “best” on my blog, I’m kind of pleased with my advice series where I steal Billy Graham’s mail and give some decent thought to what ails his readers. Here’s the latest:
http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/why-would-temptation-be-a-sin/
Dan already knows a bit about me but I’ll give everyone else a brief introduction.
I first found Dan’s blog via a comment he left on He Lives, an interesting religious website I was frequenting at the time. I am a nearly (Friday!) 33 year old skeptic from Canada who loves philosophy but never took it in school. My dad told me that all philosophy is good for is realizing why you don’t have a job. (apologies Dan, he really said that, and now I feel robbed)
My blog is a soapbox for my pet interests: equal rights, skepticism, science, atheism, whatever floats my boat.
I am quite proud to have my blog on Dan’s blogroll, and would like to thank him for all the help he has offered to me since embarking on my own blog.
I am most proud of my ridiculously large family (4 children, not quite a quiverfull)and that I am happily rearing a group of inquisitive, skeptical children.
If I could plug one of my blog posts, it would be AGW And The Denial Of Science, my first post that got lost by a lack of visitors.
Keep up the good work Dan!
Hello. One of those quiet lurkers, here. I discovered this site via Stumble Upon, searching for “Gay Culture” pages, of all things. I happened upon that mega post of yours entitled “An Argument for Gay Marriage and Against Traditionalism.” I’ll come back to that in a minute, and the funny misunderstanding I had upon reading the title of that post.
But first, a little about me: I grew up in a Southern Baptist home and was a dilligent Christian all through high school. But, when I got to college, I finally admitted to myself that I am gay. I struggled for many years thereafter with religious belief in various forms (I am now 40), but I now consider myself an atheist.
It has been extraordinarily difficult for me to square reality with what I was raised believing. I have seen Christianity put a lock down on the ability of my immediate family to think for themselves; I spent years in doubt because of that in my own life, and I have often found it an enormous challenge to act upon my impulses to disbelief. I still struggle to rid myself of all of my Christian baggage. (Was it Richard Dawkins, perhaps, who talked about how forcing Christianity upon children is a form of child abuse? I would definitely agree!)
For me, the death knell in my belief in Christianity was coming out to myself as gay. I simply could not believe that I could be born gay — and I know with every fiber of my being that I was born gay — and be condemned by a god who had created me that way. Does not compute. The loving god purported by my religious community couldn’t be that way and be a loving god. I tried various other religions “on for size” for several years, but any impulse to belief through faith just fell away eventually, as it is wont to do when reason kicks in.
So, to the reason for my “funny misunderstanding” upon reading the blog post title mentioned above: many in the gay community have taken a rather hard line stance against conformity with mainstream culture. They really don’t want to be “like the straights” in any way. Some of the more extreme of these folks tend to gravitate toward the “Radical Fairies” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_fairies ). I have seen it argued by some gays that to try to emulate straight culture (through monogamy, marriage, etc.) means that one must destroy or deny the special “queerness” of one’s being. Hogwash, I say. No one is THAT special!
Moreover, I agree with many of the arguments Daniel has made in the above mentioned “Gay Marriage” post about humans acting/reacting in certain ways based upon instinct and impulse. I think we are all driven by basic needs and desires, and are subject to our basic evolutionary bag as humans re: instincts/impulses/repulsions as a matter of survival. I think all humans — whether homosexual or heterosexual, cisgendered (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) or transgendered — have basically the same desires and attractions, it is merely the objects of those desires and attractions that differ. We are more same than different. Plus, I don’t consider myself to be a rare, delicate flower. :0)
So, when I read the title “An Argument for Gay Marriage and Against Traditionalism,” I mistakenly thought I had come across a post that might offer some new argument as to how one might be for gay marriage, but against assimilation into straight culture.
Anywho, I want to thank you, Daniel Fincke, for that post. It expresses so thoroughly what I think about the morality of homosexuality, but have lacked the sophistication and ability to state as well as you did.
I do have one minor quibble, though, with the following statement in your post: “Another prima facie reason for homosexuality to be discouraged is that it produces no kin (at least not directly or inherently).”
Of course, you are not arguing for the banning of homosexual behavior or relationships anywhere in your post, but I’m having trouble with the use of the word “kin” in this instance.
My problem comes from the fact that you singled out homosexuality, as though heterosexuality “directly” and “inherently” produces kin. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not, by their natures, relationships between people; they are sexual orientations — descriptors for one aspect of a person’s nature. Neither of them, solely, can produce kin, in my view.
Perhaps you meant that heterosexual relationships, directly and inherently, are apt to produce kin, but homosexual relationships are not. First, I would disagree that a heterosexual relationship, generally, would be apt to produce kin; some heterosexual sexual/romantic relationships are fleeting, just as some homosexual relationships are fleeting. Only when the two (or more?) people involved decide to become dedicated to the relationship would “kin” be produced.
But, I also disagree that homosexual relationships cannot directly or inherently produce kin. So many gay and lesbian people have been rejected and ostracized by their birth families. It has been by experience that some of these people would say that they have formed new “families” which have no basis in biology, but in kinship of spirit. I am not speaking of romantic or sexual relationships here, but of platonic relationships that have evolved into something more: a mutual love, respect and support of other gay people in a close knit group, just like a biological family. Some within the group are more mature and counsel and lead younger, less mature members in the group to make sound choices. Members of the group provide emotional support to one another in times of distress. Sounds like kin to me.
Also, when two people of the same sex join together in a monogamous, committed relationship of mutual support and love, they have become kin, to my mind. And if their biological relatives choose to accept and affirm that relationship, the couple would probably considered their extended biological families to be kinfolk.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
So sorry to have yammered on for so long; I got carried away. I am really enjoying reading your blog and hope you keep up the good work for a long time.
Personally, I’d like to see more camels and hammers.
But what you’ve been doing so far is fine.