How the moon landing hoax was staged »« Relativity For Dummies

Let love reign supreme

Homosexuality is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make the people who are homosexual any less fully human, and my heart sings out that a federal judge in San Francisco has struck down California’s infamous Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in that it abridges the rights of those fully human individuals to marry, and to benefit from the same legal protections afforded by the institution as heterosexual couples. Not only did he strike it down, but he wrote several pages explaining all the ways Prop8 is horrid:

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

Preach it!

And then, as though to harsh my buzz, along came a certain detestable piece of offal to bloviate about the news.

Pat Robertson, it’s a shame you can’t go to hell. I cannot understand why Pat, and so many other fundies, seem to think that the whole concept of gay marriage is some sort of zero-sum game — that when gays are allowed to marry, it somehow devalues heterosexual marriage. I have it on good authority that the heterosexual marriages in California are still intact, and that not a one has collapsed and resulted in divorce because of the striking-down of Prop8. Gays being allowed to choose monogamous arrangements with one another, and develop nuclear families with adopted children, ought to be celebrated, considering the fundies seem to think that homosexuality is nothing but debauchery.

Look at these couples. Every one of them is in love. Every one of them is beautiful in their moment of vindication. And their ability to choose to grow old together can do nothing but increase the net happiness of this planet.

Well, unless you count the happiness of fundies whose goal is to get everyone to live by the same rules they do, out of some twisted sense that their book of fairy tales somehow makes them superior to outgroups like the homosexuals. Or blacks, once upon a time. Or women, once upon a time. Or Jews, once upon a time. No, those fundies are definitely unhappy about others being allowed to be happy.

I don’t even know if it’s worth railing about, when idiots like Robertson yammer on about how their god hates certain classes of people. I mean, look at history! It’s only a matter of time before society wears them down and out of their backward Bible-based beliefs. I know, I know, next they’ll develop an “other” to turn into a boogeyman from your other Leviticus verses, someone you can make fun of and demonize and abridge their rights with impunity. Like midgets. Or eunuchs. But until that day, the anti-gay forces are steadily on the decline as religiosity among youth is waning and the religious folks’ ages are waxing. Humankind will eventually outgrow its anti-gay bigotry.

There will probably be some flotsam, and there will be insidious re-infection of the anti-gay meme, much in the same way that certain areas and certain political groups in America are still deeply racist. But I take heart in that the human race will, inevitably, one day move on and leave such dregs behind.

Comments

  1. Rich Wilson says

    I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it here- the only reason 8 passed was due to the outright lies, spread primarily, but not solely, by the LDS. My Mormon cousin firmly believes her Bishop when he says “if 8 didn’t pass, he’d be required to marry gay couples”. Despite the fact that the court decision that allowed gay marriages in the first place clearly stated that no clergy would be required to perform a marriage against their conscience.

    I don’t have a TV, so I was spared most of the ads during 8 (I live in California) but I was given a one or two month trial of a very right wing area newspaper, the Sacramento Union. Claim to fame was that Mark Twain wrote for them. Ya, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t today. Anyway, I was out walking along the multi use path to the park with my son, and I pass two guys stopped in conversation, just in time to overhear “all I know is if some teacher takes MY kid to a lesbo wedding, heads will roll”.

    Ok, that “lesbo wedding”- the kids all had parent’s permission (blessing even) to go. I think one or two didn’t, and stayed at school. Not unusual with field trips.

    BUT- one of the kids who went to that wedding was featured in a pro-8 ad (that I had the displeasure of seeing since the Sacramento Union decided I’ve love their paper).

    So.. to recap my rant: Father is upset at the idea that his kid might be forced to attend a gay wedding, probably spurred by an ad in which a child is prominently featured, without the consent of her parents.

    The stupidity makes my blood boil.

    Thankfully Vaughn was swayed by the case and not by a bunch of lies on TV. I hope the SCOTUS is the same.

  2. scribblerlarry says

    Only people who are less than confident in their own gender identification could possibly concern themselves with the gender identification of others. What these sad, sad, people are really expressing is a deep seated need for “support” that they feel can only be sufficient if it comes from every last person in their society who is hetro. Their obvious misrepresentation of the “dangers” of other-oriented people indicates a genuine lack of valid reasons to discriminate against them. Always do they make ridiculous claims about such “dangers”; usually trying to trigger people’s protective feelings towards children by making it seem that children will be harmed. Never do they admit that other-gendered people love and value children as much as do hetros. Once included in the delusional attitude that they have some “god-given” right to mandate how people will think and behave, it becomes a war on “anyone not like me”.

  3. James says

    So this is where you let your ignorance run rampant..
    I’m sure you have many self-proclaimed atheist brethren that are an embarrasment to your sect. The Christian faith is not immune to this problem. The “message” has been diluted so much throughout the generations that many have been misled.

    Many Christians, however, do believe that “Homosexuality is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make the people who are homosexual any less fully human..”. Nonetheless, it is SIN and therefore results in death. It is not something to be embraced and celebrated and to demonstrate that fact, let’s map out your fallacious reasoning.

    Example 1:
    Pedophilia is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make pedophiles any less fully human. They should be allowed to choose monogamous arrangements with one another and develop nuclear families and ought to be celebrated, considering the fundies seem to think that pedophilia is nothing but debauchery. After all, we shouldn’t be unhappy about others being allowed to be happy.

    Example 2:
    Zoophilia is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make zoophiles any less fully human. They should be allowed to choose monogamous arrangements with one another and develop nuclear families with adopted children and ought to be celebrated, considering the fundies seem to think that zoophilia is nothing but debauchery. After all, we shouldn’t be unhappy about others being allowed to be happy.

    Example 3:
    I am fully heterosexual and my “genes” cry out for the opposite sex. I am innately a puppy in heat, and willing females in my path are all fair game (your wife Jodi included). Likewise, the both of you should be free to pursue this natural genetic desire. Monogamy and marriage are biblical standards and, by your reasoning, deserve no argument. Of course, being atheist you probably aren’t married and naturally do not adhere to the monogamy ideal. That would just make you another hypocrite. But assuming you weren’t, you can see the point.

    I doubt you have children, but if your eight year old daughter were ever approached and seduced by a forty year old man, I would hope you adhere to your infantile ideals that they are in love. That they are beautiful in their moment of vindication. And their ability to choose to grow old together can do nothing but increase the net happiness of this planet.

    But hey, the good news is, it’s only a matter of time before society wears us down and out of our backward Bible-based beliefs. The human race will, inevitably, one day move on and leave such dregs behind. Oh what a happy day that will be!

  4. James says

    So consent is your justification? I know of many children (under 17) that were actively in pedophiliac relationships of their own free will. Also, how is an animal going to give consent? Is consent what happens when a woman puts her crotch in a horses/dogs nose and he gets hard and mounts her? That sounds like genetic biology to me. Lastly, society is rampant with spouses consenting to extramarital affairs.

    So, come back when you have a better excuse than consent.

  5. Rich Wilson says

    Is consent what happens when a woman puts her crotch in a horses/dogs nose and he gets hard and mounts her?

    No, consent is what a cow does when it decides to keel over after we shoot a rod through its brain.

  6. says

    For someone who clearly spends time thinking about the details of this stuff, you really don’t understand consent. We have, as a society, decided who is capable of giving meaningful consent. Hint: that doesn’t include animals, and it doesn’t include children dealing with the greater power and authority of adults. It doesn’t even include vulnerable adults or adults under the authority of others. Those concepts of consent, by the way, are secular, not found in your holy books.

    Now for some more of what you’ve gotten wrong.

    Paraphilias in general are currently believed to be largely shaped by childhood experience and formative sexual experiences. For example, those who garner sexual enjoyment out of being spanked were generally spanked in childhood. Spare the rod and avoid a spanking fetish. Paraphilias are also layered on top of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation itself doesn’t appear to be a paraphilia.

    Then there’s cheating. Cheating is defined by the lack of consent of at least one party involved in the relationships. When everybody consents, it’s called polyamory, not cheating.

  7. James says

    Rich, put down the pipe and join the real debate.

    Stephanie, you obviously don’t see what Christians are in an uproar about. However, you are helping me to make my point.

    I FULLY understand consent. There is no age of consent in the Bible, there is a state of consent, and it is called marriage. Parents in the ancient world safeguarded their children -especially their daughters – until they were ready to marry. The Government was not involved, and set no ‘age of consent’. It was up to the families at what age their children got married. But until they were married, they kept their virginity. Not to do so rightly brought shame on the whole family. When they got married, they entered into a state of consent which we call holy matrimony. The history of civilizations shows that when societies had strong families and where sexual congress outside marriage was unheard of, those societies thrived. When sexual morality broke down, they failed. Once upon a time, we as a society, made sodomy a sin. Matter of fact, it is still on the law books. But, since everybody is doing it, we turned the other way. Now, we want to allow them the sanctity of marriage (odd thing is, we still outlaw polygamy. That’s a head scratcher for sure). My point, shared among the Christian faith, is when does the line stop moving? At what point is enough, enough.

    Paraphilia is defined as “a sexuoerotic embellishment of, or alternative to the official, ideological norm.”
    LMAO!! EXACTLY! When has two women wearing strap-ons or two men exploring one anothers poop shoots ever been considered the “official, ideological norm”? It’s unnatural in every sense of the word.

    Then there’s monogamy with definitive biblical roots. “Cheating”, or adultery as it is more commonly known, also used to be illegal. But we’ve allowed that to permeate our society along with the ease of obtaining a divorce. Why….cause everybody’s doing it and who are we to say we are an better than anyone else.

    My goodness Stephanie, what are you, like 16?

  8. says

    Why James, I didn’t realize the Bible endorsed such hate, despite the last line in my post. What a shame.

    And it’s “chute”. “Poop chute”. Not “shoot”.

    Can you provide any reason that homosexuality or other types of love other than monogamy should be illegal or frowned upon, without resorting to “the guy that my book told me about apparently dislikes it somewhat”?

  9. says

    James, you just keep getting creepier and creepier on this consent thing. A state of consent called marriage? You do understand that you can be prosecuted these days for raping your wife, right?

    As for paraphilias, congratulations, you found Wikipedia. Now read past the first paragraph. As for natural or unnatural, good like finding a species that has sex that doesn’t have same-sex sex. Same-sex sexual relations aren’t remotely anything new, either.

    Monogamy appears in the bible. It also appears in non-biblical cultures. Polygamy appears in both places as well. So does divorce. So does monasticism. So do committed same-sex relationships. So do rape and consensual lust both inside and outside of marriage. In short, there’s no special connection between your holy book and any particular form of sexual or familial relationship.

    So that then leads to Jason’s question: Given that you can’t actually rely on your bible to support your prejudices, what have you got left?

  10. James says

    Geez….to have such an intelligent grasp on the English language yet to be so blind. What a true shame.

    Jason, first of all, what are you translating as hate? I haven’t said one thing in anger. Maybe I should make James’ Law that declares “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to debate the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible that someone won’t mistake for hatred.”

    I think I’m starting to understand why you and your brethren have such animosity towards Christianity. It’s apparent you all think that we Christians believe that God is looking down and wiggling a wrinkled finger at all the bad boys and girls in the world. That a bunch of guys who wanted to feel superior to the rest of the world made a little book full of fables and fantasies to reinforce to His followers, us Christian folk, that we’re better than all these bad boys and girls. Also, we’re going to a mystical land called Heaven and everybody else is going to a mystical land called Hell because we’re the only good boys and girls that daddy in the sky likes. Everyone else is bad, bad, bad.
    Talk about a childish imagination. Yet you folks hold your intelligence on such a high pedestal. And the true hatred you speak of is at this childish story you all have chosen to believe. Quite the paradox.

    Stephanie, I truly don’t think you have the mental capacity to comprehend anything. Although, if you actually do, then how are you truly so ignorant. Are you really telling me that you believe same-sex relationships don’t qualify as unnatural? I’m not going to even try to continue the correlation between polygamy, adultery (cheating), monogamy, homosexuality, etc. Your mental faculties aren’t broad enough to grasp the concept.

    And to answer YOUR question. Nothing. Nothing at all. However, to clarify, they aren’t prejudices. Me not wanting my eighteen year old daughter to sleep around town isn’t a prejudice. It’s love for her and her emotional well being. Me not wanting the government to lower your “age of consent” to twelve isn’t prejudice. It’s concern for the emotional well being of little girls and boys. Me not wanting my son-in-law to commit adultery isn’t prejudice. Do you get the point? I don’t really expect you to.

    Jason, to answer your question. No I can not.

    My question for you is, barring my book of fairy tales and “unfair rules”, where would you suggest we get our societal “rules of conduct”? What foundation is acceptable? Apparently, the foundation of Love is deplorable in your eyes.

  11. says

    James’ Law that declares “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to debate the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible that someone won’t mistake for hatred.”

    So you’re a Poe. Well, thanks for drumming up hits anyway.

  12. James says

    Jason, surely that’s not the extent of your rebuttal? You didn’t even answer my questions. :(

  13. Rich Wilson says

    Rich, put down the pipe and join the real debate.

    I’ll trade the pipe I’m not smoking for your book of fairy tails that says that things that aren’t sins are sins.

  14. says

    You basically admitted that you’re a parody of a religious fundamentalist, rather than an actual fundamentalist. I mean, sure, I could point by point rebut, but I’ll let the Bible muddy the polygamy waters for me. Which, if you really believed as strongly as you claim, you might have already had to deal with.

    To people who care: we as a society have agreed that people below the age of 18 can’t give legal consent (except in some very fuzzy areas with “close” ages near 18). Legal consent has a specific meaning, also agreed upon by society. Since animals can’t give consent, it is cruel to impose on them, and there’s enough cultural stigma attached to it that most people (myself included) are squicked out by the idea of sex with an animal. Likewise with sex with corpses. It’s taboo because it’s fringe, and it’s fringe because it’s taboo. Self-perpetuating. Justified only by the issue of consent.

    Like Stephanie said, one needs to understand consent to make any argument about sexuality. Once one understands that concept, it clearly defines what society will, in general, allow and disallow, without hyperbolic “slippery slopes”.

  15. James says

    Jason, that’s weak man. I’ll assume your just tired.
    Maybe I can get Stephanie or Rich to answer my questions. I answered all of yours.

    And yes…I am in no way a fundamentalist.

  16. James says

    By the way Rich…it’s “tales”. “Fairy tales”. Not “tails”.

    Rich Wilson: I’ll trade the pipe I’m not smoking for your book of fairy tails that says that things that aren’t sins are sins.

  17. says

    And the poor dear wants his questions answered by someone who doesn’t “have the mental capacity to comprehend anything.” *yawn* Obvious troll is boooring.

  18. James says

    Yeah, Stephanie. Good excuse.

    Calling something unnatural is just that. I think we all know where the penis was naturally designed to go. It’s pretty obvious that the rectum was naturally designed to secrete waste. And if it is natural for a woman to have sex with another woman, why do they need to “strap on” an artificial male penis? The whole thing is laughable at best. You can throw every scientific paper, theory and hypothesis at it that you want. It will never be correct.

  19. James says

    LMAO! Seriously? If anyone is a troll here it’s you. Unbelievable.
    So, this is where it stands.

    You guys don’t deny your childish imagination regarding the bible.
    You can’t tell me where we should get our societal foundation for rules of conduct.
    You choose not to identify what hatred I’m displaying.
    You don’t know where we should draw the line on what is acceptable vs. non acceptable behavior.

    Makes me glad I have the Bible to believe in.

    Stephanie Z: And the poor dear wants his questions answered by someone who doesn’t “have the mental capacity to comprehend anything.” *yawn* Obvious troll is boooring.

  20. Rich Wilson says

    Tales. Yes. Brain fart. Thanks.

    why do they need to “strap on” an artificial male penis?

    Seriously?

    You’ve never kissed anyone. Anywhere. Right?

  21. says

    You guys don’t deny your childish imagination regarding the bible.

    If by “childish imagination” you mean “recognizing that it’s a piece of literature written by human beings a long time ago and mutated over centuries of retranslation for political gain”, then yes, I’ll cop to that.

    You can’t tell me where we should get our societal foundation for rules of conduct.

    From the objective harm it does to individuals or society as a whole, as agreed upon by the society in question, same as every “foundation” for every rule of conduct.

    You choose not to identify what hatred I’m displaying.

    Picking only the Bible passages that cast certain naturally-occurring phenomena as “evil” while ignoring the Bible passages that mitigate or eliminate the stigmas for them, qualifies as “hatred”. It means you’ve cherrypicked the BAD parts.

    You don’t know where we should draw the line on what is acceptable vs. non acceptable behavior.

    Sure we do. What hurts society, empirically? Are there already laws against it to prevent this harm to society, if it empirically hurts society? If not, are you SURE it empirically hurts society, or are you just thinking with your Bible again?

    Not that any of this matters. You don’t seriously believe anything you’re saying.

  22. James says

    Rich…WTF?

    That’s your rebuttal? Seriously?? I’m mean really…seriously?
    What does me kissing anyone. ANYWHERE. Have ANYTHING to do with two people of the same sex thinking they are doing something natural??

  23. says

    What childish imagination regarding the bible? We can at least tell you what’s in it.

    We, as a society, agree on rules of conduct that work for society, as mentioned in comment 7.

    Your hatred is demonstrated in your persistence in calling behavior that occurs in every sexual species “unnatural.” You just think it’s icky and that you being squicked out is reason enough to deny people equal treatment. That’s hateful.

    Where we draw the line is at behavior that is nonconsensual, as mentioned in comment 3. And we don’t decide that people give up the ability to consent to their parents or their spouses.

    This really isn’t hard, James. Do try to pay attention.

  24. says

    Naturalistic fallacy again.

    Also, using something other than your genitals to provide stimulation to a loved one is by no stretch of the imagination new. And it’s undercut by examples in nature of, for example, oral sex amongst bonobos. Try not to get too excited by that link, by the way.

  25. James says

    What harm does polygamy cause? What harm does zoophilia cause? What harm does necrophilia cause?
    And please, do tell, how would these things empirically hurt society?

    Interesting…I don’t recall using any bible passages in this entire thread.

  26. says

    All three cause harm if the question of consent is ignored. If society contains members that don’t care about consent, then that poses clear danger to individuals in society at large.

    Polygamy is fine if all of them are adults, and if all of them are informed and consent. If they’re not informed, or don’t (or wouldn’t) consent, they could unwittingly become disease vectors. If they are informed, then they’re hopefully also safe, e.g. get tested.

    How is this difficult? How is it we can come up with perfectly reasonable rationales (in fact, very likely the same rationales that brought these societal rules to bear in the first place) without resorting to “sky dad says so”? Especially when “sky dad says so” is a proxy for “author of this book says so” because “author of this book didn’t like it him/herself and decided to amp up their authority”?

  27. Rich Wilson says

    I’d be more than happy to sign over consent for someone to have sex with my corpse for a reasonable financial compensation. Heck, you can have an orgy, or let your dog have sex with it. It will have to be after any useful organs are harvested and more than the value my cadaver would have to a medical facility.

  28. James says

    Rich, Not once have I said anything hateful towards non-heterosexuals. My ENTIRE point is that it is not natural.

    And I get your point. I get all of your points. I can see how Christians have made a true mess out of everything.

    Even me, trying to make a point, have only made a bigger mess.

    So the same questions continue to haunt me as a Christian.
    Should I make a statement about something?
    When do I make a statement about something?
    How do I make a statement about something in Love?

    I obviously haven’t gotten the questions right thus far. Especially the third one.

  29. James says

    I’d even offer that option with my corpse. Show me the money! :)

    Rich Wilson: I’d be more than happy to sign over consent for someone to have sex with my corpse for a reasonable financial compensation. Heck, you can have an orgy, or let your dog have sex with it. It will have to be after any useful organs are harvested and more than the value my cadaver would have to a medical facility.

  30. Rich Wilson says

    That doesn’t make the people who are homosexual any less fully human..”. Nonetheless, it is SIN and therefore results in death. It is not something to be embraced and celebrated and to demonstrate that fact, let’s map out your fallacious reasoning.

    and much later

    Rich, Not once have I said anything hateful towards non-heterosexuals. My ENTIRE point is that it is not natural.

    I know, I know. Condemn the sin, not the sinner, blah blah blah. It’s no more unatural than masturbating. Or blowjobs. Or cunnilingus. Or hand jobs. (speaking of, farmers give animals hand jobs all the time and never ask their consent). The ONLY argument you really have is that you think it’s iky. And we strongly suspect that a lot of the reason you think it’s icky is that you think the bible tells you so. You’re entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you think two guys enjoying some hot and heavy santorum is ikcy doesn’t make it a sin.

    Oh, and everything ends in death. It’s call the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything dies.

  31. says

    Holy fuck, why are you guys even bothering with this James idiot? Just find out where he lives and notify the authorities in his area that he has no fucking clue what “consent” means. If he’s that much of a sociopath that he has to rely on his invisible sky fairy to inform him what is morally right and wrong, then it probably won’t be long until he’s behind bars or dead from “suicide by cop.”

    At least he seems willing to reveal his complete inability to think for himself at all, with all his begging for an explanation for what are pretty basic concepts.

  32. says

    James:

    Example 1:
    Pedophilia is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make pedophiles any less fully human. They should be allowed to choose monogamous arrangements with one another and develop nuclear families and ought to be celebrated, considering the fundies seem to think that pedophilia is nothing but debauchery. After all, we shouldn’t be unhappy about others being allowed to be happy.

    Emphasis mine.
    I agree James. Pedophiles should be permitted to have monogamous relationships with one another, just as you said. Since that would be a consensual relationship between two adults, which is perfectly fine, I would have no problem with that. That is the point, pedophilia is not a relationship of equals, but two pedophiles who have a monogamous relationship with each other is.

    Example 2:
    Zoophilia is very likely biological, an emergent property from a confluence of genes that were selected for other reasons. That doesn’t make zoophiles any less fully human. They should be allowed to choose monogamous arrangements with one another and develop nuclear families with adopted children and ought to be celebrated, considering the fundies seem to think that zoophilia is nothing but debauchery. After all, we shouldn’t be unhappy about others being allowed to be happy.

    Again, James, I fully agree with you. Two zoophiles should be, and are, permitted to have monogamous relationships with each other, just as you argue. Their relationships with each other should be celebrated. A monogomous relationship between two zoophiles is a consensual relationship of equals, zoophilia is not.

    Example 3:
    I am fully heterosexual and my “genes” cry out for the opposite sex. I am innately a puppy in heat, and willing females in my path are all fair game (your wife Jodi included). Likewise, the both of you should be free to pursue this natural genetic desire. Monogamy and marriage are biblical standards and, by your reasoning, deserve no argument. Of course, being atheist you probably aren’t married and naturally do not adhere to the monogamy ideal. That would just make you another hypocrite. But assuming you weren’t, you can see the point.

    Again, I agree with the whole statement with the exception that marriage (or monogamy) is biblical. People should be permitted to have as many consensual sexual relationships as they wish. That makes them a douchebag, not a criminal. Just because I don’t agree with something doesn’t make it illegal. What makes something illegal is the state striking a reasonable balance between absolute freedom and the good of it’s people. Homosexuality, like promiscuity, doesn’t meet the standard for illegal behavior, pure and simple.

    I doubt you have children, but if your eight year old daughter were ever approached and seduced by a forty year old man, I would hope you adhere to your infantile ideals that they are in love. That they are beautiful in their moment of vindication. And their ability to choose to grow old together can do nothing but increase the net happiness of this planet.

    Jason doesn’t have children, but I have four. I also happen to agree with everything he said. As I said earlier, homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. If you need to argue against something by never actually addressing the something directly, but what “might happen” if we extend the reasoning to include completely unrelated phenomena, then your argument is without a foundation.

  33. says

    James:
    Rich, Not once have I said anything hateful towards non-heterosexuals. My ENTIRE point is that it is not natural.

    “Not natural” means “doesn’t occur in nature”, which I’ve shown a number of times and a number of ways that it does. It does not mean “not what our genitals were designed to do”. Saying it was designed for reproduction presupposes that it was designed at all, when in actuality, our reproductive organs are “hacks” rather than purpose-built routines. One of the “purposes” for genitalia is for reaching sexual climax, which releases oxytocin, which strengthens pair bonding in humans. How that sexual climax is reached, is entirely between the people who wish to pair bond. If someone wishes to pair bond with someone else of the same gender, and they’re old enough to consent legally, there’s no problem. If nobody’s getting hurt involuntarily, and consent is not breached, there’s no problem.

    And I get your point. I get all of your points. I can see how Christians have made a true mess out of everything.

    Even me, trying to make a point, have only made a bigger mess.

    I don’t see a mess. I see discussion. I see assertion (mostly emotion- or bible-based) from you, and counter-assertion (mostly evidence-driven, with some emotion-driven or outright disbelief) from the atheists in this conversation.

    So the same questions continue to haunt me as a Christian.

    Strike “as a Christian”, and welcome to the human condition. None of us are any different in those questions. I just happen to be of the opinion that words left unsaid will change no minds.

    How do I make a statement about something in Love?

    Drop it to a lowercase L. Love is a state of emotion in humans, and I have a great deal of love for the human race, even those parts that consistently let me down (the people I might generally refer to as asshats on this blog — I’ve got a whole category for them!). I feel that, as a whole, humanity is worthwhile, and worth perpetuating, though I’m prejudiced toward us by being a member of it. Looked at objectively, I could see how a legitimate argument could be made that we’re hurting the rest of the planet, destroying precious life at will to further our own profits. Or that we’re overpopulating the planet compared to how many of us the ecosystem could sustain. Or that we’re as wont to blow each other up as we are to reach for the stars and try to make our race a spacefaring one. But I can’t help but be the most optimistic about our species as I can, despite all these empirically Bad Things.

    It’s for this reason that I want all of us to look at reality for the splendorous happenstance it is, and to suspend disbelief in its mechanistic state to strive for something within our grasp outside of an unproven hypothesis about a magical land where our flaws are washed clean and we’re given license to worship some supreme deity in perpetuity. The things I want the human race to achieve are, I feel, much greater than fawning adulation for a probably non-existent postulate made by a fevered man several hundred years ago, prior to science becoming the sole human pursuit worth maintaining.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>