Archive for March, 2013

Gay sex, non-sexual gays, non-sex, and masturbation?

March 29, 2013

When reason is missing I smell religion. Whether it is worship of the imaginary friend in the sky or “government” the results are the same.

I was recently witness to a discussion about homosexuality.  Go figure.  One person was taking the position that some gay couples might be just like some hetero couples and never actually have sex, but just like being married or a couple for companionship and convenience.

The other said that if they aren’t having sex, they are not gay, no matter what they say.

He (who is a frequently-published writer whom I have never seen say anything bizarre) was claiming that there is no such thing as “sexuality” and it doesn’t matter who you claim to be attracted to- he says if you aren’t having sex, you can’t be “gay” or “straight”.

Then he went on to claim that only procreation counts as sex.  Everything else is, to him, “masturbation”.

So, he was asked if this means infertile couples didn’t have sex; if Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he claimed he didn’t have sex with Miss Lewinski; if it’s not “sex” if you use birth control; etc.

He said it is not sex if it isn’t procreation.

Lots of angry, jealous spouses might be upset to hear that their divorce was based upon them falling for a lie.  If no baby resulted, then there was no sex and they had no cause to divorce their non-cheating spouse.  They owe restitution for their false accusations.

It is obvious to me that on this subject, he is full of crap.  He made some other comments to try to distance himself from religion, while still accepting their anti-sexual worldview.  It’s just like almost all the anti-abortion arguments I have ever seen- they are all based upon the belief that Sky Daddy doesn’t want abortions (never mind that he performs the vast majority of them himself)- no matter how strongly the person claims their view isn’t religious in nature.  I think he is sorely lacking in reason on this issue, and I can’t see why he should be.  It sure smells like religion to me.

 

Creationism and those who push it

March 18, 2013

I try not to hate.  Usually, it is pretty easy.  But I HATE creationism!

And it is hard not hating those who advocate it and try to claim evolutionary science isn’t science, or that all science is government driven.

It isn’t “faith” to do science- it isn’t “faith” to accept what science discovers. Science is a method for discovering what is real- for discerning between reality and wishful thinking.  

I can pick up a rock and observe that it is a rock, rather than, say, a hunk of plastic.  I can then study it more closely and discover what kind of rock it is- whether it is natural or artificial (concrete), sedimentary or metamorphic, etc.  It doesn’t take “faith” to see that it is a rock of a particular type.

Creationists desperately want to insist that everything is as delusional and as subjective as their faith.  It isn’t.

It is what it is, whether you accept it or not.  Just like coercion and theft are wrong, whether you accept it or not.

You can keep taunting that you want to “see evidence” and then pretending none was presented when it is placed under your nose.  You can keep changing your requirements for evidence; keep asking for your “missing links”, or keep claiming evolution is a wild guess (the creationist definition of “theory”).  You can keep ignoring or denying the genetic evidence and claiming it doesn’t mean what it means.

All this just makes you look like an idiot.

You can say, in response to my pointing out creationist lies concerning their credentials, resent history, genetics, geology, fossils, evolutionary science, and so forth, that you caught “evolutionists lying and telling half truths” so you reject evolution.  But when asked for examples of these “lies” and “half truths” you simply repeat some creationist BS from one of those creationism evangelists- stuff they made up that actually only proves MY point about their willingness to lie about anything to try to score a point (fool YOU) for their cause.  If you respond at all, that is.  Scientists are human.  They all lie sometimes.  If they use evolution as justification for the State, they are lying.  Truth can’t justify lies.  But this isn’t the kind of lies that would invalidate the science- it only shows the human bias.

When pressed- or scared– you can even then smugly assert that you are “not a Christian” or “not a creationist”- but that you have “questions”.  Feel the need to wiggle?

Sorry.  You lose.

 

Circular “reasoning” and god’s commands

March 15, 2013

From Futility Closet:

If all moral obligations originate from God’s commands, then so must our moral obligation to obey these commands. He commands us to obey his commands. But what is the moral reason to obey that command? An earlier command? What is the reason to obey that?

Do we have a moral obligation to follow God’s commands because we love him? This implies that we ought to love him. Why? Because he commands it? That’s a circle. Because he’s good? That seems to mean only that he follows his own commands — or else that goodness is a standard independent of God.

Or, you can accept that “god” is imaginary and get over the problem once and for all.