Deus vult?
Well, time for me to blow off some steam that has been building up at the increasing tide of ridiculous religiously-motivated tomfoolery.
I’m not going to write anything about Terri Schiavo and Bush’s religio-pandering, except to note the potentially pleasing fact that apparently the Administration has actually pissed the people off. (Well, maybe one thing–if you really believe in an afterlife, then isn’t perserving someone in a coma for 15 years tantamount to imprisoning them in Limbo, and denying them their chance to move on to Heaven, or whatever? At least have some internal consistency in your mythology for Christ’s sake.)
I’m not going to write anything about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives making “marriage==one man, one woman” part of the official party platform–except to mock the CBC for spinning the story as Conservatives moving to the centre(!)–since I have already made my feelings on both Harper and gay marriage quite clear. (By the way, I’m still looking for anyone who can present a reason to be opposed to gay marriage that doesn’t resolve to either “God says no” or “Gays are icky”–of all arguments presented by all the people I’ve argued with so far, every argument has boiled down to one or the other.)
I am going to pull one of the readings out of the current (or possibly one-back, but it’s current at my house) Harpers. The lovely state of Texas has apparently decided to remove all mention of gay marriage from their school textbooks as part of the “Onward Christian Soldiers” lurch to the right. (Those poor people trapped in Austin, surrounded by the rest of Texas, sigh.) It seems that the writers have gone a little further than their original mandate changing the whole piece from informative to plain offensive:
(I’m putting the old version in subscript and the new version in bold. Unchanged text between the versions is normal.)
quote:
The sex hormones your body produces may make you interested in romantic relationships with othersthe opposite sex. Friendships and dating relationships help you prepare for adult relationshipsstable marital commitment.“If you discuss the issue of homosexuality in class, discuss it respectfully. Be aware that someone in your class may be homosexual or related to someone who is homosexual, or have a friend who is homosexual. Texas law rejects homosexual marriage. Students can therefore maintain that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents, without being charged with “hate speech.”
Surveys indicate that 3 to 10 percent of the population is gay. Opinions vary on why some people are straight, some are bisexual, and others are gay
No one knows for sure why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide.
Nice change of focus in the last paragraph and the “it’s not hate speech if it’s pointed at gay people” part is just charming.
I am also going to write about the IMAX theatre wimp-out. It’s not textbook alteration, so it affects a lot fewer kids–basically only the science geeks who would go to see IMAX science movies; the exact kids who need science the most–but it’s just as bad:
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.
Sigh.
I am also going to write about the Mormons doing their bit to spread hate and intolerance in the name of a loving God. See, they are having trouble finding psychology textbooks that only talk about negative consequences of homosexuality:
“Most publishers have now included small amounts - a paragraph or couple of pages - in texts about homosexuality,” Leek said. “I don’t teach homosexuality. But if it appears in a textbook, there’s nothing I can do to keep students from reading it.”
…
State law bans teachers or texts from advocating homosexuality, but Nebo District’s policy is more restrictive.
“Our policy is that it will not be taught unless it is teaching the negative consequences thereof,” said Nedra Call, Nebo’s director of curriculum.
I am also going to vent spleen at the Texas Alliance for Life, who apparently have made a breakthrough for Texas science, discovering that women who are raped cannot get pregnant. Unless, of course, they enjoyed it. At least that seems to be their point in an article at the Daily Texan about their opposition to making emergency contraception (i.e. morning after pills) available to women who have been raped:
Pojman explained that there are several reasons why the Texas Alliance for Life refuses to support HB 676.
“Well, one thing I point out is that pregnancy after assault rape is extremely rare,” said Pojman. “For one thing, the woman may already be on contraceptives. Very seldom does an assailant ejaculate; it’s all about power and control.”
I’m just so God-damned tired of all these God people using their little mythology as an excuse to exclude, punish, dehumanize, and so on.
I’m going to have to commit some small act of retribution. Maybe I’ll print out a page of Darwin has a posse stickers and paste them on the flyleafs of every Bible I can find. That might make me feel better.
Trish
Entries (RSS)![[Valid RSS]](http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/wp-content/themes/homosum/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:23 am
It has been pointed out to me that the theology in the Schiavo case is, in fact, consistent.
I am told that Schiavo is Roman Catholic and Catholics believe in the “tapestry of life.” In that view, life is given by God and only God has the right to take it away.
Note: This is not a recent addition to Catholic theology. One of the reasons burning and drowning was popular as a form of execution by the Church was that the Churchmen did not actually kill the condemned. They just set the fire (or tossed them in the water) that killed them.
I would argue that if you replace ’set the fire’ with ‘remove the feeding tube’ you would find that it is perfectly OK under this doctrine–they aren’t taking her life, they are letting God (in the form of starvation) take it.
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Stupid politicians and their stupid waffling and wasting of my hard earned money. We elected you to make a decision on these kinds of things so we don’t have to, so get on with it already!
I am curious as to what you call the presidents siginificant other if he is gay? Do we change the definition of ‘first lady’ to fit, or do we pick another name, like maybe ‘first mate’ (pun intended)?
Seriously though, I can’t believe all the PC BS around this gay marriage stuff. I mean, really, do we not have more important things to worry about than whether Tom and Joe can get ‘married’ and have thier union legally recognized? What about the host of other issues that affect the entire population, not just the (1, 5, 10, you pick)% of the population that are homosexual. The squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess.
April 9th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
[...] rily about the religously-motivated alterations of their content; most recently it was the homophobic alterations of Texas texts. Now I read in a post at Ambiguous.org tha [...]
October 9th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Ok, how about this 1 for the homosexuals not involving God or being icky. Do you believe in Darwinism? If so, then you believe that all things have evolved over time. Creatures have changed both physically and mentally. All things have changed to adapt to their surroundings and environment to a certain extent, right? If so, what is the evolutionary value of homosexual behaviour? Obviously there is an evolutionary natural reason for this type of behaviour. I can’t think of it. If you let me know, then I won’t be on the train of thought that I am on. But until then, merely the apparent lack of a plausable explanation as to this question leads me to the theory that Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behaviour inherent in most animals on Earth. To me that means that it must be wrong by definition. I can’t see any way around this. If you help me out it would be much appreciated. Thx
P.S. I’m not trying to take a stab at you or your ideas, I tried to make this as objective as possible. Sorry if I’ve offended.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Well, I notice that you’ve avoided the question of homosexual marriage entirely, and have instead opted to construct an argument that tries to justfiy opposition to homosexuals themselves.
As I understand your argument it goes:
1) Gays don’t reproduce.
2) Therefore they can’t possibly have any evolutionary value
3) Therefore they are deviant and must be “wrong” by definition
4) Therefore we shouldn’t let them marrry
So, #1 is kind of true, in that gay sexual unions don’t produce children. Of course many people who are gay do have children at one time or another which would tend to weaken this whole point. And, of course, if the logic of “don’t have kids, so are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to marry” is valid, then of course it would need to also apply to people who were naturally sterile, or who made a decision not to have kids–normally this is where the Jesus starts to come out, as people can’t explain why their logic holds for homosexuals and not for sterile people.
#2 is invalid on its face, since evolutionary value, if it can be defined at all, would be defined at a species level. Think about bees–they have entire classes of individuals that are designed not to reproduce, but which still contribute to the overall success of the hive and the species. Note that I’m not saying that homosexuals are “drones”, but rather that species success can be increased by non-reproducing members of a species. I could produce a couple of hundred examples of ways that a member of our species could make a positive evolutionary contribution without breeding, but if you’re honestly being objective about this, then the examples should be just as obvious to you.
#3 is also invalid on its face, or at least I hope it is. At least speaking as someone who is myopic, and who gets a sunburn in ten minutes, I hope that having some traits that are of negative evolutionary value doesn’t automatically make me a deviant, and thus “wrong”.
I note also that all evolutionary theory suggests that populations with the largest internal variations actually do the best over time–this is because the have the largest pool of possible traits to start from, and thus the most directions for easy adaptation. To even use the word “deviant” as a pejorative in an evolutionary argument is kind of silly–populations with very small deviance don’t survive, since they all tend to be susceptible to the same problems.
#4 is a mysterious leap to me. Even if I were to accept the notion that homosexuality is somehow a sign of evolutionary uselessness, which I don’t, I have to wonder how that would translate to somehow giving such people less rights. I just don’t see how that evolutionary argument, even if you bought it, ends up justifying saying “well, we can’t let these people formally declare their love for each other, and form a civically recognized alliance”. It’s a total non sequitor.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:56 am
Sorry, let me clear a couple of things up. Firstly, it wasn’t a statement more of a chain of thought with a question on the end. I was wondering how you could help me to understand this dilema. Secondly, I wasnt trying to implying that if you cant breed, you shouldnt get married. Thirdly, the reason I avoided the whole gay marriage part is because to me, the whole homosexuality and gay marriage debates are 1 and the same. You are right, if you are going to accept homosexuality, you have to give marriages equal rights in everything. Thats why I was arguing the whole homosexuality part. In your second point on evolutionary value, you write “since evolutionary value, if it can be defined at all, would be defined at a species level” .Then proceed to talk about bees. Lets compare apples with apple shall we. I’m sure that if I tryied hard enough I could find some form of life on Earth that was self replicating, and could therefore, build an argument for self marriage. I think if anything, we should limit this arguement to the primate species, or at least to mammals. Ok dictionary.com defines deviant thusly:
–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
No pejorative conotations were implied. Im sorry if they were understood that way. I just think that humans being social animals, deviant would be complicit with wrong. Also, regarding “evolutionary theory suggests that populations with the largest internal variations actually do the best over time–this is because the have the largest pool of possible traits to start from, and thus the most directions for easy adaptation.” I believe you are right, but I think this statement would be more appropriate to things such as skin colour, eye colour, nose size and shape and such. This does not seem to be a variation that may die off or change for better or worse because it is ineffective or something else, like for instance growing another thumb. As for the fourth point, Let’s face it, all laws are moral laws, the reason you arent allowed to kill or steal or whatever is because 51% of the population that lives in the same country as you finds it morally reprehensible. I know this is going to be taken wrong, but I cant think of any other way to say this, and its the first thing that came to mind so here it goes, I’m not saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, or akin to pedophiles, but, pedophiles follow their natural urges and commit pedophilia. Some people may naturally be pedophiles but we will never find out because they repress these emotions because they know that it is considered morally reprehensible by the vast majority of the population. The way modern laws work these days with de facto relationships, the only reason to marry is to engage in a civil union recognised by a religious authority. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that if people feel a certain way about something, people just have to learn to deal with it and move on.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Sorry, again, that last bit was intended to be a train of thought, not a statement. If you feel I have run off the tracks there somewhere could you point it out to me please, thx
October 17th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
So, as I understand this part of your response:
…what you are saying is “I am opposed to gay marriage because I am opposed to homosexuals”. I would then say that it is your responsibility to provide a basis for being opposed to people on the basis of their sexual preference. I don’t see one.
Further, I understand your first message to say that you thought it was OK to be opposed to homosexuals so long as there was some hand-waving with the word “evolution” accompanying it.
I attempted to show how there is no “homosexuality is a contra-evolutionary trait” argument, and how even if there were there’s no “it’s OK to be opposed to people with contra-evolutionary traits” argument. So I feel like I’ve already debunked that whole train of thought–if you don’t see that, feel free to expand on what I’ve failed to refute.
In your most recent response you seem to be saying “I am arguing evolution, but I only want to talk about primates”–that’s bogus, since evolution happens in all species, and not just primates. If you want to rephrase in a more focused way that doesn’t use the term “evolution” as code for some non-scientific concept, feel free, but you don’t just get to say “evolution” and magically carry your point.
Oh, and go read this article about a study on homosexuality in animal species. It kind of lays to rest the argument that homosexuality is some kind of unnatural deviance in humans.
You then seem to drop the whole evolution concept and move towards deviance as a social concept. I think I’ve already said that I reject an argument that something is somehow “wrong” because it’s different from some arbitrarily constructed “norm”. I read a novel a day, roughly, which is clearly deviant from the societal norm–does this make me “wrong”? If not, then deviance from the norm is not enough to make someone wrong, and you should examine your assumptions to see why you think it does in sexual preference, but not in other areas.
What’s your basis for this? What studies have you done or read on the role of homosexuality and population survival?
I disagree with this statement in so many ways that I don’t even know where to start. Let me say this: Laws should be based on an ethical framework, not on morality. Laws should not just enforce the will of the majority, but should also protect the rights of the minority, specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
But even if I did agree with your statement, I’m not sure what the applicability of it is to the discussion. If you think homosexuality is morally wrong, and that justifies a law, then you’re still in a position of having to justify why homosexuality is morally wrong.
If you say “we should have laws against gay marriage because most people think homosexuality is icky, or against God”, then you presumably think that if most people were in favour of paedophilia that it should thus be legal. The point, of course, is that “current majority opinion” is not the basis of an ethical framework.
As for the paedophilia thing, if it isn’t clear to you, the distinction between the “natural urges” of a paedophile (who likes children of either a different gender, or the same one) and the “natural urges” of someone who likes consensual sex with adults (of either a different gender, or the same one) is that in the first case children get hurt, in the second case no one does. “It’s natural that I want to do this” is not a defense for a rapist or a paedophile. People who have consensual sex don’t need a defense, regardless of the sex of their partner or partners.
The civil union is the important part, since it has all kinds of legal consequences, and grants the partners rights that are not available to unmarried people.
The “recognised by a religious authority” part is less important. My take is that government bodies need to recognize the rights of all citizens equally. Religions, on the other hand, are not bound to do anything except follow the laws of the land. (I have no plan to argue that religious institutions should be forced to recognize unions that are counter to their beliefs.)