The year in faith and reason

It's inpleasant when they remove Susan's thread from the "front page.

HOw's the weather by you, Schaum? Seems like a global deep freeze has come over us. Just as well, I say, given how heated things often are.

A Pakistani friend called me from Islamabad, railing about the insane Irish blasphemy law. It seems some governmental Religionoid was moved to this act by the democratically minded Saudi prince.

My friend found the whole thing both hilarious and terrifying. So many people leave country's like hers hoping to escape from insanity and find that either their co-emigres are as she puts it "Islamicizing" their new nations or that the Christians/Catholics et al are taking the new immigrants as a sign beckoning a return to the Middle Ages.

I've visted a few Muslim web sites finding hilarious responses to the Irish Blasphemy laws, along the lines of "How crazy is this?"
-----------------------
On another note, sorry about your friends' poor manners on Christmas. A lot of couples seem to split up during the holidays. To bad, they had to choose your home for the final battle!

Or is it? Have they reconciled?

"Need a laugh?" Check out web articles on Sock Puppets.

"Multiple accounts are the natural result of a non-anonymous website. People switch accounts just to stay anonymous. But a sock puppet is when a person uses these accounts to prove they've not gotten laid for a very long time, if ever.

Anonymous websites let you samefag with little pissing away of your life and people can spot them with just a little bit of intelligence.

However, non-anonymous websites are MMORPGs where people work their sock accounts up to epic activity histories. Then when the sock puppets come by to back each other up, people look at their long histories of activity and go, "There's no way someone would spend that much of their time making all these accounts look like different people. They must be different people in real life because no one could have that less of a life spend that much time building these accounts up just to win some petty arguments."

And that, prey tell, is why sock puppets are effective. It's not that people can't tell, it's that they really don't want to believe."

Have fun talking to yourself in the New Year!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A great article - thank you, Susan.

Need a laugh? Check out RaptureReady:

http://www.rr-bb.com/index.php?s=4223a36fe28401df09b752818811b643

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes
By Atheist Ireland | Published: January 1, 2010

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine.

In response, we have published a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

You can read the quotes on the website here:

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Have your say on the Irish Atheist forum:

http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/

Happy New Year.

In response to the new Irish law, Atheist Ireland has published 25 blasphemous quotes by everyone from Jesus and Muhammad to George Carlin, from Frank Zappa to Rev Ian Paisley and Pope Benedict XVI. The webpage also included this comment by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor:

"Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human."

So the good cardinal believes atheists aren’t fully human. And as Atheist Ireland points out

"Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal."

You would think that after all the scandals the roman catholic corporation provoked in 2009, the introduction of a blasphemy law would be the last thing that the Irish state would be considering in terms of defending religion and its place in society.

I wonder what they will do about James Joyce. To say nothing of Richard Dawkins.

The late Dave Allen…..a little boy’s first encounter with the catholic church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk

"When I say that freedom FROM religion is a basic human right, I think some folks think I'm being rhetorical. I am not."

That is not rhetorical. In no way. I, a religious person, hold to that steadfastly. I am not alone. As is the right to be religious, as is the right to be free from oppression from either side.

When I say that freedom FROM religion is a basic human right, I think some folks think I'm being rhetorical. I am not.

The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of and freedom from religion, by definition.

In this country, the Christian/Catholic Right has effected health care legislation, is fighting to legislate marriage requirements, is doing what it can to take choice from women.

In this country, the Christian/Catholic Right has decided that it will determine by "conscience" which procedures to perform in state funded hospitals, which prescriptions it will and will not fill.

This can be ended. Their excessive influence can be ended in a matter of months. There are many, many believers, of all faiths, who strongly object to Religion influencing legislation.

Naked power is being summoned to oppress the people of the United States. If you have lived in a quasi-theocracy, perhaps you can see the signs more clearly--I don't know.

I do know that unlike Iranians, we have options. We can protest, actively. The worst thing we can do is nothing. That is how blasphemy laws are passed. And much, much worse.

Farnaz,

Institutionalized religion must always be abolished. It is but legalized bigotry, it is religious apartheid. Our watchword is freedom.

Schaum,

I missed your earlier post. I don't think the Catholics and Protestants will kill each other since this is happening in the Republic of Ireland.

Possibly, Catholics and Catholics will kill each other, Catholics and agnostics, Catholics and atheists, etc.

Hopefully, it won't come to that. I cannot believe the Irish will tolerate this, but, then, I did not think they'd let choice be taken from them.

At any rate, meditation might have prevented all of this, that and the abolition of institutionalized religion (no offense, intended to anyone).

Attention Moderator: the Irish Blasphemy Law is a very obvious topic for On Faith.

And for a personal comment on my part - some here might wonder why I, a professed spiritual and religious person, support both Susan, a committed atheist, and also condemn the Irish blasphemy law. One word is my answer: freedom. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, take your choice. Just don't ever try to impose your views on anyone else.

I'm going to meditate. Fortunately, we have no alcoholic beverages in the house.

The Irish Blasphemy Law passed by one vote.

Section 36

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

And once convicted:

Section 37

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

Farnaz,

Check the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law

And also the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html

There are many others. I saw it first in US sites.

On the Irish Blasphemy Law

The news is being reported all over the world.

http://www.congoo.com/news/2010January2/Ireland-atheists-test-blasphemy-law

Evidently, it is really in effect.

The decline, so to speak, of the West.

Arminius,

Has this really happened? Am I missing something? Did we, friend and I, misread?

Arminius,

Thanks for the link. I'm clicking onto the site now.

Arminius,

Indeed the law has gone into effect on the Emerald Isle. Who would expect a nation of wild fighters and poets to impose a rule borrowed from Islamic fundamentalists? I weep for the Irish.
-----------------------------
According to the newspaper and a friend with relatives in Ireland there have been protests and there will be more.

Who engineered THIS? Wealthy very conservative American Catholics took away choice in Ireland. I'm not being rhetorical. This is a matter of historical record.

I hope to Whatever that Americans had nothing to do with this horrible thing.

Farnaz,

The website to look for is Atheist Ireland:
http://www.atheist.ie/
They are gearing up to fight the law.

Everyone who thinks that it can't happen here, look to Ireland, where American Catholics took away the rights of women to choose some years ago. Now, Ireland has a blasphemy law.

Not only can it happen here, it is happening here. When the president and Congress bow to the Vatican and the Christian right, when religionists legislate on health care, choice, marriage, it IS HAPPENING HERE.

Ireland's blasphemy law is no joke. Breaking the law can lead to arrest. Life should be more interesting in Dublinbad.

Writing Congressmen seems to get nowhere. Frankly, I don't want to live in another quasi-theocratic state, REGARDLESS of the religion. I want to know much more about how this outrage against the people of Ireland was managed.

The West, folks, is not immune. Not to anything. Somehow, people forget that.

Indeed the law has gone into effect on the Emerald Isle. Who would expect a nation of wild fighters and poets to impose a rule borrowed from Islamic fundamentalists? I weep for the Irish.

Farnaz:

Vote for Susan? Of course.

The Irish are a bit thick! The protestants and catholics have a long history of "insulting" each other with "offensive" remarks...perhaps now they will kill each other.

Hi Schaum,

Did you vote yet for Susan? Also, can you believe this? Ireland's blasphemy law just went into effect!

I mean, I thought it was a joke. Someone emailed me. Didn't see the Times.

End of civilization as we never got to know it.

Arminius:

"Farnaz is correct, smallvoice1 is over the line."

Have another drink. Its almost time for your next farewell performance.

IRELAND'S BLASPHEMY LAW WENT INTO EFFECT.

THIS IS THE nonGOD'S HONEST TRUTH. IRELAND HAS A BLASPHEMY LAW.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/02/2010-01-02_atheist_ireland_protests_blasphemy_law_by_publishing_book_of_religious_quotation.html

Narrative and Photos--Not To Be Missed

Losing Miss Classie: Photographer Carol Guzy set out to capture a 104-year-old's last journey -- but along the way was captured herself

Sweet Dreams

Clarice "Classie" Morant, 104, was the primary caregiver for her sister Rozzie Laney for over 20 years until 92-year-old Rozzie passed away on New Year's Eve 2008. Classie moved into her sister's bed the next night, taking Rozzie's place in needing care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202489.html?hpid=artslot&sid=ST2009123102023

Ah... I misunderstood. OK, I'll go for it.

Farnaz is correct, smallvoice1 is over the line.
---------------
Ah, but no, I think Susan deserves the crown! I think SmallVoice knows it's not terribly important, but still voting for Susan is the least we can do. :)

Admittedly, there is good competition; however, I think if you click on, you'll agree that Susan is the best candidate.

Next, there should be a contest for the leading male atheist of the past year. Wonder if any blog will take on the task of sponsoring that contest....

Farnaz is correct, smallvoice1 is over the line.

EVERYONE:

RE: OneSmallVoice's post

SUSAN NEEDS our HELP! Pretenders are rushing are rushing the throne!

Advance to battle! (That is, click on the link posted by OneSmallVoice.)

That I should ever see this day. @(

Excellent commentary and emblematic of why Susan Jacoby deserves to be recognized as the "most influential female atheist of 2009." Actually, I think she is deserving of such a title without respect to gender but I didn't organize this poll that includes Susan as a nominee:

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/who-was-most-influential-female-atheist.html

Just shows you can't or won't talk about the immoral nature of the gay "orientation" etc etc ad nauseam.

Posted by: Counterww
----------------------------------
In all seriousness, I cannot understand how you call your religion the Religion of Love if when it leads you to write such hateful things, and you are not alone.

Yours is also not the universal view. The times are changing rapidly. Gay marriage will become a fact of life across the US, probably within a year.

Open your your heart.

Counterww

I am a little amused at your recent comments about "gay sex" that the sex parts don't match. I never in a million years would have guessde that this is your source of unease with gay people having equal rights, or that you had a belief that God disapproves of sex parts that don't match.

I am further a little suprised and amused at you total lack of argument to support your point of view. That being gay might cause a person to be polygamous? That being gay is simply immoral, without any justification for saying this, without acknowledging what it is to be gay, without saying what you think is immoral, but only that the sex parts do not match, that polygamy could result, and that the high divorce rate is not going to be improved by any of this?

Conformity of thought to a rigid dogma is a life style choice, too, one that I do not understand, but cannot really say is immoral, since it derives from so many complex circumstances of ones life. Yet, I hope that my efforts to educate you in the error of your thinking might help you, sometime soon.

You think that the concept of homophobia is humorous; keep laughing.

I think the idea of sex parts not matching is also a little humorous.

Farnaz:

"He ought to stop dreaming, give it a rest, engage those small tasks suitable for one with his limitations."

You mean, like biting his nails? Or maybe cleaning his claymore???

On Faith 2009 Awards:

Most Prolific Sock Farmer: Farnaz1Mansouri1.

Best Neo Nazi Sock Farmer: Zyclon SSchaum.

Honorable Mention Faux Christian Right sock farmer: Zyclon SSchaum.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: 5amefa91 | January 1, 2010 10:33 PM
----------------------------------
An imModerate post. The blogger should Moderate his language a bit. Never was there a hope, given the obvious intellectual disabilities, of his making it into the talented tenth. He ought to stop dreaming, give it a rest, engage those small tasks suitable for one with his limitations.

On Faith 2009 Awards:

Most Prolific Sock Farmer: Farnaz1Mansouri1.

Best Neo Nazi Sock Farmer: Zyclon SSchaum.

Honorable Mention Faux Christian Right sock farmer: Zyclon SSchaum.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It is interesting to consider the ironies of the box that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage has created for itself. Other than disputing the notion that sexual orientation is deep-seated, conservatives are left in a quandary. Much of their venom is directed against the destabilization of families as a result of an increased divorce rate (in heterosexual marriage in the United States, the divorce rate for first marriages is 50%. For second marriages it is 67%. For third marriages, it is 74%. So much for the 'superiority' of the 'nuclear family'), even more children born out-of-wedlock, and a queasy realization that the marital institution has in reality never meant what they thought it did. Not only can these problems with marriage not be the fault of gay men and lesbians who have been excluded from the institution, but allowing same-sex couples to marry would encourage them to engage in the same sort of monogamous, committed, and long-term. relationships that conservatives otherwise support and at which heterosexuals have not been particularly successful.

All of you can write your arguments about homosexuality- and how it is normal and right and all that - to your heart's delight. I don't preclude civil unions but I do think that marriage with the one woman, one man paradigm is to be encouraged above all in society. The nuclear family in that scheme is superior.

It is interesting to note that in all states where gay marriage is put to a vote it is knocked down. The people know what the deal is. The blacks in Ca voted overwhelmingly for prop 8 . They know that this is nothing close to what they endured over the decades. I don't , and people don't care about what goes on behind closed doors. But don't try to make it something we should encourage or "normalize" .

Next will be polygamy see link- our society is headed slowly down the sewer. Once the nuclear family is deemphasized you know the fabric of the society will suffer.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226348

Thanks for the homophobe label by the way. Just shows you can't or won't talk about the immoral nature of the gay "orientation" etc etc ad nauseam.

On same sex marriage it has been pointed out that lesbian couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to have an enduring partnership, but gay (men) couples are less likely to endure. The reason given is that men inherently are less faithful than women are, and when two men get together that is something of double trouble while two women together is no trouble. How true that is (numbers) would be interesting to determine, because then we could predict how likely gay marriages are to endure (divorce rate) in comparison to heterosexual and lesbian marriages. But the whole notion of marriage strikes me as absurd. I can understand the financial benefits of it but in the future I suspect that raising children will be improved over having a mother and father raise the child (leaving one's first two decades of life to essentially chance is absurd and often tragic. Many people are just not fit to be parents). What I mean is raising children will be more a collective endeavor, and in fact it quite is that way today what with so much of a person's life in the hands of other adults than their parents. And when raising children is divorced from marriage then there is no reason not to have multiple partners (sex) throughout life. One can engage in any sex one likes because such acts will be strictly between oneself and other adults with no possibility of children suffering from such acts (if such acts lead to any suffering at all on the part of children today. Apparently the argument is made today that gays make worse parents. I think we can agree that that is BS...). In other words, if a superior method of raising children than having two adults rule over the child's first eighteen years exists then we simultaneously have well brought up children and the sex act no longer criminalized from the perspective of certain acts being worse for children to be brought up around. But the key in general must be that society improves. The more society improves the more we can indulge in this and that behavior. But if society does not improve, or God forbid becomes worse (primarily economically) then scapegoats are sought and we all know what that means. Essentially I believe increased social responsibility and success will put an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Many couples, some very young, decide not to have children and do not. Recently, I attended a Women's Studies forum whose topic was Childfree Marriage. The speaker, who had been married in her early twenties, had chosen as a spouse, a man who, like her, did not want children.

In the audience were women as young as twenty-one, who had made the same decision.

Further, so long as human has genitals, gays and lesbians can have children, and they do. They can also adopt.

Different religions are growing up at different rates. Among Pagans same-sex marriages are routine. In the Jewish community, Reconstructionist, Reformed, and Conservative rabbis have been performing same-sex weddings for years. Not so the Modern and Traditional Orthodox or the Haredi.

Islam permits no same-sex marriage, considers homosexuality a sin. Period. The same is true of Hindus, the Roman Catholics, many BUT NOT all Protestant churches. Encouragingly, debate is heating up among African American churches as some ministers like the Wileys of Washington insist on performing same-sex marriages.

In the meantime, Who Gives a F what they think?

Marriage is a civil matters. Clerics should NOT be permitted to perform marriages. Get the religionists out of Congress. My nonGod, what will it take?

“Marriage is for opposite sex couples because they can procreate and homosexuals cannot.”

The problem with the procreation argument against same-sex marriage is easy to expose, and easy to defeat: the state's principal reason for allowing opposite-sex couples to marry without regard to sterility has nothing to do with practical procreative concerns. The example of an older male/female couple, in which the woman is obviously postmenopausal (say, age 75) is illustrative. In such a case no intervention by the state would be necessary to demonstrate the inability of that
couple to bear a child. An attestation of age would suffice. Why, then, is such a couple permitted to marry? Because the two celebrants wish to enter into a committed union, one that carries and enforces certain legal, social, and moral expectations. The couple often wants the world, especially their close friends and
family, to understand and to help them celebrate the depth of their love and commitment. They may wish to care for each other and to keep each other company. Note that these reasons for commitment are centered entirely in exchanging, meeting and supplying EMOTIONAL needs and assets – the emotional content of relationships being the key element which Daniel12 consistently ignores in his idiotic sex-oriented rantings – and they are identical for same-sex couples. So why allow marriage in the one case and not in the other?

Although this inconsistency is obvious enough, it is often missed. The reason, I would suggest, is that "commitment" is not understood by the dominant heterosexual society in the same way when it comes to gay people. Consider that the commitment under discussion is one between two people who are not valued members of society in the first place. Because of the devaluation of the lives of same-sex couples, opponents of same-sex marriage are able to utter facially ridiculous statements that such unions would trivialize marriage or constitute a "slap in the face." An emphasis on the commitment of same-sex couples will only succeed if preceded, or at least paralleled, by efforts to topple crippling assumptions about gay people, for which the Judeochrislamic religions are responsible

If same-sex marriage is conducted within a mutual understanding of lasting
commitment, and since such commitment is recognized as having positive social value, it ought to be available to lesbian and gay couples on the same terms it is offered to heterosexual ones.

Part one.

On the subject of homosexuality discussed here, I have approached the subject with exactly one purpose only: To attempt to explain why homosexuals are still persecuted in even advanced civilizations (first world) when such behaviors as slavery are put to rest.

There must be some sort of explanation for why antipathy toward gays endures. Trying to say my answer of gays and heterosexuals having a fundamental sexual disgust toward each other is no answer does not help things at all unless an alternative and viable explanation exists. So far I have not heard a single theory let alone a probable one explaining this problem. The best I have heard is that religion is the reason why hostility toward gays exists. But that is just taking the easy way out.

Certainly it is taking the easy way out if at the same time one is claiming to value science and theory based on reason and evidence. My explanation is firmly rooted in biology. Scientists have clearly explained (by the use of Darwin's finches as evidence) that for some strange reason a species of finch which can mate with another species, and has no visible barrier separating itself from that species, chooses not to mate with that species,--and the reason why is the two species feel a fundamental sexual antipathy toward each other.

Part two.

In other words, scientists have pointed out that species are often like invisible islands toward each other, no particular barrier between quite like species such as two species of Darwin finch other than the fact the species will not reproduce with each other. Scientists explain there is a fundamental sexual antipathy there--as if the two species are like the poles of magnets repelling each other.

And this is brought home by simply contemplating human sexual behavior. No one is going to deny that if a person feels sex in a particular direction he or she will do virtually anything to fulfill that desire. The sex drive is as strong as eating or drinking. Now if heterosexuals felt any sort of desire at all to have homosexual sex that desire would have been realized by now--certainly we would not have gays stigmatized in a world in which even slavery is overcome. Hostility toward gays endures because in fact heterosexuals feel toward it the equal but opposite attraction they feel toward the opposite sex. Heterosexuals are as repelled by homosexuality as they are attracted to heterosexual sex.

Part three

And homosexuals feel the same otherwise they would not persist in trying to advance homosexuality despite constant persecution. The sex drive demands satisfaction. We all know this whether speaking of a heterosexual, homosexual, child molester, rapist, serial killer, et al. We all know so many criminal behaviors exist because of some sort of derangement of the sexual instinct, etc. And plenty of behaviors exist because of the health of the sexual instinct.

This is just common fact. This is not to say no common ground can be found between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Bisexuality often exists (at least to a quite measurable degree). There is no hard and fast barrier between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Nevertheless the antipathy between heterosexuals and homosexuals persists. But of course this is not to say that homosexuality has been treated everywhere and at any time in the same fashion. I personally hold the notion (and supported by biology) that much more is in flux than we care to imagine. I suspect, for example, that the ancient Greeks were more biologically homosexual (not through culture but biology) than, say, modern Americans. I think populations of humans often show more and often less homosexual behavior than "normal" (average).

But antipathy toward homosexuals endures! We seem to be guided more by the sex instinct than we care to imagine. We can understand for example, that a person might not want to eat bugs although bugs are eaten in certain cultures (and truly are a healthy source of protein, etc.) but we fail to understand just how much of our perception is born of our sex instinct--an instinct, again, as strong as the desire to eat or drink.

Part four.

In fact to be able to contemplate a variety of sexual behaviors is so eye opening we have people like Rudi Nureyev saying that for a man to sleep with women and men is to be in possession of secret knowledge, which is to say, and in biological terms, that it is like being a finch which is willing to reproduce with another finch species (one near to it of course biologically). Thus also the extraordinary force of writers such as Genet. A heterosexual reading Genet might be repelled by his writings, but he cannot deny an entirely new world is opened to his sight. And if a person has bisexual instincts (such as I do) then one can only rejoice because an entirely new place (as real as an actual place) is opened up to live in.

But all too many people in modern times (first world civilization) are stuck in the prison of their own sexuality--and this applies to both hetero and homo sexuals. Certainly a barrier seems to exist more between men than between women. Women seem to be more inherently bisexual than men. Studies have pointed this out and the reason given is that biologically woman is the foundation of the human race, that men are actually modified women biologically--which is to say a separation is effected between men and men and men and women but that women are quite sexually close to one another.

But that is another conversation I suppose. Oh, one more thing: for those that like examples in nature of homosexuality, in the book I am reading (Beak of the finch) Japanese and Korean moths are spoken of, moths which can be "sex races", which is to say cross one moth with another (of a different species of course) and one gets females with the bodies of males or in another cross whole cohorts of moths which are androgynous looking but completely sterile. And these crosses are so easily effected in nature that, one again, whole "sex races" can exist, thousands upon thousands of these types of moths living with each other. A pretty good book the Beak of the finch. Recommended.

Hello, Farnaz.

After three weeks of guests, family, parties, dinners, Christmas celebrations, my house is quiet tonight. I'm going to watch a bunch of Nero Wolfe video tapes. Christian returned to Austria yesterday, and we celebrated New Years/Gay Marriage Legalization in Austria online at 6pm EST tonight. I have two bottles of champagne with which I am slowly developing a buzz in the wonderful quiet of my house. I do not plan to set foot out the front door, other than to walk Sebastian, until Monday morning.

Christmas was vile. The couple who came down from Charlottesville loudly and with great acrimony dissolved their relationship during Christmas lunch. Evidently they have been at odds for several months. They stopped just short of exchanging blows.

The duck and sour cherries was, however, excellent. Fortunately, it is difficult to screw up most duck dishes.

Frohes neues Jahr!

HI Schaum,

How are you? There is a subdued gathering chez moi, quiet, peaceful, pleasant. Missing flowers, I have been informed by dottir, although I honestly don't think they are required for New Year's Eve.

Thankfully, we live in New York, so I need only run for two blocks in the raging cold to purchase a half-dead bouquet.

Congratulations to New Hampshire. Freedom WILL RING.

Farnaz

Speaking of moral insantity and the Catholic Church, it appears that the US is protecting Vatican Bank, which accepted the loot of 200 murdering Utasha priests who stole from Roma, Jews, Serbs, etc., but them to pieces with scissors in the concentration camps said priests ran. What can one say? No doubt the soon-to-be-sainted Pius XII had some doctrinal justification for his crime. LOL!

In the meantime, Italy (!) is investigating some Vatican Bank(ing) irregularities.

As for the American heirs of Nazi Priest victims, keep going. God is with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122902738.html

FROM PAULA KIRBY'S THREAD, THE POST BELOW CONCERNS WILLIAM CARDINAL LEVADA, FORMER PROTECTOR OF PEDOPHILES IN PORTLAND, WHERE HE BANKRUPTED THE DIOCESE, IN SAN FRANCISCO, WHERE HE DID THE SAME, AS HE PROTECTED THE SALESIANS, THE LARGEST GANG OF PEDOPHILE PRIESTS THEN IN AMERICA, CONCEALING EVIDENCE AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. At the same time, he was a bitter opponent of same-sex marriage, even led a one-thousand person march in protest of that human right. (I have posted on him from time to time.)

As a reward for his "work" in the US, Levada was summoned to the Vatican where he now is the no. 2 man. He is in charge of pedophile priest problems across the globe. It is to him that disaffected Anglicans will appeal.
---------------------------------------

For more on Levada:

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/more-on-cardinal-levada-help-of-anglicans/

FROM PAULA KIRBY'S THREAD:

For a time, while William Cardinal Levada, now prefect of the Congregation for Christian Doctrine - formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition, was the archbishop of San Francisco, I was the chair of the archdiocese's review board which investigated allegations of sexual assault and abuse by priests.

I resigned that position in 2004 when it became clear to me that the archdiocese's feeble efforts at investigation were nothing more than an elaborate public relations strategy geared to protect church from further criminal and civil legal exposure.

Truth-seeking or reconciliation with survivors was never the goal.

The story that has unfolded in Ireland scandalizing millions of Catholics around the world could not be told here in the U.S. because government prosecutors and politicians have no taste for taking on the Catholic Church.

Can't blame them, really. There is no political upside in taking on the Catholic Church which is able flex some very powerful political muscles because of its vast corporate resources, like any other U.S. corporation. (Just note the recent intervention of American bishops into the health care debt before the Congress seeking to restrict the right of all American women to access necessary health care.)

The American Catholic Church has spent more than $2 billion, that we know about, in pay-out settlements with survivors. (Is anyone really surprised that church officials are closing churches and ministries, selling off property assets at an increasingly alarming rate?)

The church has employed armies of lawyers to defend itself, many times adopting the most offensive and aggressive legal strategies designed to intimidate and silence survivors and critics.

Bishops are able to posture themselves as victims of selective prosecution gaining public sympathy from docile, or more accurately, unquestioning parishioners who can't countenance further assaults on their static world view of the church as the conduit and broker for everlasting salvation.

There will be no changes in the way the church does business until the people get control of the money. Sadly, this is the prime motivator for the clerics, not the gospel no matter what the public relations efforts of the Vatican and hierarchy would have us believe.

In a Peoples Church, the people will decide. Once the people have democratic control over the affairs of the believing community, only then will the hierarchy experience a spiritual epiphany, not a minute sooner.

It's past time for Catholics here in the U.S., like their brothers and sisters have started in Ireland, to begin the funeral and internment ceremonies for the failed, discredited church leadership and priesthood.

Jim Jenkins is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Berkeley, CA.

Posted by: jjenkinsphd | December 30, 2009 7:40 PM

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

Dearest Susan and All,

Thank you, Susan, for your thoughtful writing, for creating this space for folks from across America, across the globe to laugh, spar, inform, theorize, and versify!

The Happiest of New Year to all! May nonGod bless us every one!
---------------------------------------

Quite a year it has been for dueling religionists, secularist believers, agnostics and atheists.

As I mention in my first post (the first on this thread), about half of my freshman comp. students chose for their researched argument the topic of same-sex marriage. In every paper, I discovered the same vitally important question: Why are the opinions of religionists even considered in this discussion?

They could not grasp why, given our commitment to separating state from church, ONE CHURCH, we permit Christianity (generically speaking) to influence Congress.

I quote (verbatim)--

from one paper: If the Protestant and Catholic churches can determine the fate of legislation, health care practices, the rights of women to choose, have we not tossed the First Amendment?

From another: We allow the churches to have input in same sex marriage. However, the opinions of the churches are irrelevant to the law. What they "think" should not be considered.

From a third: The United States is one of the great melting pots in the world, with specific regards to religion. From Christianity to Taoism to Islam, not to mention atheism, America promotes religious freedom. The claim that marriage may only be between a man and a woman is incongruous with the idea of religious freedom this country founded itself upon. Not only does it imply that one or two religious views should be given priority over others, it forces nonbelievers into complying with them.

From a fourth: The assumption that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is deeply rooted in religion, not legalities.*

To all here, a great New Year. Been a while since we had one.

To my friends and allies: thanks, blessings, and the handclasp of peace.

To my foes: let us extend to each other the open hand of understanding instead of the fist of despite.

A happy New Year to all!

At midnight, gay marriage becomes legal in New Hampshire, and in Austria.

Civilization is expanding!

Susan,

Thank you for hosting this forum where I have learned so much and laughed so much.

To my friends: Merry Meet! May 2010 bring you the brightest of blessings!

To my foes: May your hands always be stretched out in friendship and not in want.

To Susan: a New Year's resolution: To suffer fools more gladly, providing it does not encourage them to take up more of your time. (James Agate) :-D

To All: HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Thanks, Susan! I always enjoy your essays, and learn from them, and learn from the comments. A great New Year to you!

gee thanks susan. and i (i daresay we...) appreciate your hosting a forum for us solve all the problems of the world. and yes, paine needs a place in the capitol.

From Susan Jacoby

In what will be my last post of the year, I'd like to wish you all a better 2010-- even those of you who propound such ridiculous ideas as the proposition that gay and straight people have a fundamental disgust toward each other. What alternate universe are you people living in? I don't know about you, but I suspect most people (at least most sane people), gay or straight, are too busy to spend much time brooding about what other people are doing with their genitals. May you find something else to preoccupy you in the new year.

I'd like to express my appreciation to those of you whose thoughtful comments, whether I agree with them or not, show that you understand what I've been trying to say. Farnaz, Daniel In The Lion's Den, Arminius, Walter in Falls Church, and many others...I mean you. I can't remember everyone's monikor, but I do read all the comments.

1.

Homosexual behavior is common, which is to say natural, among many species of animals, and there are any number of evolutionary mechanisms which could explain this. A frequently used, and always incorrect, argument is that “Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality. How would a homosexuality gene get selected?” Equally erroneous is the question “Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?”

Science has observed and reported homosexual behavior in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins; yet it remains unclear to what extent human homosexuality – or that in other animals – is genetic as opposed, for instance, to hormonal extremes during gestation. Nevertheless, many mechanisms are potential explanations for why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a given population.

Among the many errors in his “logic”, Daniel12 makes the assumption that homosexuality means not having children. This is not necessarily true, expecially in cultures other than ours. The acceptability of same-sex couples living together is, in Western culture, a comparatively recent event. Until it became acceptable, many homosexual persons had partners of the opposite sex. So, in many traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

But among animals, homosexual behavior is usually non-exclusive. In some observed populations of Japanese macaques, females display a preference for female sexual partners over male one, although they still mate with the males. This is a natural instance of bisexuality.

There is also the theory that homosexuality boosts individuals’ reproductive success, if indirectly. That is, same-sex partners may have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and thereby gaining access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, for instance, it appears that homosexual partnerships are a response to the shortage of males: rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from an existing male-female pair.

2.

An alternative theory is that homosexuality evolves, and persists, because it provides benefits for groups or relatives, rather than individuals: homosexual behavior among bonobos may have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. In Samoa, a study discovered that gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, thereby suggesting an example of kin selection, i.e. promoting one’s own genes in the bodies of others.

Nor is it impossible that homosexuality is entirely neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Studies of homosexual behavior in macaques have failed to find any adaptive explanation. This would suggest that macaques engage in homosexual behavior entirely for pleasure.

Daniel12’s “arguments” assume that homosexuality reduces reproductive success; even if this is true, there are still plenty of possible reasons why it is so commong. Gene variants that cause homosexual behavior may have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality may be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies – sexual selection can favor traits that reduce overall fitness, i.e. the peacock’s tail.

Until recently, homosexual behavior in animals – natural homosexuality, if you will – was either ignored or denied. There is no surprise, therefore, in that we are unable yet to say for certain which explanation(s) is/are correct. It may well be that different explanations are true in different species.

Part one.

To Lion's Den on the relationship of Darwin's finches to gay and straight people with the purpose of understanding why exactly it is hostility to gay people is so enduring despite our understanding that such things as slavery (other forms of persecution) must be outlawed.

Take a species of finch. For this finch to succeed in putting out variants of itself to the point of a new species several courses can be taken (and all may or may not happen simultaneously). 1) A finch population (particular species) might split in two because of some type of geographic barrier splitting the species. This can eventually result in two species out of one. 2) Variants of a species might come to exist more and more through intraspecies competition for food--a finch with a beak slightly larger than normal for its species might be able to say, crack a larger seed than its species normally can. This can result in more and more large beaked finches forming a species out of discovering a niche its parent species could not exploit. And 3) A species may split out of variants wanting to reproduce more with themselves than with the parent species. In other words, we have here sexual desire--sexual selection--driving variation to the point of new species.

But this latter point--number three--is the most important point. A species can split into two species by some sort of geographic barrier splitting a particular species or a species can result in a second species splitting off from itself due to intraspecies competition for food, but these splits will not be enduring until the variants prefer to reproduce with themselves than the parent species. If variants prefer to reproduce with themselves than the parent species no geographic barrier or competitive pressure need exist to ensure separation.

Part two.

Species come to certainly exist then by variants of a species wanting to reproduce with themselves than the parent species. The variants come to find reproduction with the parent species sexually repugnant, and the parent species feels likewise about the variants. Now what this has to do with gay people is that straight people feel of course a strong desire for heterosexual sex. Gay people feel a desire for members of the same sex. This means gay people are not only like variants within a species which prefer to reproduce with themselves than the parent species, they are variants in the extreme--as if an entirely new species which absolutely cannot cross to the other side. Even worse, this variance of gay people does not result in reproduction, which means we have straight people with an entirely different sexual desire faced with a variant which resists engaging in reproduction.

This means we have a deep split, heterosexuals certainly feeling gay sex is disgusting and gay people feeling likewise about straight sex (although of course gay people like to say it is heterosexuals being prejudiced and that they, the gay people, feel no particular antipathy to straight sex). The human race, like any species, can tolerate to a degree variants of itself provided these variants are not too extreme, are at least capable of reproducing with the "normal" (base, parent) line. But gay people, again, are variants in the extreme, as if a new species dramatically, suddenly being born, diverging from a parent stock. We have a sudden, instant sexual aversion born which completely effects separation.

Part three.

Imagine a sudden upsurge of a particular variant of a species of Darwin finch, this variant absolutely committed to not reproducing with the parent stock. We have instant antipathy to the parent stock even if the variant finds a viable niche. Now imagine this variant finch being homosexual. Obviously it will not reproduce with the heterosexual finches. It in fact is a line which will not reproduce at all. If homosexuality depended on homosexuals reproducing with themselves it would not have existed at all. What it is is a variant born of heterosexual sex which finds heterosexual sex to be disgusting, and heterosexuals feel likewise about homosexual sex. We are lulled by modern values into thinking there is no conflict there, but if homosexuals depended on reproduction with heterosexuals for their line to continue it would have died out millennia ago if having existed at all. Both the homosexuals and heterosexuals would have resisted having sex with each other. Antipathy would have existed.

So what we have today is heterosexuals disgusted with homosexuality but giving birth to a significant number of homosexuals every year while homosexuals are disgusted with straight sex but depend on straight people for their existence in the first place. A comedy of errors. Heterosexuals despising this variant of themselves which despises heterosexual sex and in fact leads to no reproduction of the species at all while the homosexuals insist they are to be considered equal to the heterosexuals but cannot even give birth to their own line. An antipathy which will take years to overcome. The sex drive is against reconciliation. The human mind will have to effect the change. Hope that makes things a bit clearer for you Lion's Den.

COLIN NICHOLAS,

Hello! Where are you? Have you read Paula Kirby's essay? Have you been keeping up with the bloggers? Jenkins, who resigned in the midst of the Levada scandal, who has been continually outspoken about the Levada's promotion has posted.

Take a look, if you're interested.
------------------------------------
Hope you've been enjoying the holidays!

Come back now. It's chilly here in the Klondike, damp in the Amazon.

Farnaz

Hmmmm, 5amefa9.

Sounds like Springtime for Hitler (and Germany).

Daniel12

I did not understand what you were saying about the finches, at least not in this particular context.

My only real goal here is not to argue with anybody but to try and teach people. I hope that I might rouse some little inkling of thought in people who are generally not very thoughtful on this subject.

If you will read what I had previously written about sexual orientation, maybe you would see again that sexual orientation is about alot more than the logistics of sexual positions. That is a mystique and an obsession that straight people, especially repressed Christians among them, seem fascinated with.

I do not think that there is much danger that a few gay people will slow down the population growth. If only it would. And likewise, I do not think that we can hope to stem the tide of overpopulation by encouraging people to be gay, because it doesn't work that way.

"These people are an affront to decent society."

Your Neo Nazi alter egos, SSchaum?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Second sentence of part two in last post should read as below. Capitalized words are the change.

They are not only different from each other in the sense of variant from parent stock becoming sexually digusted with parent stock but different to the point that the sex act of one leads to at least the reproduction of the PARENT STOCK while the sex act of the other leads to no genetic line at all.

"I heard that Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian"

That was W alright: making lesbians one woman at a time.

Part one.

On the problem gay people have in society, read the "Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, chapter 11 (a book on evolution). In this chapter of his book the question is asked how a new species is born from divergence from a "base" species, and the answer given is that the primary reason is not physiological--quite a bit of physical variation can occur between say, two birds, but they can physically reproduce--nor is some sudden physical separation in the sense of geographic isolation between two populations of the same species the primary reason (which is to say, for example, by physical separation a line of the same bird begins to diverge),--no!--the primary reason is that a mutual sexual repugnance sets in between the variants and the "old" species.

In studying Darwin's Finches it was observed for a variant line to gain strength toward becoming a new species the variants must begin to choose having sex with primarily themselves, for if a variant were to continue to have sex with the "old" species the variation would be lost, lost in the genetic sea of the old species. This process was also clearly seen in pigeon breeding in that breeders would deliberately force desirable variants to breed with themselves (by isolating them from parent stock) because if they had not forced this decision variants would be just as likely if not more to reproduce with parent stock.

Now what this has to do with gay people is that straight people are genetically programmed to desire straight sex. If this programming was not strong the human species would be threatened with extinction, for of course we have here not just the threat of variants diverging from parent stock but sheer lack of reproduction of parent stock. In other words it can be said that gay people are even more than diverging variants from parent stock a threat to the parent stock. We can understand people being quite different from each other provided they are still straight sexually, but different to the point of different sexual desire is to at least have the psychological barrier between a variant and its parent species set in, which is to say mutual sexual repugnance.

Part two.

To put it simply, straight and gay people feel a fundamental sexual disgust toward each other. They are not only different from each other in the sense of variant from parent stock becoming sexually digusted with parent stock but different to the point that the sex act of one leads to at least the reproduction of variant stock while the sex act of the other leads to no genetic line at all.

So we can see why antipathy toward gay sex endures. We are dealing here with one of the fundamental instincts of a species. Automatically liking in a particular direction is crucial for survival. Variants from parent stock must learn to reproduce with themselves or they do not diverge from parent stock. And parent stock must of course reproduce with themselves or be threatened with at least varying into another species. Now imagine a variant of a species which does not want to reproduce at all because it desires sex with its own sex. Imagine the instinctive threat that poses to both parent and variant. So we can easily see why gay people have such difficulty in society. They are more dangerous than variants--they bring the threat of exinction.

But this is not to say of course that humans with their higher intelligence cannot overcome directions of sexual instinct. I believe in fact humans can have intelligence supercede force of sexual instinct. We just need to realize we are not as far from the animals around us we think we are--we still make fundamental and probably wrong decisions concerning people based on our own sexual proclivities. Here we are all too close to being animals. Such is the problem gay people face in society.

.

And also,

... what's the difference between Ross Mathews and the Pope?

Five decades and a necktie.

Gee, that's strange; I heard that Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian; and I heard that Representative John Boehner, 8th District of Ohio, is gay.

Of course, I don't know, but it seems that if there is the slightest suspicion, there should be an investigation or something, to see if they are good enough to be in the Republican Party.

Goes to show that the LGBT community is the last scapegoat for the GOP's hideous psychological projection. These people are an affront to decent society.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/the_homosexual_republican_club

Evangelicals can support gay rights too.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/evangelicals_can_support_lgbt_rights_too

Evangelicals can support gay rights too.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/evangelicals_can_support_lgbt_rights_too

Evangelicals can support gay rights too.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/evangelicals_can_support_lgbt_rights_too

When the anti-gay people say that they hate the sin but love the sinner, they qualify this with words like "practicing" homosexual, and how they would have no problem with a "homosexual" if only he wouldn't "practice" it.

I guess it is just a coincidence that gay people engage in same-sex sex, duh, that is why they are labelled "homosexual."

The qualification for acceptance is something that gay people cannot do, at least not reasonably, without great difficulty; and why should they, just to satisfy other people's ignorant snobbishness?

globalone,
did you mean you "don't understand" my post?

what i mean is some people who become parents are conditioned by society/religion to see homosexuality as "bad", and gay people as "bad" or "deficient" or "sinful". when one of these people finds out their own child, who they know and love, is gay, it tends to "soften" at least their political if not philosophical stance on the issue. i mentioned dick cheney because though he's a right-wing conservative, he supports gay rights - probably because his daughter is gay.

Globalone

If you had a son or a daughter who was gay, would you want them to commit suicide?

Because that is often the result, of your brand of condemnation and persecution towards young people, who may have no way of expressing what they think may be "wrong" with them.

globalone

So being gay is the same as having a career in adult mmovies?

How snarky and stuck-up of you of you to have made the connection.

I'm not sure I understand.

As a Christian, my son or daughter being gay does not, in any way, alter or diminish the love I share for them. I wouldn't hold them any less. Wouldn't care for them any less. But that also wouldn't prohibit me from expressing my feelings on the subject matter.

If my daughter calls me to tell me she's decided to pursue a career in adult movies, I won't stop loving her or love her any less. I'll be angry and sad and I'll share with her my thoughts, but I won't stop caring for her.

I'm not sure I understand.

As a Christian, my son or daughter being gay does not, in any way, alter or diminish the love I share for them. I wouldn't hold them any less. Wouldn't care for them any less. But that also wouldn't prohibit me from expressing my feelings on the subject matter.

If my daughter calls me to tell me she's decided to pursue a career in adult movies, I won't stop loving her or love her any less. I'll be angry and sad and I'll share with her my thoughts, but I won't stop caring for her.

DITLD:

"Daniel12 is describing the ignorance of people, why they do not like gay people. Yet what he describes has little to do with gay people or sexual orientation."

You will notice that, in all his rambling, illogical and nonsensical writings, D12 uses an approach that allows him to air his political, religious and sexual prejudices under what he imagines are 'intellectual' guises. He does the same with race. He is really quite a little racist, anti-atheist, anti-science, and anti-gay.

He deceives no-one but himself. Any idiot can get himself published these days -- consider L. Ron Hubbard and George Lincoln Rockwell -- yet nobody will ever publish D12. Wonder why....

DILTD,
...but...for them...giving up that theology means they go to hell forever... given what (they think) is at stake for them, it's really an easy choice.

it becomes interesting when one of them has a gay child. then they no longer see that gay person as a object lesson in morality, but a real person. THAT'S how right-wing reflexively anti-gay types can begin to see the light. (consider dick cheney)

walter-in-fallschurch

If religeous people are married to their anti-gay theology, they can just get a divorce.

After all, Karl Rove did...

...TWICE !

DILTD,
i agree with just about everything you've said about hetero/homosexuality.

judeochrislamic people are kind of "married to" their doctrine of anti-homosexuality. there's really no way around the fact that their scripture clearly condemns it.

Daniel12 is describing the ignorance of people, why they do not like gay people. Yet what he describes has little to do with gay people or sexual orientation.

In fact, sexual orientation happens.

When you focus on another person, that person becomes impressed upon your mind. This impression forms images and feelings about that person. People of one sex impress sexual feelings upon the mind. People of the other sex do not. This is sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation happens. It is a flow of sensory impressions upon the mind. The transformation of these impressions into mental images is a process that is beyond conscious control, but it is a part of the mental apparatus which exists inside each one of us.

When your impressions of sexual feeling come from someone of the opposite sex, you are said to be heterosexual. But when these impressions come from someone of the same sex, then you are said to be homosexual.

People such as Counterww, who claim to be heterosexual, have no more control or choice in the matter than a homosexual person, whom he claims, according to his religion, to be an abomination.

A straight person cannot claim to make a better or more moral choice than a gay person with regards to sexual orientation, because the determining processes of sexual orientation are beyond consious control. A straight person is never tempted to be gay, and therefore has no struggle with resisting it. There can therefore be no credit or worthiness attached to one sexual orientation over the other. Secual orientation is morally neutral. Therefore, it is a false statement to say that being gay is immoral and that gay people are sinful for being gay. It is a theological flaw, which undermines all related theological threads woven around it.

Under this conception of sexual orientation, it does not matter whether it is genetic or acquired, but only that it is an unconscious mental process. It does not matter whether you have been promiscuous or a virgin or what sex acts you may have already experienced, only the impression of another human being on your mind matters.

It doesn’t matter how much testosterone or estrogen may flow through your body, nor whether your physical mannerisms are more feminine or masculine in character; only the impression of another person on the mind matters.

Sexual orientation happens, as vision happens, as hearing happens. Sexual orientation happens, as the beating of the heart happens, as the breath of the lungs happens, as consciousness happens.

The Manhatten Declaration says:

" ... the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies ... "

I assume this is a reference to gay people and same sex marriage. This is an uninformed and ignorant statement. Gay people are not a "fashionable ideology" any more than being gay is a lifestyle. This is, in fact, an absurd statement.

I cannot really argue with ignorance, but only try to teach the ignorant some things that they do not know.

What these fundamentalist believers are doing is called religious blackmail. They are not merely trying to promote their ideals in the public square, in fact they are trying to extort from the politicians the legislation of their religious views.

They hold their religion above the constitution, their religious views above our rights to exist and believe as we choose, and as such they should be seen for what they are - traitors.

Oh, thankyou Arminius.

I am all worn out.

I think I will rest now.

Counterww

Let us say that there are 300 million people in the United States.

Let us say that one-half of them are adults, 150 million.

Let us say that their are between 5 and 10 percent of these people are gay, let us say about 8 million people.

So, then, there are 4 million possible gay marriages in the United States.

Let us say that about 10 percent of them might actually want to get married, for the sake of rounding off an estimate, let us say that would be about 500 thousand married gay couples.

So, is that going to kill you?

If you just stick with your little Sunday School clique, chances are that you will never meet a gay married couple.

Of course, there is always the unlikely chance that a gay married couple might move into your neighborhood, but you are free to give them all the cold shoulder that you want, without really getting your life so very disrupted, aren't you?

The number of gay married couples would be so small, that you would never have to worry about them taking over everything like the blacks or the hispanics.

And of course, there is always the even more unlikely but possible chance that one of these gay married couples might land in your Sunday School class.

In that case, I am afraid I can't help you; you're going to have to deal with that on your own.

On the problem gay people have being accepted, I would say the major issue is that straight people feel gay sex to be a disgusting act (pen1s which is used to urinate and inseminate placed in anus which is used for defecation?)--that the stigma against gay people derives from consideration of an act.

Defenders of gay people like to associate the stigma against gay people with slavery such as the blacks endured, but that is no valid analogy at all. Blacks are free--people in general loathe the notion of slavery, this is an act anyone can imagine happening to himself.

Gay people are clearly associated with a disgusting act in straight people's minds--in fact straight people are straight and different than gay people, characterized as such, because the act of gay sex repels them. And from what I understand gay people feel the same way about straight sex.

And it sure does not help matters for gay people that in the Classical world gay sex was associated with what we today would call child molestation--Plato famously weighed in against such. But the main issue, again, is that straight people find gay sex disgusting.

If straight people found gay sex to be anywhere near as appealing as straight sex, gay sex would not have been considered taboo at all. We all know how powerful the sex drive is, how we strive to keep such a thing from being considered bad in our minds--we want sex. So it can only be that straight people not only cannot imagine themselves having gay sex, they find it disgusting.

For gay people to be fully accepted they have to, in a sense, make straight people something of bisexuals so no disgust is felt toward gay sex. It seems the sex drive is a drive which has its loathings as strong as its desires--that we loathe certain acts as strongly as we feel others to be desirable. And this is probably due to the sex drive being one of the drives closest to animal instinct. A species must strongly desire in a particular direction or be threatened with extinction.

There seems to be no other logical reason to be against gay sex. Certainly saying religion is the only obstacle is wishful thinking. If religion were not to exist we would still have the problem of gay sex being repellant to straight people.

But perhaps by sheer logic straight people can overcome their loathing for gay sex. I mean by observing that in the animal world gay sex is not only often seen but that some species can change their sex (at least some fish can). This might be useful from the evolutionary perspective. Gay sex might be considered acceptable by sheer logic willing to consider all possible evolutionary directions, consider them all as potentially viable.--That certain directions of sex, those not leading to reproduction, are as valuable as those leading to reproduction.

Daniel ITLD,

I don't much comment here anymore, but I feel that I should do so now.

We are agreed that Ms Jacoby has presented one of her very best essays here.

More, I think your comments on that exercise in bigotry, the Manhattan Declaration, are very much to the point.

Finally, your replies to the visiting homophobe, Counterww, are excellent.

Thank you.

Counterww

So you find the use of the word "homophobia" to be funny?

Well, it is not funny to the people who are the object of its persecution.

You are just so flippant and silly on this subject. You still live in the time when gay people were ridiculed and made fun of, merely for existing and being born.

What are you afraid of? Is it a personal thing? Are you afraid of gay cooties, the way white people used to be afraid of black people, on principle?

Or are you afraid, in a broader sense, that if you admit the worth of gay people to be as good as you or any Christian, then that you be a crack in your Fundamentalist mental conformity?

Why is a Christian who claims Jesus Christ as his savior so afraid of such ordinary and innocuous phenomena as human feeling?

For Christians who cannot love, I think it is a terrible irony that love is all they talk about. But actions speak louder than words.

Counterww

"God has a plan for us."

That is a common Christian cliche.

But it is not Christian.

It is made up and added on. It is one of the many, many add-ons to Christianity, that many bogus Christians seek to promote as the real McCoy.

But this kind of thinking is not Christian; it is far from it.

Counterww

Same sex marriage is bad because their "sex parts don't match?"

You think like a child.

A silly child.

Why is bad that their sex parts don't match? Go ahead; spell it out in all your lurid and graphic detail; that is what you want to do, isn't it? That is what is really on your mind isn't, images of gay sex? So go ahead and tell us all about it and how bad it is.

Counterww,

Hey, the Apsotle Paul was probably gay, in that pure, noli me tangere way that you think is not sinful. After all, he had a mysterious, vexing "thorn" in the flesh, and wasn't married. Unlike Ted Haggard, homoerotic Paul had the decency not to burden a loving wife with his suppressed gayness.

I wonder who Paul's good, God-given gay desires turned to? He was particularly close to young Timothy - perhaps a godly version of Hadrian and Antinoos? I think, Counterww, you should get some of your musical Christian friends to write a song about this lovely, pure, unlusty, non-orgasmic eros shared by two heroes of the faith through whom God wrote the New Testament. It would be a great encouragement to gay Christians everywhere to keep up the good fight of containing their wholesome desires.

On the other hand (let's keep an open mind about the deep past) perhaps Paul, like many Catholic priests, channelled all his homoerotic desire into devotion to the crucified Christ. Isn't that lovely, Counterww - he was married to Jesus!

Jesus is the lover of your soul, Counterww, and one day you'll be part of his Bride at the great wedding feast of the Lamb. Must be lovely to feel so loved by a heavenly man...

"If Christian believe that God made man with a plan- (we do) you have men and women that God created." -- Counterww

----------

Since God didn't leave a copy of his Plan laying around, all you can do is presume to know what it is, or even if it is. For all you know, God planned homosexuality as a way to cope with over-population.

It's commendable that you think same-sex couples should be granted all the same civil rights as married heterosexuals, especially since you view homosexual acts as "sins" and immoral. Yet, you draw the line at calling these unions "marriages" and seem willing to deny those civil rights merely on the basis of the use of that one word. No offense intended, but your commitment to equal civil rights seems a mile wide and an inch deep IMO.

----------

Slouching toward the topic:

I think this game that conservative Catholics are playing with both the conservative branch of the Anglican Church and some American Evangelicals will eventually result in a net loss in pew sitters for the RCC. There are far more liberal Catholics than the Vatican or EWTN are willing to admit to and for every disaffected conservative Anglican Rome can attract they risk losing at least that many liberal Catholics.

Nevertheless, this line in the sand being drawn by the Manhattan Declaration must be challenged at every turn. If religious institutions can justify denial of services and special exemptions from the law on purely secular grounds let them do it. But, every time one of their mouthpieces begins the argument with "God said" they should be asked to first prove its existence or sit the hell down.

Counterww,

"I find it always funny when people call out the old homophobia label. It illustrates lack of being able to argue the issue of the morality of it all."

And I find it always unfunny when homophobes like yourself doll up your hypocrisy in the BS rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "the desires themselves are not sinful, only the acts".

When will you just admit, like some of those more honest placard-waving bigots among your brethren, that you and your God simply "hate fags".

Counterww,

IF "There is , again, a sexual and spiritual dynamic that men and women can have to together." (your words)

AND IF "Christians don't think that the [homosexual] desire itself is a sin" (your words)

THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT there is also a "sexual and spiritual dynamic" that men and men, and women and women, "can have together".

Please give details as to how such a "sexual and spiritual dynamic" might work out for those with non-sinful gay desires.

Or are you just lying again...

Danielinthelionsden,

I just wanted to express my admiration for the good sense, humanity, and clarity of your ripostes to the Manhattan Declaration and my agreement with your diagnosis of the mentality that hatched it. I am cheering you on from the southern summer.

More power to you.

Counterww, re gayness,

Thee:
"Christians don't think that the desire itself is a sin, but that the act of it is wrong."

So it's OK with God that two men/women fall in love, but they may never consummate, or even kiss. Probably shouldn't embrace either...

What condescending, disingenuous, illogical BS! If there's no "sin" problem with homosexual eros, then it MUST be part of God's "plan". So why would God, in his wisdom, instil a good SEXUAL desire that can NEVER be expressed? How perverse of him.

Thee:
"Gays need to repent and find God as best they can without fulfilling their lust for the same sex."

You've just exposed your duplicity. If mutual same-sex desire is NOT a sin, there must be an entirely fulfilling, wholesome way that two gay people can feel erotically attracted to each other without physical expression of their love. So why don't you positively affirm this sort of touch-free Platonic passion with some wonderful Christian examples? Where are the Christian books, songs, and art that celebrate pure same-sex eros as a genuine gift of God? Where are the NT passages that endorse it?

The disgust with which you actually view same-sex DESIRE is revealed by your sudden switch to "lust" as a descriptor.

You, and Christmongery in general, loathe same-sex eros just as much as the "acts" you proscribe.

You are a liar.

Boy DILD has alot to say. Must be slow at work, heh?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/monogamy.realistic.today/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/index.html

The link above kind of illustrates where we are going. Follow me real slow here, Daniel.

If Christian believe that God made man with a plan- (we do) you have men and women that God created. He set things up to have the matching parts - man and woman, be together. Men don't match with men, women don't match with women. Their sexual organs don't match, and just my definition there is no real "sex" with homosexuals hooking up.

There is , again, a sexual and spiritual dynamic that men and women can have to together . But people are selfish and want what they want even when they know deep down inside it is wrong.

Christians don't think that the desire itself is a sin, but that the act of it is wrong. Gays need to repent and find God as best they can without fulfilling their lust for the same sex.

THAT SAID- (it was said for those that would have any propensity for being Christian, really CHristian)

There should be a way to have civil unions and legal rights for gays so they basically have rights that married people do. But it should be not be called marriage, and this should not be law.

I find it always funny when people call out the old homophobia label. It illustrates lack of being able to argue the issue of the morality of it all. YOU are good at it, calling those that disagree with Obama racist, just like Carter. It is strawman arguments.

Just a few short years ago, the subject of gay marriage could not even be brought up without people laughing and making fun. To be gay was to be a figure of ridicule.

Now gay people have found a voice. Now, this voice poses a threat. The sound of gay people asking for their rights is so threatening in fact, that this bogus "Manhattan Declaration" was dreamed up to to clarify the situation. Merely laughing at gay people, and mocking the very fact of their existence is a tactic that no longer works.

Susan, we get it. You're an atheist. I suggest you confront your parents with the news and get some sort of closure with this. I could barely skim your article without nodding off.

Reply to the Manhattan Declration:

"We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct."

There is a mass-movement for same-sex marriage, not for polygamous marriage. To imply otherwise is to be deliberately disingenous, to mislead people, in short, to lie.

This is bearing false witness, a breaking of one of the Commandments.

They are merely seeking to link gay marriage to polygamous marriage to make it seem all that much worse.

And why do they make this deceitful argument?

Because there is no other truth to their argument; it cannot be spoken, written, or otherwise expressed, because the truth of the matter against gay marriage simply does not exist.

Additionally, merely and simply being born gay, is not immoral. Targetting gay people with this word "sinful," which is a slur, is just one more sign that this document and the people themselves, who wrote it, and signed it, are immoral.

Part of fundamentalism is to declare certainty of belief. But does that mean that all fundamentalists feel certainty in their hearts? I do not think so. They may have doubts. In fact, I believe that alot of them do. But they do not admit it, because part of their religion is to express their certainty of belief.

Some of them may consciously analyze their doubt and then choose to keep quiet, in the belief that no else doubts or that doubting is wrong. Others, may have moments of doubt, but repress it, even from themselves, so that they have a sort of inexplicable nervousness about them, despite the fact that they promote a certainty of belief.

In fact, I believe that alot of of the motivations and activities of fundamentalists arise from doubt and insecurity. Of course this is just all my speculation about what is going on inside of other people's heads. What does it get me? It gets me in frame of mind of understanding and empathy for people that are pretty hard to understand.

In reply to the Manhattan Declaration:

I don't ask for freedom to exercise my free will of belief. I ask that my beliefs be freely acknowledged as those beliefs that come from my own true heart, and not from someone else's alien heart. That is the ultimate problem of the Fundamentalist's interaction with outsiders and un-believers--that they seem to think that they can force belief upon an unbelieving heart, when they cannot. I wouldn't mind sharing the world with Fundamentalists and fundamentalism, if they would only acknowledge that my beliefs are different than their own. Even if they know they are right and they know I am wrong, still, my wrong belief is my belief and no amount of lobbying or intimidation can cause my feelings to shift. The most that Fundamentalists can extract from me is a deception, that I acknowledge outwardly that they are right, and I am wrong, while inwardly holding to the beliefs of my true heart.

More comments on the Manhattan Declaration:

What distinguishes a traditional religious conviction from bigotry?

I suppose that a “religious conviction” is a person’s belief and is good, and “bigotry” is just being mean-spirited and is bad. I suppose we shouldn’t tell a person that his religious belief is wrong because it is everyone’s God-given right to choose their own religious convictions. Why then, should we tell a bigot that his belief is wrong, because he picked it, and he can just as easily unpick it?

But how do we choose our beliefs, and how do we acquire our prejudices? Do we really choose them freely? Do we really “pick” our beliefs?

Mostly, we do not; and we can change them, only with great difficulty.

It is just as difficult for a bigot to cast off his bigoted beliefs as it is for a religious person to cast off his traditional beliefs; yet, I would expect them both to try.

How free are we when we “freely” chose our beliefs?

An intelligent person is freer to choose than a less intelligent person. Someone with greater knowledge is freer to choose than someone of lesser intelligence. But for the most part, we all take what is handed to us, and that is how we freely choose.

The beliefs that are handed to us can be changed, modified, or even cast off, upon reasonable analysis, subject to critical thinking. But how many people do that? Not an awful lot.

However, I expect people to try, even if they don’t want to. Bigotry is bigotry, weather it is couched in religious terms or not. In saying all of these things, I am not necessarily wanting to impose my own beliefs on other people who believe differently than I.

I just wish there was a way to help people see what they cannot see, and become aware of things unknown to them, and to comprehend that which may seem incomprehensible, like the blind and deaf Helen Keller, who suddenly understood the "meaning" of water, and then was able to open up the mind of her eye, to the brilliant light of a world which she had never known before.

Whether we were “intelligently designed” or whether we evolved, it is a fact that our brains have a utilitarian purpose, which is to find food, seek or build shelter, and do whatever else is necessary to navigate a dangerous world, at least long enough so that we can have children, and raise them to maturity, so that the human species will continue. But lucky us, our brains are so well designed and constructed, that we can do a whole lot more. We can build rockets to go to the moon, devise drugs to cure disease, build all kinds of destructive weapons to wage war, in fact, create this impressive world civilization in which we all now dwell. But fundamentally, our brains are designed to figure out “which hole did the rabbit go down.”

Now, we are using our brains to try and figure out “when does human life begin.” And this is not so easy to figure out. On day one, the zygote is not a human being. But on day 270, at the moment of birth, the baby definitely is. In between the human being is formed. But on what day? What hour? What minute? What instant, does this happen? This is a question which comes naturally to us, because that is the kind of problem that our brains are designed to solve. But I don’t think there is an answer to this question. Another kind of brain, designed to solve this type of question, might come up with the answer. But the human brain cannot.

I know that this doesn’t help much, when you are trying to design a legal code to deal with the question. But there really is no other good answer. All of the laws dealing with abortion must be somewhat arbitrary, and must depend on the prejudices and inclinations, the likes and dislikes of the society involved, because there is a demand for rules and regulations, even for problems that cannot be defined in black and white.

DITLD,
you said,
"A lot of pro-life people say that human life begins at the moment of conception....They cannot even appeal to the authority of the Bible. Why assume that a human being is created at the moment of conception?"

in fact, there is "evidence" that yahweh doesn't consider a fetus to be a "human being":

while describing penalties for various transgressions, ex21:20 says,

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

now in those days a "premature" baby was a dead baby. sure, there's a penalty for causing the premature birth, but it’s just a fine. if yahweh considered the fetus to be a human life, the penalty would have been death.

in the next verse, yahweh goes on to say,

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

he is talking about serious injury to the woman, not the fetus.

In making a case against same sex marriage, the Manhattan Declaration stumbles, EXACTLY, onto the very nature of sexual orientation, and describes it pretty much accurately, although, without meaning to"

" ... the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit."

So, what about gay orientation, don't they get? They have a very good grasp of sexual orientaion for straight people, but are totally blank when the same argument is made for gay people.

This is a serious flaw, not just of theology, but of psychology, and why we call this anti-gay syndrome "homophophobia."

When people discuss abortion, they often pose the question, “when does life begin?” But that is not the question. All living cells of all living things are traceable into the infinite past, without any knowable or practical beginning. When people pose this question, they are actually struggling with the question, “when does human life begin?” .

This is the question. At the moment of conception, I do not think a human being yet exists. However, as the day of birth draws near, the coming “baby” is definitely a human being. In between, what happens?

A lot of pro-life people say that human life begins at the moment of conception. But they have no basis for saying this. They have no convincing argument. They cannot demonstrate how they have wrung out this simple truth from the complexity of the problem. They cannot even appeal to the authority of the Bible. Why assume that a human being is created at the moment of conception? Why not assume that the sperm and egg, separately, are a person before the moment of conception?

Why not say that all sperm cells and all eggs are sacred matter, with human souls, which ought to be treated with the respect and dignity due any human being? But of course, this is absurd. I think it is just as absurd to suppose that a human being exists at the point of conception. This is the extension of human qualities to non-human protoplasm. This is the trivialization of real human experience—of the splendor and pain of our human existence. This is an easy way to claim moral goodness for oneself, without thinking much about anything and without doing much of anything. To cry out on behalf of the murdered unborn is just a lazy way for people to claim credit with Jesus and with God, to be admitted into Heaven.

In response to the Manhattan Declaration's views on abortion, I have these comments:

To say that a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human being does not ring true. Merely to make this statement as a point of fact is not credible or believable.

Calling people baby killers simply for their political opinion is to be deliberately insulting and mean, like calling someone fat or ugly.

Seeking to outlaw abortion is to deny the facts of life that when abortion was illegal, many woman and young girls died in the process of procuring illegal abortions performed by hucksters and quacks.

It also denies all of human history when women died like flies in complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

I do not think that abortion is a good method for birth control, but there could be better ways to discourage this practice than outlawing it for all cases.

Many religious people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education and birth control. This insistence on blocking all options does not make sense. It is a primitive and backward way of thinking. It is a punitive an authoritarian attitude that just does not fly in the modern world.

Many religious people have become fanatical and hysterical in their opposition to abortion. I believe this is an appeal to God and to Jesus, to win brownie points for salvation and access to Heaven, without really doing anything. For fanatical opposition to abortion is no more than a political opinion, just as being pro-choice is a political opinion that has nothing to do with baby killing.

A fanatical religious opposition to abortion is the lazy way out; the tears shed for the unborn are easy tears; they are tears of drama, shed for show. Real tears and real grief are much different. I know from my own experience.

I cannot respect the pro-life position, basically for all these reasons, that it does not seem credible, that it denies political and medical reality, and that it is fundamentally disingenuous and promoted in bad faith.

This essay of Susan Jacoby's is probably the most complex and well-written essay that I have ever read on this forum. I did not expect anything of this magnitude. There is so much to it it is difficult to respond to.

So, I decided to read the "Manhattan Declaration."

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration

To me, at least, it seems to devote most of its energies to a justification of Christian homophobia, transforming some of its most horrifying old cliches into a new and revitalized words of passive aggression.

For example:

"Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners."

This is said about gay people, whom it invariably links to a mass movement for "polygamous marriage" which is just plain wrong, a lie, in fact, a bad faith attempt to mislead and misdirect what the real issue is, justice and equality for gay people, in all things.

Calling gay people sinners, merely for existing, is itself, politcially hostile, and provacative of Christian inspire violence against gay people.

How about "the bishops" and health care? You know, I had an extraordinary experience teaching freshman comp. this semester. Of the thirty some odd recommended topics for a researched argument, all but one student chose same-sex marriage or the legalization of marijuana, both hot topics for the religious right.

Every single student who chose for his topic same-sex marriage argued passionately in support of it. Frankly, I have never before seen such interest, upset, and disappointment in student papers. The folks at the Manhattan Project should read it.

They might also be interested on those sections of student papers dealing with marijuana for medical purposes.

In both cases, I was heartened to see genuine outrage at what they deemed the betrayal of our "Enlightenment heritage."

Lest you become understandably suspicious, Susan, I must tell you that it was not until I had returned their papers that I shared with them my own views.