Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Dobson's folly

The irony of James Dobson and other pseudo-psychiatrists on the "Christian" right is that their "theories" about gender identity is quite similar to their equally kooky counterparts on the left.
They idea that gender identity is a purely social concept was very in vouge among lefty therapist in the late 60's and early 70's.

There were even cases of children with damaged or malformed genitals given sex change operations(along with hormone shots) and were raised as a member of the opposite gender. And the results were disastrous. These experiments failed and failed miserably.
New scientific evidence seems to indicate that gender identity is highly influenced by biology and the same seems to be true of sexual preference.

We might assume that a child who is destined to become gay might be psychologically damaged by attempts to "straighten" him or her out. If fact some of the "cures" for homosexually suggested by "focus on the family" seem vaugly homoerotic!
The Dobsonites also seem very naive about homosexuality. They seem to have the idea that "sensitive" or effeminate boys are more prone to being gay. But, quite a few homosexual men are very masculine. And there are many effeminate and sensitive men who are straight.(Just take a look at Ned Flanders!) And of course many tomboys are straight and many very feminine woman are gay

To complicate things more, there also is the "low down" phenomenon (which doesn’t just happen in the black community) whereas straight men secretly have sex with other men yet, consider themselves "straight". Or, some men have sex with other men only in prison and then go back to only having sex with women once they get out. (Would Dobson’s anti-gay parenting techniques prevent this?)

Besides, Jesus himself wasn’t the most masculine thing around. He had long hair and preached "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." A definite fag for sure, right?
Hell, since he was celibate we may never know what his true sexual orientation really was!

Friday, August 12, 2005

Moralistic Hypocrisy

Moralists tend to be hypocrites because moralism is often a form of over-compensation or a projection of internal conflicts. This is different from "genuine" morality which is based on unmitigated aletris.
Moralistic individuals tend be more concerned with having power and control over others than any real sense of "morality". Often "values" and "righteousness" are just rationalization of what is really a lust for power.
Within the human mind, there are primitive "undercurrents" which are glossed over by elaborate mythologies moral pasturing. This is quite different from actual self-mastery, which is based on the precise balance between desire and discipline.
Denile of our true natures is never the path to true personal progress. The challenge is often in confronting illusions about ourselves and the world around us.

Are believers truly humble?

Many believers call themselves "humble" but, in most cases, they are anything but. They think they are "owed" something from God. Nut just help with life’s problems, but for eternal bliss as well. It’s the ultimate sense of entitlement and self-indulgence.
Most religion, in the end, is not about confronting reality but of running away from it. Anyone with a backbone, a logical mind and sense of resiliency has no need for a "savior".

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Moralism Underminding AIDS fight

The Bush administration has required that any international anti-AIDS organization must renounce prostitution, or risk losing its funding.
Yet, many experts agree that this will make prostitutes less likely to practice safe sex with their Johns.
It seems to me that those nations such as Brazil that take a "real world" approach to fighting AIDS Is the most successful.
Conservatives who appose this approach are paternalistic, condescending, and are actually undermining the global fight against AIDS.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Few Creationists are Biologists..

On thing that strikes me is how very few creationists are biologists. And very few Biologists are creationist.
So, the people who are the most familier with the processes of life are the ones who support evolution the most. Hmmmm..

What's more debasing?

One of the arguments against prostitution is that it debases women. But, isn’t it also debasing for a woman to work in a sweatshop seven days a week for less than a few dollars a day?
Isn’t also debasing for a woman to have ten kids? (Especially if its against her will)
Some might say that for a woman spending her whole life in a convent and taking vow of poverty is debasing.
Of course, woman and girls being forced into prostitution is both enslaving and debasing. But, what about a fully adult woman who does so voluntarily? Is it possible that some woman might be perfectly happy as a prostitute?
In many (not all) countries and state where prostitution is legal, it can be regulated. Thus, prostitutes are more likely to practice safe sex.
Many people might find the prospect of legalized prostitution as disturbing. Yet, "de-facto" prostitution is actually quite common.
If a woman is having sex with a man just for nice clothes and other gifts, aren’t they essentially a prostitute? Or, what woman who marries a man just because of his power and wealth? Why arn’t they being arrested?
In the end, they are whoring themselves just as much as the average streetwalker!
This is not to condone prostitution in moral terms. But, in one form or another, prostitution is more common than people realize.

Simplicity to Complexity..

On of the big objections to evolution is that the universe is too complex to have evolved. But, it has been proven that infinitely complex structures can indeed arise spontaneously from very simple rules.
This is the implication of the new math of fractal geometry.