Friday, July 1, 2016

Answer To Two Hate-Notes In One

The alleged morality of the atheist, alleged, left is rather hilarious.   From reading around the lefty blogs and mags and webloids I think it's fairly clear that among the most serious of all sins for them is one I'm constantly accused of, of dissing or denying "science".   And, in my direct experience, one of the most serious of all sins is accusing the sacred idol of atheism, Charles Darwin of having said what he undeniably and unambiguously said as scientific fact - though even ol'  Chuck observed the niceties of using the language of theory even as he obviously intended his reader to take what he said as fact.   And it was taken as fact to horrifically violent and oppressive results in history.

The fact is that nothing enrages the moral sensibilities of atheists so much as pointing out what Darwin said what he said, unambiguously, and that the confirmation of what he said is knowable because his most sophisticated followers among his direct scientific colleagues and the next two generations of scientists knew he said the very things that today's post-WWII, revisionist Darwin cult are enraged to have pointed out about him.

The "science" based moral propriety of these jokers is far more a matter of popular-cultural in-crowd conformity than a matter of intellectual integrity.  It has absolutely nothing to do with science or the status of well-founded science.  When desired, even science which has achieved near absolute fact can be denied when it violates their social, cultural habit-based thinking.  It's also been my experience that there is absolutely nothing that can mess with their sense of moral uprightness like mentioning that sexual promiscuity is scientifically established to be among the common practices mot dangerous to your health and life.  The Center for Disease Control invariably lists sexual promiscuity and having sex with anonymous strangers as one of the highest risk factors in just about every one of their advisories on sexually transmitted diseases.   That is something I think about this time every year as it was in early summer that the first of my friends who died of AIDS died.  That is something that is, apparently, not to be considered to be a significant matter when considering the morality of popular media that promotes both promiscuity and casual sex among people who don't know each other.  And, heaven help even the gay man who saw dozens of his friends die of its consequences who mentions that, among sexual practices, anal sex is about the riskiest sexual practice there is for spreading HIV and other sexually transmitted pathogens.

Yesterday I was asked to address a question about whether science supported the idea that God created the universe, well, that question isn't something science can deal with, it isn't equipped to more than provide intimations useful to support your belief in The Creator or not, as you prefer.  But there is no question that science supports the practice of strictly faithful sexual monogamy as a means of avoiding dying of sexually transmitted diseases and that practicing anal sex is a really bad idea unless you want to die or get sick or suffer other problems associated with it.  There is nothing anti-gay about that, there is nothing oppressive of liberty in that, there is everything about it that is an affirmation of the most basic of all rights, of the worthiness of all people to respect and, yes, loving consideration.  In its opposite, the encouragement of sexual promiscuity, the encouragement to practice risky sex is the opposite, the treatment of other people objects for use, the violation of their rights, a denial of respect and loving consideration of their status as an equal.  

Real LGBT rights aren't going to be found in any sustainable way in the current concepts of sexual propriety, not those in traditional hatred of sexual minorities but no more so in the currently held alternative to that in hook-up promiscuity and the declaration that monogamy is "unnatural"... getting back to the current habit to attribute morality to some tale of natural selective forces and evolutionary psychological bull shit.  One of the more controversial things I wrote on that:

Certainly, even among those who disdain monogamy  as "unnatural" they would prefer it if their husband or wife were not having sex with other people, exposing themselves and their spouse to the possible infections that increase with the number of sexual partners.  That is a desirable goal in a marriage, to not give someone a fatal sexually transmitted disease.  Talk about your right to minimal expectations of an institution.  Not to mention the possibilities of being rejected in preference to another person and abandoned.

What use would there have been to the struggle to achieve marriage equality if what was gained were bad marriages that carried those as a foregone conclusion?  I don't think it would have been worth anyone's interest, never mind struggle.  I don't know why straight people would want those kinds of marriages.   Marriage equality, in order for it to be more than an empty slogan has to be for the optimal view of marriage, of a committed, faithful, monogamous sexual relationship as well as the full range of mutual support in other ways.  It is an idea that, apparently, those who hate Lesbians and gay men can't stand the idea of us having.  But neither can many of those who pretend to believe in marriage equality as a matter of counter-cultural in-crowd fashion.  They don't want it themselves so they insist that it is "unnatural".  

No comments:

Post a Comment