Sunday, February 26, 2017

LGBTQLMNOP - Really?

Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve spent my fair share of time being critical of Christianity. As a Christian, this type of introspection is usually kept for those closest in relationship, or just in the quiet of prayer. It is usually not voiced out into the air for those not of the same belief structure to hear. After all, Christians want non-Christians to become Christians. It’s part of the credo. Anything that even remotely smells like hypocrisy is supposed to be hidden or ignored.

What I want to know is how do those on the opposite end of the belief spectrum deal with apparent hypocrisy. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media. Many people who claim to care for transgender folks were either blasting the “hatred” of President Trump and his administration, or pouring out words of overwhelming support for those affected by this mandate. Most of these folks do not claim to be Christians. Because, you know, Christians are hateful, narrow minded anti-truthers (a.k.a. “anti-science”).

As far as whether or not a person is non-heterosexual (by the way, it is just easier to use “non-heterosexual” than to have to remember ALL of the other terms used for those who claim to not be heterosexual), I really don’t care one way or the other. I will neither praise you for your “bravery”, nor condemn you for being a “bane” upon society. So I’m not coming at this with bias for or against. I am coming at this rather confused.

What I’m finding is that the same people who are so pro-non-heterosexual lifestyles, are the same people who claim to be very pro-science. Remember the age old war of religion versus science? Should a Christian school be forced to teach evolution? Should a non-religious school be forced to teach creationism? You know, evolution is the truth because it is supposed to be based in science, whereas creationism (and the idea of a God) is mythological whimsy.

What I want to know is, how do those who fully believe that evolution (and science) is truth can embrace non-heterosexual lifestyles?

Recently, Tucker Carlson had an interview with DNC advisor Zac Petkanas, where he asked if gender identity was really all someone needs to determine gender? In other words, what a person SAYS they are, they are. This is a common viewpoint: if Tommy says he is really Tammy, than to say Tommy isn’t is discriminatory. Tommy’s personal viewpoint of Tommy’s gender is all that really matters. Tucker Carlson argued that SCIENCE (biology), and not psychology should determine gender. According to science humans reproduce sexually with two genders: male and female.

How does someone who is a Darwinist, believing in biological evolution and disregarding anything that does not fit that viewpoint (creationism), accept that gender identity trumps science?

If you believe in evolution, you HAVE to accept the survival of the species premise. Non-heterosexuals do NOT fit in that premise.

If you took heterosexuals and isolated them on an island, they would reproduce and the species would survive. If you took non-heterosexuals and isolated them on an island (an island of homosexual men or an island of homosexual women), what would happen? And if you answer that honestly and scientifically, you HAVE to come to the realization that non-heterosexual lifestyles are NOT in line with evolution.

Non-heterosexuality does NOT benefit society, as it does not follow the basic, biological premise of evolution.

So, I ask those of you who claim that science is the ultimate truth, how do you reconcile this?

I’m not hating. I’m questioning. I’d really like to know.

©Emittravel 2017

7 comments:


  1. I won't rant (too much) here, but I *am* frustrated that it's demanded of me to accept man-made global warming as 'settled science' at the same time I'm expected to accept a man as a woman and all the while I'm looked down upon for my belief in God. I think the hive mind is developing dementia.

    Great post, JP.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As someone who considers himself to be"non-heterosexual," I would like to give a simple rebuttal. Your logic is flawed. You present your argument in such a way that the premise you presented must be confirmed. Viewing reality in such a binary way obfuscates the truth of things (however ephemeral it is). I could reproduce with a woman. I find myself attracted to them even. I am also attracted to men. This does not preclude the possibility of me reproducing. Another way you could look at it is that "non-heterosexuality" is a form of population control. The bottom line is this: if science means pulling down someone's pants to prove someone's gender, then your understanding of gender is flawed. You fail to consider hermaphroditic folks and all kinds of other situations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First off, thanks for commenting. This post was "designed" to encourage conversation.

      Unlike yourself, there ARE those that would find reproducing in the heterosexual manner offensive or distasteful, so THEY fit the criteria. Thus my use of "non-heterosexual" - too many alternatives to list.

      The point I was trying to make was that those who consider themselves as scientifically minded and consider biological evolution to be the absolute truth, seem to fall into a conflict of thought when it comes to the normalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles, especially where reproduction doesn't occur (outside of adoption, artificial insemination, etc.).

      As for me, I don't have a dog in this fight. As a Christian I believe that non-heterosexual lifestyles are not going to keep anyone out of Heaven. There is only one criteria - who Jesus is to you - that matters. Unfortunately, too many Christians have a social agenda that is more of a detriment to Christianity than a benefit.

      There is NOTHING like being in love. And since love IS of God, WHO you love doesn't matter as much as LOVING.

      Again, I'm glad you commented. And I'm glad that you did it in a very concise, coherent, and non-offensive manner.

      Delete
  3. Finally, I found a sane person on this planet. People have no other reason to believe in this other than "I was born this way." In the end, they were born un-fit for survival, and are thus weak to society, but we look at the weak as strength now because having little pussies walk all over us fit people is how the world should be, right? Don't worry, the human race will go extinct due to stupidity before you know it. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. their typical response comes down to "the meek shal inherit the earth" and view themselves, as meek, despite them being the ones yelling and assaulting people from the start...

      i dont agree with the regressive left anymore then i agree with the regressive right.... in my exp, any extreme tends to be bad for the majority... and most people are neither hard core conservatives TJW's or Progressive Regressive SJW's.... who are just 2 cheeks of the same ass....that like the cheeks of the ass that make up our govt, are happy to give the majority "golden showers and chocolate rain" and tell us both to like it, and that its the other guys fault we smell like an outhouse....

      Delete
    2. Did you know that blocking out scientific facts and technical evolution in a sense also makes people un-fit fo r survival?
      Such a rejecting masks or vaccines is a , stupid act, that makes you vurnerable.
      BUT when someone believes that they are a different gender, that doesn't necessarily mean they are this gender, and this may cause their bloodline to end there,
      but dont you worry, that not how humanity is going to end! Just wait until one trump is reelected and uses atomic weapons to start a war, and bam, humans will go extinct.
      Yet people don't think about that but would rather complain about people that believe in the science required to live longer, survive, and die later.
      You instead don't believe in it.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps Darwinism, biological reproduction or reproduction of the species is not the end-all or standard of science. I don't think it is. If your argument mainly stands on that, then there's a weakness - again assuming that perpetuation of the species is the only point you raise. I like it however, because it appears logical and linear. Human life is more than just science. It's about joy, meaning, sense of dignity. Does it hurt to accommodate someone who feels different, who is different? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. So perhaps the thing to ask is, is anything diminished or even hurtful, to honor the wishes of others to be seen the way they see themselves? And about a standard of science - beyond perpetuation of the species which seems rather mechanistic (breeding goals?), science observes, records phenomena, identifies problems, formulates systematic solutions, perhaps go through a gamut of experimentation, trial and error. So, another humble opinion. Have a good one.

    ReplyDelete