Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Churchian "Science"

I've been debating a guy on the same thread at In Male Fide, where I picked up the Troll.   It has taken me several days to break down his "logic," to the point where I know for a fact that he's as irrational as I originally thought he was.  In summary, he claimed that gays are to be feared (self-evidently, no less) because they are "self-annihilators."  Apparently his survival instinct has ordered it so, and hey, "self-evident" and "self-annihilation" are words used by smart people, so who am I to challenge his intellectual premise?  Of course there's another reason for his "fear:" religion.  But this one was clever because it took him days to acknowledge it.  Perhaps he figured if he kept religion out of it, he could prove himself right with reason.  Except of course he's dead wrong, so in this case, "reason" isn't his friend.  Ironically his screen name is "thordaddy."  I had presumed he was an average fanatichristian, but maybe he's a pagan.  His god might be Thor.  I guess I should look up Norse mythology to understand his theology; no true Christian would practice idolatry so blatantly.  Certainly not a rational Christian, right?  But I digress.  Ooh!  I keep thinking of changing my blog's name, "But I Digress" would be so appropriate....

Anywhackjob, where was I?  Ummm, oh yes.  thordaddy's educated-sounding five-dollar-words brought to mind that goofy practice of the Christian/Evangelical/Fundamentalist recruitment gurus (There I go again, mixing religious terminology!)  wherein they attempt to disprove knowledge gained through the scientific method.  The most obvious and ludicrous example is of course Christo-paleontology, so that's the one I'm going with.  Plus it's an easy target, and if I do very much research, I'll get too angry to write.

Someday I'm going to visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky, but I'll be sure to bring a barf bag.  And a handkerchief to stuff in my mouth so as not to offend with my snorts and barks of mirth (in between bouts of nausea.)  I don't know if the above image is from said museum, nor do I give a rat's ass flying fuck, er, hoot. But yeah, the Creation Museum is one of those institutions that uses lame pseudoscience to prove beyond any doubt, that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2,000 short years ago.  (Jesus most likely had one as a pet.)  The dire need to do so, presumably arose from the renewed popularity of paleontology during the last few decades.  Thanks, Mr. Crichton, rest your soul.  I know you didn't do it singlehandedly, but you sure gave it a big honkin' boost.  You see, the Churchian Recruitment Coalition realized that those eeevil liberal scientists were getting away with teaching, well,  heresy, to our impressionable youth.  How could children possibly become devout Christians if they actually believe that the earth is more that 6,000 years old!!!!!  So the Churchians developed a strategy; they "got their story straight" by referring to the twelfth century "authorized" translation of that collection of historic texts, known a the King James Bible, and they searched for scientific evidence supporting their narrative.  Obviously they didn't do too well, so they pretty much had to make it up as they went along, borrowing heavily from technical dictionaries to make it all sound legit.

Here's some of the "evidence" they collected.  Remember the  "Fossilized Miner's Hat?"
If an industrial-era garment can fossilize in just a few decades, well dogonnit, so can a dinosaur!  Dinosaur fossils must be only a few thousand years old, exactly the same age as the earth, according to the Churchian Recruitment Coalition's Science Committee."  Of course, those "real" scientists (eeevil, liberal) have pointed out that the hat is not fossilized, it's petrified.  There's a difference.  Shocking I know.
"Shhhhhhh!" says the Coalition.  "Seeds of doubt, seeds of doubt.  That's all it takes, little seeds of doubt!"
Now they teach children that the fossil record, as (pfft!) "interpreted" by those (pfft!) "Scientists," is a rumor started by Satan and perpetuated by liberal universities.

Incidentally, the Coalition also has deemed carbon 14 dating to be entirely unreliable, due to its vast 400 year margin of error.  I know, I know, we all thought it was reasonably accurate, but we were misled.

Now this one, this one stands alone, as utterly undeniable evidence that man and dinosaurs coexisted.  (Trumpet fanfare, please...)  Cave drawings.  Yes, cave drawings of dinosaurs, and we all know that only humans drew pictures on cave walls; there is absolutely NO evidence of trained elephants performing tricks like that way back then.
I'm crying "foul!"  It's f*ing smiling at me!
OK.  Even if that thing was drawn by a real-life caveman, rather than a twentieth century third grader, does it really prove that cavemen saw actual dinosaurs?  p-p-p-f-f-f-HAHAHAHAHAHA!  No *snork* really!  I ask that quite seriously.  *ahem*  I gotta wonder if the Churchian Recruitment Coalition ever considered the possibility that maybe cavemen, like us, found, uh, dinosaur fossils, and were perhaps intelligent enough to render dinosaur "drawings" based on the shape of those fossils.  Hmm.

In conclusion, (yes, now I'm lecturing you...) this is a frighteningly perfect example of the kind of batshit crazy logical disconnect that the Churchians feel is required of a True Christian.  Seeds of doubt.  Little seeds of doubt.


  1. *smiling*

    Better watch those seeds of doubt, missy. One of those dinosaurs might defossilize and hunt you down. 'Cause, you know, they're not as old as we previously believed.

  2. as a Christian, I find that I have no problem with the earth being as old as it is: approximately 6.5 billion years. See in the bible a "day" is not always a literal 24 hour day. I know this because in the bible ALL the days of "creation" are called "the day of creation". Oh yeah, that "last day", the one where God rests....well it's still going on, been thousands of years so far. lol!

    1. Yep, but if you believe the Churchains, "everything is possible with God," except evolution and geological time.

  3. Lol...


    Females like you can afford to be not serious. You don't have to actually protect other human beings, do you? And I mean protect other human beings with your violence. No wonder you can walk around being fearless in the face of self-annihilators.

    BTW, Obama calls himself a "Christian" too and he believes that Michelle had the fundamental right to kill his daughters in utero. Yeah, them be some self-annihilators, too.

    Are you a "Christian" like Barack?

    And since you are such a minion for "evolutionary" theory, what mechanism drives the homosexual male to be sexually averse to the female? What mechanism has the male homosexual "fear" female sexuality? What mechanism is it that "creates" this phobia for female sexuality in male homosexuals?

    I await your scientific conclusions.

    And do you or do you not believe in God-ordained free will, supposed Christian?

    I don't really think you know anything as it pertains to this discussion.

    You're cool with homosexuality because you're cool with homosexuality. There isn't really any rhyme or reason despite what you claim.

  4. thordaddy, OMG, you've become a real troll! Now I have two! By the way, have you met drugsaregay? You guys have a lot in common!

    First, I can afford to also be deadly serious. And I am. You have yet to prove (gee, I've used that phrase quite a bit lately, haven't I?) that I (or anybody else) have anything to fear from your cleverly named (and vaguely defined) self-annihilators .

    Second, I'm a minion for sound logic, and whatever that encompasses. (Something you simply don't comprehend.)

    Third, what phobia and who gives a shit? You really expect my "scientific conclusions" on yet another phenomenon that you can't prove exists? Sheesh! You don't ask for much, do you?

    Fourth, whether or not I believe in God-ordained free will, is immaterial to my status as a Christian. No really, look it up.

    Fifth, You clearly underestimate "what I know" as well as my overall intelligence. What, did you think I'd be a safe target for trollery because I'm new to In Mala Fide? Did you think your self righteous posturing might intimidate me?

    And finally, you're a sacless coward for posting this here instead of there, where your credibility would be at stake among far more readers. Go on back, and defend your nonsensical "theories." Any time now. What a sad little creature you are.

  5. Well, the first thing is, you are wasting your time trying to reason with dip-shit retards. Secondly, I think he is just pulling your chain because no intelligent person can actually believe in the Bible version of creation. I say this mainly because the Bible contradicts its self over and over. Besides, in today’s standards, law and reasoning, God is a fucked up parent. He encourages the deaths of whole cities, villages and anyone who does not believe in him. He plays game with the Satin for people to prove we love Him the most. Admittedly, having religion to fall back on is a comforting thing, but, since God is flawed, then the Bible has to be flawed. And science is what it is. I have to go with Evolution.

  6. My credibility at stake? I posted here because I was responding to your post HERE.

    You do not fear self-annihilators.

    Kudos for you.

    Does that actually mean you're a fearless Christian?

    Sounds to me like you're one of those liberated fools POSING as a Christian.

  7. I wonder what kind of dinosaur Jesus had as a pet. And did he name his dinosaur Rover or Spot? You wrote a good post, Suz. It's intelligent, and you even kept your sense of humor.


    1. "Thaddeus," I think. Rather sweet but somewhat dignified. It's a good name for pet dinosaur.

  8. Thordaddy, give it up. I have no interest in your endless stream of wacky assumptions and pathetic attempts to shame me. I'm somewhat curious as to how long you can continue to avoid my very few and very simple questions, by throwing distraction at me. But alas, I'm just not THAT curious.

    Here's the deal: Thank you for reading and commenting on my blog. I'll be happy to engage you in further conversation AFTER you finish the previous conversation. (Yup. I'm gonna say it yet again.)

    How do homosexuals/self-annihilators threaten your survival?

    If you can answer that question in a manner that shows your fear to be rational instead of irrational, I will indulge you by answering YOUR questions. I will even attempt to follow your gold-medal-qualifying, erroneous-assumption-based leaps of logic and vague terminology. Until then, you will waste no more of my time. Good day to you, sir.

  9. You're right, Thordaddy, I did invite you here, and I AM being rude to you. It was an emotional reaction and I apologize for it. Ordinarily I take pride in my ability to NOT be drawn in by irrational emotional appeals. This time I failed. So here's a more logical response.

    "You do not fear self-annihilators.
    Kudos for you."

    You have made several comments indicating that my lack of this fear is a foolish mistake, but you can't show why I should be afraid. You also can't explain how self-annihilation's "addictive" nature makes it dangerous. Merely agreeing to disagree, is only valid when BOTH arguments have logical merit.

    Additionally, the main point of this post was not to debate the merits of evolution vs. Creation. It was to illustrate the utter hypocrisy in the way Churchains debate it. There are two aspects of this. One is the misuse of science, the other is the hypocrisy inherent in attempting to use science to explain what is supposed to be "miraculous."

    The misuse of science includes the use of scientific terms in ways that necessarily negate their meanings. i.e. Call the hat a "fossil" because everybody knows a fossil is ancient. Don't explain how or why the process of fossilization takes thousands of years, because then the gullible would know that the hat is indeed not a fossil.

    Pointing out that the hat is petrified, not fossilized, would illustrate the mundane fact that there's absolutely no relation between the hat an a dinosaur skeleton. The entire premise ("dinosaur fossils are newer that scientists are telling us") is absolutely dependent on NOT knowing the difference between fossilization and petrification. In other words, to "scientifically" prove a bald-faced lie, the Churcians must remove the "science" from knowledge gained through science. If they're going to use science to prove a theory, they must (by definition) use the scientific method -- theory + honest attempts to disprove the theory = "proof."

    They can't call it "science" if they refuse to apply the scientific process. "Creation science" is an oxymoron.

    ...Which leads to the hypocrisy. The whole point of faith is to believe without proof. The very idea of using DISprovable fake science to assure the religious that their faith is valid, is a mockery of faith itself. It's also an insult to the intelligence of the faithful. Ironically, that insult is well deserved by far too many.

    I will say that I dismiss as irrelevant, your assumptions about me (variations on the theme: "liberated fool posing as a Christian) because those assumptions are knee-jerk reactions based on your own ignorance, willful or otherwise.

    I would love to see rational debate in my comment section, but I have no use for juvenile insults. Keep it civil, and address real points, rather than the random inventions of your fertile imagination, and you are welcome here. However I will not allow this blog to devolve into a forum for the promotion of nonsensical paranoia and divisive innuendos.

  10. Suz,

    I don't believe you understand the conclusions that "modern science" has reached on the nature of the universe and the "evolution" of life.

    If you think that the conclusions reached by the theoretical physicist absolutely excludes the Biblical Genesis then you really aren't versed on their conclusions.

  11. Thordaddy, please cite sources. I didn't say (and don't believe) "the conclusions reached by the theoretical physicist absolutely excludes the Biblical Genesis." I'm saying that the "science" the church feeds to the ignorant public, is bullshit. I'm 100% behind the belief that all things really are possible, but there's good reason to be skeptical of the church (less so of the scientists, who often also have self-serving agendas.) The church as shown no hesitation to completely distort any science on which it can get its grubby hands.

    I know there are thing is this world for which "proven" natural law cannot account, and it's possible that someday we will understand them, but they're not likely to have been accurately recorded in Genesis.

    The joke would be on the church if scientists were to discover that, loosely interpreted (not narrowly translated word-for-word) Genesis is fairly accurate.

  12. Know why the tops of the houses were flat back in Jesus' time? The theory was so that people could sit up there or sleep up there... but it's a little known fact that they'd station the little guys with the sharpest vision up there to watch for the dust cloud made by Jesus and his disciples as they rode in on their thundering herd of dinosaurs. They sometimes could spot them 12 to 14 hours away, giving them time to kill the fatted calf and get out a lot of water to be turned into wine.

    True story.

  13. Ms Suz,
    I am in awe of your lucid and sharply executed posts. The hapless fools who stumble into the idiot spotlight by challenging your thoughtfully expressed wisdom are quickly undone. Thordaddy is still traumatised from his Suz-smackdown. Isn't it ironic that this homphobic troll shares his name with a legendary gay porn star who did unspeakable things with baseball bats? I also suspect that Cynthia has retreated into the Valiun fog from whence she emerged (and prbably should remain).

    Your enlightened, accurate and thoroughly sensible take on homosexuality is among the best writing on this topic that I have ever read. Real MRAs who genuinely care about men's rights understand that most gay men loathe feminism and make staunch allies. Sites like 'A Voice for Men' are very inclusive and welcome snart and sincere women like you.

    It is always fascinating to watch the Thordaddies of the world try to 'explain' homosexuality. It is usually so tortured and bizarre that I actually feel sorry for them. I have no idea what he means by self-annihilator, and neither does he. It is just some grandiose phrase that he thinks sounds, well, Thordaddyish in a bam bam sort of way. In other words, he's a dickhead who talks crap.

    I remember watching that episode of "18 Kids and Counting" when the Duggars went to that museum with the Flinstone diaramas. They were all agog at the ludicrous nonsense that the Australian (shame on him) curator was spouting. I got the impression of an oily grifter trying to fleece naive but decent folk. It made me angry and sad all at once.

    I am no disrespector of Christianity. My partner of 14 years is a committed Christian who attends church every Sunday. I know, a gay Christian, go figure. I have no idea why he is a Christian or how he reconciles it with their less than Christian attitudes towards gay people. Australians frown on interfering with the spiritual lives of others, so we have never discussed it. Strange really.

    Keep doing what you are doing and I will be sure to drop into your excellent blog often. Thanks for your wit and intelligence.

    Much respect,

    1. Wow. Thank you Andybob, I'm humbled by your kindness. As you might have guessed, I have a few long-time gay friends, and any suggestion that they and people like them are somehow defective, makes no sense and irritates the hell out of me.

      You might want to check out
      Like me, he's a straight ally to gays and gay Christians. He's a bit too soft on women, but he's not quite a White Knight.

    2. ...Not to mention Ben, one of those friends:

      (I hesitated, Ben, trolls can be contagious...)

  14. And not to toot my own horn (I don't actually have a horn, wrong sex) I wrote that while the migraine monster was wrapped around my head.

    Glad I made you smile... but I have to tell you that neither my husband or daughter had heard of the creation museum, so I did some web surfing for them.

    Just for the general yuk factor (and the yuck factor, too) go check this out when you have a lot of time on your hands...

  15. They would find something else to get worked up about if they didn't have this.

    1. Yes, WSF, I'm pretty sure they keep a list handy, so that when they run out of steam on one topic, they can switch to another.

  16. AndyBob,

    There is no such thing as a homosexual "man" unless men are now sexually averse to females.

    You must make this stuff as you go.

    1. Thordaddy,
      Hmm. "Making stuff up as you go." That phrase rings a bell; where have I?...Oh yeah! I used it to describe those prevaricating Churchians!

      Didn't you say something about "Words have meaning" a while back? You sir, would be well served to purchase a dictionary. It will likely have the words "American Heritage," or maybe "Merriam- Webster" on the cover. Not "Holy Bible."

  17. Suz,

    Are men sexually averse to women?

    Then what EXACTLY is a "gay man?"

    Do the AndyBob's and Suz's get to make this stuff up as they go?

    And what exactly have I said that would have you continually characterizing me as a "Churchian?"

    Can you point to my "religious argument" anywhere that we have debated?

  18. Thordaddy,
    A. Most homosexual men are sexually averse to women.

    B. A gay man is:
    ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty noun \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
    1: the quality or state of being homosexual
    2: erotic activity with another of the same sex

    ... that would be the "gay" part, and

    An adult human male.

    ... that's the "man" part! Oh wow! Would you look at that!!! A "gay man" is an adult male human who is sexually attracted to members of his own sex! Who knew?!

    C. I don't see anything "made up" by Andybob and Suz. Actually, neither do you, but no doubt you'll invent something anyway. (See what I did there?)

    D. I don't recall characterizing you as a "Churcian," although you certainly bring them to mind. Perhaps it's your use of vague semi-religious terms like "Created Order" and "God Ordained free will." I also don't recall accusing you of using any "religious arguments." Frankly I don't think you're capable of it; the level of stubborn ignorance you display, indicates a dearth of knowledge about much of anything.

    By the way, if you can't find a paper dictionary (hint: BOOKSTORE, or even Wal Mart) you should google

    It's a truly amazing resource, if you can tolerate it when it contradicts what you think you already "know." Oh, and "self-annihilator" isn't listed.

  19. Suz,

    When does a human male turn into a man, scientifically-speaking?

  20. Suz,

    I couldn't find anything.

    Could you just give me YOUR summary in scientific-speak?

    1. Nope. Call me heartless, but if you'e not smart enough to do a google search, you're wasting my time.

  21. Suz,

    I still found nothing scientific as it pertains to a human male transforming into a "man."

    Could you a least enlighten me as to when in this transformation from human male to "man" that the human male "obtains" a sexual aversion to the female and explain how this characteristic is inconsequential as it pertains to the human male becoming a "man?"

  22. Thordaddy,

    I know you think you're being clever by asking loaded, leading questions instead of stating actual opinions that might be easily be refuted, but it's actually a tired old tactic and it won't work on me; I don't buy into the warped assumptions "loaded" into your questions. (Oddly enough, it's a tactic commonly used by women, most of whose reasoning abilities are routinely compromised by strong emotion.)

    Reread the definitions I already gave you. Homosexuality is not abut "aversion," it's about "attraction." Finding females sexually repellent is not automatically inherent to male homosexuality. Finding males attractive is. The two aren't mutually exclusive, since not all gay men have an aversion to females. Nobody knows exactly "when" it happens, but most gay men will tell you they were aware of it from early childhood. There are probably a number of factors involved, and most of them are inborn.

    It is totally inconsequential to becoming a "man," because (this part might be tricky for you) like straight males, gay males mature into adults, and adult males are called "men." Yes, it's really that simple.

    "I still found nothing scientific as it pertains to a human male transforming into a "man."

    It's called "puberty," and if you didn't find anything scientific on it, you didn't look very hard. You probably read it in a textbook back in fifth grade.

  23. Suz,

    So let me see if I have this right? All one has to be to become a "man" is just wait to go through "puberty" and maybe or maybe not develop a sexual attraction to other "men" and/or a sexual aversion to "women?"

    That's it?

    It sure does make you wonder about all those whining females who claim there are "no good men" around to be had.

    What are they talking about? There are obviously more good men than ever before in this increasingly diversified environment.

    1. Thordaddy,
      "Men" and "Good Men" are hardly the same thing. "Good" is a subjective judgment - I suspect your idea of a "good man" and mine, are probably slightly different.

      As for whining women, Id wouldn't take them too seriously if I were you. Whiners of either sex aren't terribly credible

  24. Whoa! This is so exciting and quite interesting. I think we should be good and kind by God's law. We aren't to judge, yet we still do. We are imperfect. I have to uphold the laws as they pertain to all people, color, sexual preferences, and whatnot. I work next to gay cops. To shun one type of person would be sinful and cutting my nose to spite my face when I need back up. Besides...human beings no matter what sexuality or color they are...are human beings. We should respect each other. What bothers me the most are hypocrits and those that cast stones based upon things that discriminate others. Why so much hate?

    Great post, Suz. Way to get a good debate going and it is interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork.

    1. Thanks for stopping by, Momma! You of all people know the importance of judging people according to ANYTHING except the harm and the good they cause with their actions. Those who do have a sheltered view of reality, which you can't afford. (I suspect they also have too much time on their hands...)

  25. Suz says,

    "Men" and "Good Men" are hardly the same thing.


    Why is that?

    Does the difference between "men" and "good men" have nothing to do with their sexual proclivities?

    Couldn't we just as easily equate "man" with "good man" and then label all other "not good men" as some-kind-of male?

    So a "man" would not have a sexual attraction to a male nor would he have a sexual aversion to woman. He would be a "good man" in that regard. His antithetical could just be called a homosexual male. Truthful and not confusing at all.

    You have logic, science and supposedly Christianity.

    But no common sense.

  26. Momma Fargo,

    It's absolutely healthy to hate self-annihilators and their self-annihilating ways as long as this hate does not become the excuse to engage in one's own self-annihilation. And if you know how to hate in the right manner, you just might save a self-annihilator's life.

    There is nothing loving, caring or good about embracing self-annihilators and their self-annihilating ways even when you claim it the pursuit of "equality."

    1. ...And another definition of "stupidity" would be "fucking with Momma Fargo." Good luck preaching your hate to HER! And if you think you have something to teach her about the evil of REAL sexual perversion, you sir, are sorely mistaken. You'd be wise to crawl back under your slimy rock now. Seriously.

    2. You are entitled to your own opinion. And I, mine. I am a peacekeeper and not only do I enforce the peace, I believe in it. Peace of all kind. We live a fierce world where peace will never exist. However, it is not my job to condemn others for their choice in sexuality.

      I do not think hate of any kind is healthy, nor does it contribute to good product of society. In fact, it only fuels the fire you seem to want to keep brewing. Each to his own.

      It is true that child molestors and some rapists may have homosexual tendencies. That does not mean all homosexuals are child molestors. Child molestation and rape go beyond just sexual preference and into the realm of severe deviance, evil, and a mental power they wish to possess over their victim. It has nothing to do with an erection or liking the opposite sex but dives right into power. Pedophiles are much more complicated than labeling them as a homosexual and many are not.

      Hate is evil...hate of all kinds. It does not foster any success you may crusading for and it is certainly not flattering to anyone's character or reputation.

      However, if anyone wishes to carry on acting like a buffoon and spouting off hate, you are certainly entitled to freedom of speech under the United States Constitution.

      I shall just smile and wave at the idiocy you portray. Perhaps you should join Reverend Phelps in his cause, Thordaddy, as you seem to fit his profile. It is sad to see people who feel the way you do, however, I cross your path every day.

      I, sir, look evil in the face everyday. You have no idea what evil truly looks like and may you never have to experience it.

      God Bless,

      Momma Fargo

  27. Thordaddy,

    "Does the difference between "men" and "good men" have nothing to do with their sexual proclivities?"

    Depends on their "proclivities." Rapists, child molesters, and even promiscuous men (of any persuasion) can cause a lot of measurable harm with their sexual proclivities.

    "So a "man" would not have a sexual attraction to a male nor would he have a sexual aversion to woman. He would be a "good man" in that regard. His antithetical could just be called a homosexual male. Truthful and not confusing at all."

    It takes some pretty strenuous mental gymnastics (and complete denial of objective facts) for you to define homosexuals as "not men" or "not good men," doesn't it?

    You can (and will) believe what you CHOOSE to, but you can't justify it in a way that will convince an intelligent person to agree with you. It's ironic that you should mention "common sense," which happens to be utterly dependent on real-world logic. Sadly, your opinions about homosexuality are rather common, but they are not at all sensible.

    The difference between ignorance and stupidity, is that ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is little more that willful ignorance.

  28. momma Fargo,

    I'm not impressed by your convoluted moralizing.

    You didn't actually say, "It is wrong to hate the self-annihilator and his self-annihilating ways."

    No, you did not say that because such a declaration would be self-evidently buffoonish.

    Now certainly, unmitigated hate can and is personally destructive. Mitigated hate - the type that is so discriminating that it saves your life and the life of those you love AND perhaps the self-annihilator himself - is the stuff of a particular aspect of the Good.

    Where is the love in accepting and embracing self-annihilators and their self-annihilating ways?

  29. Suz,

    When and where was "man" defined as having a sexual attraction to males and/or a sexual aversion to females?

    Is this scientifically verified or can I find it in the "logic?"

  30. "When and where was "man" defined as having a sexual attraction to males and/or a sexual aversion to females?"

    Nowhere, which I already made clear, but obviously not to you.

    "You didn't actually say, "It is wrong to hate the self-annihilator and his self-annihilating ways."

    Of course she didn't, because such a statement makes sense only to you.

    Now not only are your opinions irrational, so are your questions. Your obsessions with homosexuality and with "self-annihilation" are pathetic and tiresome. See you around the blogosphere.

    But not here.

  31. There's nothing in Paganism that would justify hating or fearing homosexuals.I knew a lesbian Asatruar once,so not even Norse beliefs specifically are prohibitive of homosexuality.

    As long as gay people aren't trying to coerce straight people to live their lifestyle, then as a Pagan, I say do the same and live and let live.However,as a Pagan,I do have reservations about lesbian IVF. Usually this is done as a gesture of contempt for both nature and men themselves. I would not donate my sperm so lesbians can have children where nature would not bless their union with offspring. They can munch as many rugs as they want, their choice, if they want sperm and kids,that's a man's choice,and for my part I say no. Not until they move beyond such shallow and hateful motivations.

    I believe this is the most fair-minded conclusion anyone could come to on the subject,because I am genuine in what I say. My mind is even open to being changed on that one reservation I have,but I have to see proof. We Pagans believe human beings should strive to love one another as we love ourselves and all of nature of which we are a part. We are very much in line with the teachings of Jesus on morality,and like Jesus,I would not reward a hater no matter which camp they fall into.

  32. Thanks for commenting. And I do agree with you about lesbian IVF, though it's not necessarily a gay issue, since straight women do it as well. I have a chip on my shoulder about any women who intentionally bring fatherless children into this world.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.