Christian Thought Experiment

A couple were wed. Both were devoted to God and each other, and in love with Jesus. Years go by, they have some kids, and their lives seem to be going well.

Then, one day, the husband comes to his wife and says, "My whole life, I have felt like a woman in man's body. I still love God, and I love you and the kids so much, but I cannot keep living a lie. I am going to start living as a woman, and investigating sex reassignment surgery. I want people to start referring to me as a she rather than a he, and I will change my name. Like I said, darling, I still love you, and I would like to stay married to you if you are willing to continue living with me. I am still the same person you fell in love with, and I will continue to be a good spouse and parent. I hope you understand."

The wife is understandably shocked. She had not seen it coming. After tears, hugs, and conversation, the wife convinces her husband to enter Christian therapy to cure his gender dysphoric disorder. He does, for an entire year, but at the end, he feels like a woman more than ever, and she begins to come out as a trans woman to her parents, colleagues, and friends. She tells the kids to start calling her Mom instead of Dad. She is filing paperwork to change her legal name from a man's name to a woman's. And all the time she wonders if her wife is about to serve her divorce papers.

As a committed Christian, what should the wife do? Should she stay married to her husband as he makes the transition to being her wife, fulfilling their marriage vows, but in a same-sex marriage? She firmly believes that homosexual sex is sinful, and that same-sex marriage is immoral. So should she violate the commands of both Jesus and Paul, and break her marriage vows, by divorcing her husband? Divorce is only permitted, she believes, in instances of abuse or infidelity, and her spouse has always been gentle and faithful.

If gay marriage and divorce are both wrong, both sin, what should she do?

Brainwashing 101

Far-right wing, young-Earth creationist Christians in the Midwest seem plagued by the problem of their adolescents and young adults leaving the faith. Churches create youth groups and young adult Sunday school classes to try to correct this problem, to little avail. Some churches are even fortunate enough to be affiliated with parochial K-12 schools, yet some of their students ultimately become secular, rejecting religion. Many congregations sponsor and promote *very expensive* private colleges, which are affiliated with their own particular flavor of Christianity, yet their graduates still abandon Christianity. Clearly, Christians are failing to indoctrinate their children. 

So what is happening? Is it sex? Is it evolution? Is it alcohol, parties, or secular music? What is luring their offspring from the faith of fathers into the category of the "none"s in droves? As a "none" myself, who is a product of great Christian parents, I can tell you exactly what they should have done. I am proposing a multi-step method for the religiously fanatical to prevent their children from leaving the faith and going to hell, as outlined below:

• Never ever send you child to a public school, from preschool until they have completed their bachelor's degree. Why? 
• Public schools teach students how to think for themselves, rather than to blindly believe any absurd myth they are told. In fact, math, science, and rhetoric are powerful tools in assessing claims. As you don't want your child to turn a critical eye to their own religious beliefs, it's best that they simply don't learn the scientific method, logically fallacies, probability, statistics, etc. 
• Public schools are likely to encourage students to read. As a conservative parent, you definitely don't want that!!!
•  What if they read their public school science textbook? In so doing, they may discover the bulk evidence from literally every field of science in support of evolution, the Big Bang, the 17-billion year old universe, and 4.6-billion year old planet on which they live. That public school science textbook may also have (heaven forbid!) diagrams of human anatomy, including images of those breasts and genitals which you have tried so hard to prevent that child from seeing until their wedding night. 
• What if they read their public school history book? They may learn that the agricultural age began before the alleged creation of the world. They may learn that many other religions claim to be "the one and only way," and realize their Christian faith is an accident of birth. And what if they get their hands on US government texts? They may learn that the US Constitution contains the First Amendment, clearly prohibiting state-sponsored prayer in public schools and the making of laws based on personal religious beliefs. They might also learn that minority rights are protected under Constitutional law. All of the sudden, your child might be saying things like, "Even though I know God says gay marriage/abortion/stem cell research/teaching evolution/etc. is wrong for me to do or support personally, it might be okay to make it legal because God is not a good reason to make something illegal for everyone." What if your child reads about Brown vs. Board of Education, the Snopes "Monkey Trial," or Loving vs. Virginia, and realize that the same arguments used against same-sex marriage and for Intelligent Design are the exact same arguments used to justify racial segregation, interracial marriage, or blatant promotion of monotheistic faith in the science classroom. They may begin to realize that you, the parent, are on the wrong side of history. Before you know it, they will be an atheist liberal.
• What if they read classic literature? the heroes and antiheroes of literature break the Ten Commandments in graphic detail. Not only will the reader encounter disobedience of parents, premartial sex, adultery, abortion, murder, incest, profanity, alcohol and drug usage, and idolatry, but they may also may encounter philosophies very different from the one in which they were raised. Be careful: your child might decide they prefer Ayn Rand's secular philosophy over C.S. Lewis' overtly Christian one. Perhaps a book-burning is in order?
• Other students in the public school may have been raised in different faiths, or no faith at all. These other students may expose your child to new ideas (even something as small as the idea of the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible in place of a literal one). But, even if these friends do not try to convert your child, the fact that they have a different belief system and lifestyle may "rub off" on your child. What if they make an LGBT friend? Studies show that people who know an LGBT person are much more likely to support marriage equality and fair treatment for LGBT persons in schools and the workplace. Likewise, if they meet an atheist, a Democrat, a Druid, etc. and find out they are good, moral people, they are more likely to be open to that person's views and opinions. It's best that you make sure your child can't meet anyone of a differing opinion until you have them so brainwashed that they cannot listen to reason.
• Choose your child's family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances for them. Why can't they make their own friends, you ask? Even though insular environment of a parochial school or home school situation allows you to prevent exposure to independent thinking, critical reading, and exposure to "undesirable" ideas, the child may still encounter new ideas and people of differing opinions on their soccer team, at the grocery store, or at the family reunion. It's best if you just prohibit your brother Adam and his husband Steve from meeting your child, starting the day your child is born. Your family should move out to the middle of nowhere, so you can't have any neighbor children at all to worry about your child befriending. Always leave your child at home with a Christian babysitter whenever you have to run errands that might involve meeting people. Only allow your child to befriend and to play with other children raised in your particular sect of Christianity. It's best if you always accompany all play dates and never allow sleep overs, just in case your child's church friend has any connection or communication with the outside world, and might expose your child to the world by proxy. 
• Never allow your teen to date until marriage. After all, teenagers and young adults are programmed to pursue intimacy, to experiment sexually, and to rebel against parents. It's best if they don't meet or talk to another non-relative teen of the opposite sex ever. You ask, if they never meet a member of the opposite sex, how then can they find a mate? Very simple: select a mate for them, and then force your child to marry at the appointed time without having even met their spouse. All that a healthy marriage requires is a man, a woman, and a shared belief in God, right? It's not as though numerous CDC studies on marriage and divorce have found that sex, money, children, ages of the spouses, and personality differences significantly effect the stability of marriages. 
• Make your adult child live at home, at least until marriage, so you can continue to abusively micromanage them. Do not allow them to go off to college, even if it claims to be a Christian school of your sect. Giving young adults any independence whatsoever is likely to encourage them to read, watch television, listen to non-religious music, try a drink at age 21, and meet people, including of the opposite sex. If there is not a university of your faith within daily commuting distance, and you are not willing or able to move to college with them, you should probably ruin their financial future in this life by prohibiting continuing education of any kind. After all, better for your child to be broke, lonely, and psychologically tortured than to spend eternity burning in hell!

I hope my seething satire has made my point clear. It is extremely abusive and expensive, and most likely impossible, to insulate children from ideas opposing the young-Earth creationist, conservative, fundamentalist Christian belief system. A child must "live in this world," even if they are "not of this world."

As such, Christianity must instead present substantial logical arguments, persuasive evidence, and/or convincing personal experiences in order to keep its children. As I found a lack of consistent persuasive arguments, of any evidence for scientific or historical Biblical claims, and I never had a convincing personal "spiritual" experience, it is no wonder I have renounced the faith. Just like innumerable other children of Evangelical, fundamental faiths, I am a "none." 

An update

So, I got away from writing this because my life got super crazy. Here's the synopsis:

My dad outed me as an atheist, and since I had been outed anyway, I revealed my intentions to study some of Earth's oldest materials as a PhD thesis project. Needless to say, my young Earth creationist, fundamentalist Christian parents didn't like that at all. My mom said something to the effect of "I kinda knew, but I had no idea it was that bad."

They also found out I intended to move in with my wonderful significant other after graduation, upon which discovery, my mom tried to convince me to effectively elope on the same day he and I graduated with our BS degrees. Frustrated, perplexed, and confused, I asked Redditors what to do, and they brought me back to the light. My college graduation was a celebration of academic achievement, and my martial status was in no way altered that day.

Due to my parents obvious aversion to my thesis topic, my continued struggles with an anxiety disorder, and financial concerns, I decided to not go straight to graduate school. I took a job as a CSR at a furniture store to pay the bills. I learned I don't like retail.

My boyfriend asked me to marry him and I said yes!!!!!! I now wear his late grandmother's wedding ring as my engagement ring, and I couldn't possibly love it more. We are planning a wedding for summer 2014. To appease my mom, we are to be wed in her church in my hometown on her anniversary. A lot of concessions, to be sure, but I have decided those things are not as important as keeping familial peace.

With the help of a former professor, I landed a position at a state geological survey. It is part-time, temporary, but it is a colloquial foot-in-the-door. Even though I am part-time, the biweekly paychecks are better than that full-time retail position. In addition, my fiance obtained full-time position at a start-up brewery, with the hope of going into business for himself one day, as a restaurateur and brewmaster.  

Perhaps as significant as the changes in my career and relationship status is the change in my religious thinking. I am no longer scared to call myself an atheist. I am comfortable with the title. I think it is a part of who I am now.

'Creationism is child abuse'

We all saw Bill Nye's controversial video about creationism in the classroom. Others, myself included, feel the same way.

Dear Senate, WTF?!?!!

Dear US Senate,

What were you thinking? What reasonable cause is there for not wanting to expand background checks, in order to prevent guns from getting in the hands of those who are unstable or dangerous? Give me a good reason, just one good reason, that you would go against what seems like common sense to most Americans.

US Senate, do you not even remember the twenty precious children at Sandy Hook? Do you not recall their brave teachers? Do you not see their faces flash across your mind as you fall asleep at night, and as you read these gun control bills? What about the innocent movie-goers in Aurora, or those who died in an Oregon mall? What about the high school students at Columbine? What about the university students at Virginia Tech? What about the individuals slain in gun violence every damn day, whose tragedies never make the headlines? What answer, what explanation do you have for the slain and their families?

Today, US Senate, you failed. You failed to take the action supported by the majority of your constituents. You failed to take action that you protect the American people. You failed to be "by the people" and "for the people." Today you showed your true colors, your absolute loyalties. I am gravely disappointed.

Sincerely,
RecoveringChristian

I am pro-nun

Unlike the Vatican and Pope Francis, I believe in nuns. I believe they are just as competent religious leaders as their male counterparts. I even believe nuns should be able to become priests, but that's not why I am pro-nun.

I am pro-nun because a visible group of US nuns believes that being Jesus to the poor is more important that fighting political battles over same-sex marriage and abortion, while the Vatican condemns them for placing people above church dogma. How can any religious group be, as the New York Times put it "too focused on ending social and economic justice?"

If Jesus were here today, he wouldn't have wasted his efforts trying to end abortion or stop same-sex marriage. No. He would crash at Adam and Steve's house after a long day of teaching. He would have game night with Anna and Eve and their children every week. He would grab coffee with the Planned Parenthood staff. He would chill in the inner city with the homeless. Jesus would be at the soup kitchen and the women's shelter every single day. His disciples would be trash collectors, hamburger-flippers, and deadbeat dads.

The nuns are being Christians. They are being Jesus, and the Vatican attempts to shame them for fulfilling their call.

Apologies for my absence

I have been prevented from blogging the past few weeks, and will likely continue to not post for some time, because of things going on in my personal and professional life that require my utmost attention. For those who care, I have declined graduate school for now in lieu of a gap year. This was an exhausting and difficult decision, but I have decided it is the right one. I have also been trying to finish my undergraduate degree with high grades, looking for jobs, making plans for family coming in for commencement, and communicating my future plans with my parents.

I am stressed and mentally drained.

DOMA hearing was today

So, I'm certainly not SCOTUSblog, but it would appear, based on today's discussions, one of two things will happen:

1. The Supreme Court will find DOMA's federal definition of marriage as an inherently gendered institution unconstitutional, although the rational they will choose is up for debate. Either it will be violating the equal protection clause (by making same-sex marriages "skim milk" while opposite sex marriages receive full federal benefits), or it will be found to be infringing severely on state's rights to regulate marriage as they see fit. Regardless, DOMA will be thrown out, and legal same-sex marriages at the state level will also be recognized at the federal level. 
2. The Supreme Court will decide that BLAG had no right to defend the case, and that the refusal of the Obama Administration and the Attorney General to defend the case because they themselves find it unconstitutional (all the while enforcing DOMA as per the responsibilities of the Executive Branch and the Justice Dept. to uphold the laws of the land) raises serious constitutional questions in and of itself. Of course, should they decide this, another similar case will arise within a few years time. That Administration may choose to defend DOMA, but as the arguments of the merits of the case would be roughly the same, it seems silly to retry it when a decision can be made now (a choice that would save the federal government money in the long run). 

Those are the choices, folks. Today's discussion made it pretty clear that this Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold DOMA. What is worrisome is that they may elect not to rule on the case because they feel BLAG has no special interest in the case, nor have they the potential to incur any harm, unlike the Administration would, had they not sided with the plaintiff. If this happens, no judicial progress can be made on this issue for another 4 years. Legislative options are all that is left. And I'm not sure the House and Senate have enough support on the left to pass any laws invalidating DOMA. 

Prop 8 hearing today!!!

This is all I have to say.

How gay marriage supports the sanctity of marriage

It is not the gay rights movement that is delegitimizing marriage; on the contrary, Edie Windsor has made one of the most eloquent statements on the importance and significance of a legal union:

"The fact is, marriage is this magic thing. Marriage ... symbolizes commitment and love like nothing else in the world. And it's known all over the world. I mean, wherever you go, if you're married, that means something to people and it meant a difference in feeling the next day."- Edie Windsor

Many in the LGBT community value marriage enough to want the right to marry. Why villianize them, religious right? 

Some argue gay marriage will delegitamize marriage because gays and lesbians cannot procreate. If the point of marriage is to make children legitimate, however, marriage would be pointless for the sterile or those using reliable contraception. Clearly couples not capable or not intending on having children are encouraged to wed. Therefore, childbearing/rearing is not the primary function of marriage, at least in the modern day. As such, gay marriage is no threat to straight marriage. 

Other arguments against gay marriage also cannot stand. You cannot discriminate against a group of people and violate their rights simply because you find their behavior repulsive, so attacks on the unnaturalness of two men or two women having sexual relations is simply not an adequate reason to deny two consenting, loving adults the right to marry. 

In the same line of reasoning, arguments that "children need two, opposite sexed parents" is a ridiculous argument to deny the rights of the gay community. Pediatricians in the AMA have made statements that marriage of their gay or lesbian parents is actually good for the children involved. Studies have shown children raised by gay and lesbian couples are as well-adjusted as the children of straight couples. What's more, if having two opposite sexed parents for every child were the real concern, don't you think those with political or economic power would be far more concerned with single moms and dads?

You know what is really "demeaning" marriage, religious right? Educating women. Think about it. Most modern Western women get an education and can provide for themselves. They leave their parent's homes in their late teens and early twenties, and are not economically forced to immediately enter a husband's home. Women learn how to navigate life without a man to provide for her. Women can choose to not have children by using contraceptives. Some even choose to have children out-of-wedlock, and learn they don't need a man to be a good mom. As such, women loose their virginity in their late teens but don't marry until their mid to late twenties. 

Economic and reproductive freedoms are not the only reason why women are waiting almost 10 years after beginning sexual activity to marry. In the in-between time, many young women are intentionally living with a significant other to determine whether or not a potential marriage would be happy, get this, because they do not want to disrespect the institution of marriage or harm any children they may have with their partner by later seeking a divorce. Some pro-gay straight women, aware of the struggles and heartaches of their gay and lesbian friends, are delaying marriage until their brothers and sisters can also legally marry. Others still, because of the pain of their parents' divorce they experienced as a child (or the pain of watching a religious parent not leave an abusive relationship out of respect for the institution), have decided to never marry because they have lost faith in it. Still others of these women, using an understanding of statistics and the research savvy they gained in post-secondary education, have read the studies produced by the US Federal Government that show women who marry sooner are more likely to divorce than those who marry later, and that committed couples who live together before marriage are no more likely to divorce than couples who marry without having lived together. 

So, religious right wing America, you want to stop the cohabitation, divorce, and gay marriage that you claim is destroying marriage? The solution is simple: stop letting women be strong and independent, and you'll get the narrow-minded, misogynist view of marriage back. 

Click here for more commentary on sex and religion in the US.

Don't worry... I'm not getting married

Thanks to the sage advice of Redditors, and a long talk with my boyfriend, I am not getting married or even engaged to satisfy my parents. :) Now, I need help on a new question: How the heck do I tell my conservative, evangelical parents I plan to live in sin?

Looking for feedback

Internet friends. I have questions for you. Please answer in the comments section below.

• What are some non-religious reasons for getting married?
• What are some non-religious reasons for getting married before living together, or for living together and then getting married?
• If you are married, when did you marry and why? Did you live together first? Why or why not?
• Would you advocate living together as a permanent state, living together before getting married, or getting married without having lived together first? Why (with non-religious reasons please)?

My parents want me to get married in six weeks, which is completely nuts. There's no need to rush: I'm not pregnant, and I don't have a close family member who is dying or about to be deployed internationally. I'm not even engaged!!! 

How does one plan a wedding in that amount of time? It would be crazy to plan a wedding even for this summer, although I suppose not entirely out of the question. Furthermore, weddings, even small daytime weddings, cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. Where would that money be coming from?

My ex-boyfriend is a dad?!?!

Weirdest thing ever.

The first guy I ever loved, the first guy I ever snuck around with, is not only married, but as of last night, is the father of a little girl.

And I am going to get a PhD.

Somehow a PhD seems like less of a big deal. Somehow I feel like he's an adult and I'm not. Somehow I feel like something is wrong with me for not even wanting what he has.

A boy you once adored, to whom you bared your heart and soul, with whom you thought you would marry and have babies and grow old, to see him as a man now living all his dreams (which were once your shared dreams) with someone else and to not be jealous whatsoever (more confused and perhaps a little sad) is bizarre.

Update: 

I got on Facebook again literally as soon as I posted the above, and another guy I had a thing for way-back-when and his wife also just had a baby, a son.

My night just got even weirder.

My accomplishment for the week was not vomiting all over the shuttle driver in Marina Del Rey. My highlight  of the week was seeing the Chicago skyline in a blizzard. They became parents.

Crazy.

My President stands against DOMA... and so do I

Yesterday, the Obama administration filed a brief with the justice department in support of Edie Windsor  in  United States vs. Edith Windsor. Click here to read the brief for yourself. If you are short on time, I have essentially written a Spark-Notes-esque version below.

In essence, the executive branch's argument is that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the words "spouse" and "marriage" in the US, enacted under President William Clinton violates the 5th Amendment right to equal protection*. The argument is three-fold. Part One goes like this:

1. Gay and lesbian persons have historically been discriminated against
2. Sexual orientation does not effect an individual's ability to function as a productive member of society
3. The LGBT-community can readily be defined (and there is a scientific and medical consensus, moreover, for most people sexual orientation is not a choice)
4. The LGBT community is a minority group (and thus have limited political power)
5. As such,  the court is obligated to give higher scrutiny to any laws that would give different legal treatment to gay and lesbian persons just as they would laws that treat women or racial minorities differently

As higher scrutiny requires that the government shows as important governmental objective to a potentially discriminatory law, Part 2 follows as such:

1. Moral opposition to homosexuality is not an adequate or appropriate governmental objective
2. Tradition is not an acceptable reason for discrimination (and, at any rate, Section 3 of DOMA would be a terrible way to preserve the "traditional" definition of marriage as heterosexual because gay marriage is currently a state issue, as supported in Section 2 of DOMA)
3. Studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents have children that are just as well adjusted as straight parents, so procreation and child-rearing as a governmental objective is not an adequate reason to give heterosexual married couples special treatment (and, again, Section 3 of DOMA in no way promotes responsible heterosexual parenting nor punishes irresponsible homosexual parenting, nor does it in any way address the so-called problem of unplanned offspring, nor does it seek to reduce the heterosexual divorce rate,...)
4. States rights were addressed in Section 2 of DOMA, not section 3. At this time, no one is trying to prove Section 2 of DOMA unconstitutional [although the author of this blog personally hopes they throw out the entirety of DOMA rather than just Section 3]. 
5. Denying same-sex married couples their federal marriage rights actually costs the federal government money, so the argument that Section 3 spares the government budget is null and void. Even if Section 3 did save the government money, however, it is unethical for the government to deny rights to a certain arbitrary segment of the population simply to save on costs. 
6. (a.) Section 3 of DOMA might ensure that committed same-sex couples in states which do not allow gay marriage are not deprived of potential federal rights they could have had if they were in a state that  recognized gay marriage, but that's a crap reason. (b.) Wanting to proceed with caution on the issue of same-sex marriage is also a stupid reason, especially in the absence of a temporal clause in Section 3 of DOMA.
7. Therefore, Section 3 of DOMA fails higher scrutiny and, therefore, must be found unconstitutional if this line of reasoning is used. 

Part 3 is simple: If other lines of reasoning are used, Section 3 of DOMA is still unconstitutional. 

President Obama, like many other people in this country, clearly thinks bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Or, in the words of another great American document, he too "...hold[s] these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

*The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution says no one should "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," a statement that has been interpreted as meaning people in the same situation should be treated the same way. It seems like common sense to me that due process of law must apply to all persons equally. 

GMO a No-Go

I don't know what you may know about GMOs, but my professor showed me, and I thought you should give it a look. Click here.

Evolution vs. astrobiology: What we know and what we don't

Here's a nice opinion piece that discusses the difference.

Abortion, Part II

I wasn't planning a part II, but I continue to see anti-abortion images (like, every single day), and I had a new category to talk about:

CLICK HERE TO SEE #1-4

#5 CONTRASTING THE PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH THE LACK OF PROTECTION FOR HUMAN EMBRYOS

Like this:

FROM: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/71829_4699416081606_1259578732_n.jpg

Or this:

FROM: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/774971_154565054693245_641727558_o.jpg

The difference between destroying the eggs of these organisms and aborting a human embryo or early fetus is the HUMANS ARE NOT GOING EXTINCT!!!

Humans are presently causing an extinction of event, one that could, ultimately, be on the scale of the P/T extinction event or the K/T extinction event. We are primarily accomplishing this gross crime against all other living creatures by destroying habitats. With the land we get from removing the native ecosystem, we make paper from logging and leave the land to waste. We plant crops to feed factory-farmed animals and to make artificial sugars. We grow hay to graze cattle (these are the lucky cattle who actually get to eat a reasonably healthy diet rather than grains). We build houses and cities and factories and power plants and roads and train tracks and air ports and so on. We control water ways. So, why is it punishable to destroy eagle eggs? In part, national pride in the US, as the bald eagle is a symbol of the United States. But, more importantly, bald eagles, loggerhead sea turtles, and many, many others have been placed on the brink of extinction by loss of habitat due to human selfishness, and we have a moral obligation to stop making them extinct. [As of 2007, bald eagles are no longer listed as endangered because of human interventions like harsh penalties on anyone who dared harm one of these birds.]

In total contrast, the human population is growing exponentially. In mathematics terms, this means the further you go into the future (time being the x-axis), the population (the y value) approaches infinity. Of course, population growth is only exponential until resources become too limited and everyone dies. We are still in the exponential growth part of the curve, the rate at which the population is growing always getting larger, the slope of the population growth line getting closer and closer to m=1. When other species are suffering because of human global change, we are thriving. But growth cannot last forever and, if we refuse to take action, we will be our own demise. As such, preventing the births of unwanted, excess children through abortion can only help to alleviate the problem in a some very small way. Either by government intervention (which has many ethical problems, but there may come a day where it is necessary) or by a shift in popular opinion of large, biologically-related families (that is, a pervasive belief in mainstream culture that a couple with more than 2 biological children is utterly irresponsible, and that couples wanting large families or couples with difficulties getting pregnant should grow their families via adoption and foster parenting), we need to dramatically reduce the human population growth rate artificially, or there will be more people starving in days to come than the billion who went hungry this year alone.

Gay marriage in Indiana?

Heck yeah! Go read this article and smile. Even some Hoosiers are pro-LGBT!

Sex and religion

About a week ago, I discovered the joy of writing down my frustrations at the social media postings of my friends and family and posting them anonymously for the world to see. So I have another infuriating image to methodically break-down and ridicule:


FROM: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/19083_519429231413678_1578518269_n.jpg

Let that image soak in for a minute. A diamond ring in a condom wrapper with the caption "Safe Sex: get married and be faithful." I assume the intended message was, "If two people mutually abstain from sex until marriage, and then only have sex with their spouse, then there is no risk of STI transmission." However, this image suggests so many other things, a few of which are genuinely disconcerting. Can you count how many things are wrong with this picture?

Let's start with the nit-picky, inconsequential problems in this image. In the U.S., the traditional women's engagement ring is a dainty, yellow-gold band with a round or princess-cut, solitary, clear diamond held in with 4 prongs. Yes. In an ill-thought-out decision, the artist has, in fact, used an engagement ring instead of a wedding band. As is, the image suggests making even a non-martial commitment to a partner and keeping that commitment makes sex safe, which is utterly ridiculous.

My second trivial problem with the graphic is that it is a woman's ring inside the obviously male condom packaging. While probably represented this way to make the image more aesthetically pleasing or perhaps more intuitive, I would argue that the artist would have been better served using the equally iconic male wedding band. As is, this picture puts all responsibility on preventing STI transmission on women. I am sorry if this is crude, but as the male condom covers male genitalia, should it not be incumbent upon a man to be responsible for its correct and appropriate use? Too frequently in heterosexual relationships, it is women who  must insist on using protection to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Use of a woman's ring in the male condom package reinforces the misconception that is solely the woman's responsibility to protect herself and her partners.

But, those comparative trivialities aside, let us now address the real issues:

1.) Married sex DOES NOT EQUAL safe sex
Abstinence is the only safe sex. This means, the only 100% guaranteed way to never get pregnant or get an STD is to never have any sexual contact with any other person ever. Sexual contact includes any sexual act in which one person is in contact with another person's "private parts," even if the other person's are not involved. If one or both partners in a relationship has had sexual contact with someone other than their present partner, there is always a possibility of STI transmission. Even if you wait for your wedding day to have your first sexual contact and your spouse claims that s/he has done the same, s/he may be lying or s/he may not realize an encounter in the past "counts" as sexual contact (that is, they may claim to be a virgin, because they haven't done sexual act A, but they may have done sexual acts B, C, and D, which all involved some kind of genital contact). Alternatively, you may wait your whole life for Mr. Right, only to find out Mr. Right met a few Ms. Right-Now's along the way. Furthermore, there are some conditions that can be transmitted sexually that can also be picked up accidentally in the environment (such as scabies or herpes) or that could be in the system since birth, so even two virgin-at-marriage and 100% faithful partners could give each other STDs.

2.) There is a place for condoms in faithful marriages
Condoms are absolutely necessary in any sexual relationship if there is concern about transmitting an STI, but this is not the only use of condoms. Couples may use condoms as a primary form birth control, to augment the efficacy of their primary form of birth control, or as backup birth control. With exponential human population growth and limiting global resources, couples need to limit themselves to two or fewer biological children. There is literally not enough farmable land to grow enough crops to sustain the growing population. Groundwater resources are being depleted. Global climate change is augmenting the challenges that overpopulation is causing, and an increasingly large and increasingly wealthy (believe it or not) global population is creating demand for electricity, fossil fuels, and mineral resources, which results in continued global climate change. The days of "Be fruitful and multiply" have long past.

3.) This is unrealistic in American society
Why? Two reasons.

    a.) Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in committed relationships of partners of the same sex cannot legally marry in most states, and their marriages are not federally recognized
Today more than ever, many LGBT youth and young adults are proudly embracing their identities. I am sure some of these young people aspire to the spirit of the image, but are not legally allowed to marry the person they love. It is no secret that many of the advocates against gay marriage are right-wing Christians, the same demographic that produced the above picture. The love of gay and lesbian couples is just as good, true, loyal, and faithful a love as that of straight couples. Give them the right to equal marriages!

    b.) The disparity between age of loss of virginity and age of first marriage
The average American loses their virginity at about 17 (see Wiki article for a general discussion and additional sources), but doesn't marry until about 27. Why? That is a complicated question for psychologists, sociologists and demographers to answer, but I am not alone in my belief that it has much to do with the need for further education in the modern US for both men and women (see Huffington Post article). Before many modern Americans even think about settling down and starting a family, they need to graduate high school, graduate college or finish some form of post-secondary training, and get their careers started. Many fields now require Master's degrees as the entry level degree, which puts two more years between average age of loss of virginity and a wedding. In such a volatile economy, and with ever-increasing costs of attending college (let alone the $25,000 average cost of a wedding!), few have the luxury of marrying right out of high school or even immediately after college.  Furthermore, many of the younger generation are wary of marriage because of their divorced family members.

If the religious right truly prioritizes abstinence until marriage, they need to push for more provisions, tax breaks, grants, student loan deferrals, student housing, special health care privileges, and so on for married people under 25. Additionally, some research shows that early loss of virginity is more likely if the mother works extensively outside the home, so one would think the right wing would push heavily for benefits to families where one or both parents work part-time, work from home, or elect not to work to focus on parenting.

As such plans are not major issues for the religious right to my knowledge, I think it is safe to conclude that abstinence until marriage is an ideal that the religious right only expects of their own children and their children's future spouses, not of society as a whole. As such, they need to stop expecting abstinence until marriage from the non-religious and pushing for abstinence-only sex education in state-run schools.

This guy is right...

Some things are for thinking. Others are for feeling. Science is a thinking thing. Religion is a feeling thing. Certainly, you wouldn't want your doctor wasting your time and money and their energy "feeling" about your diagnosis, but thinking objectively and rationally about it. So also, religious conservatives should not be wasting taxpayer dollars and school children's precious educational years making arguments against teaching science that are based on emotion rather than logic. Furthermore, while discussions of abortion, gay marriage, and immigration reform certainly have room for some feeling in the dialogues, the fact is there ought to be far more rational thinking happening both among the citizenry and politicians.

Love and compassion, sadness, even anger when necessary, should consume our feelings, not "feelings" about evolution or the age of Earth or the origin and fate of the universe. Likewise, when it comes to social issues, feelings of callousness, ignorance, racism, sexism, and (or perhaps in sum) hate should be set aside in favor of empathy to injustices and rational, clear-headed thinking about reform.

That's my president

If you didn't see Mr. Obama's second inaugural address, you missed out. I recommend watching the speech in its entirety at the following link:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/inauguration-2013-president-obamas-2nd-inaugural-address-full-18274078 . Alternatively, you can read the transcript at  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/21/transcript-president-obama-2013-inaugural-address/ and many other sites, to be sure.

There are two points in the speech at which I was like, "Yeah! That's my President!" The first was at 10:14 in   the ABC clip, where President Obama addressed the reality of climate change and the urgency to develop cleaner energy. I am glad my president understands that climate change is real and, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue to increase with the growing population and increasing energy demands as more and more nations become modernized, we are going to have an even more serious natural hazards crisis on our hands than we already do today. I only wish society at large understood.

The second point was at about 14:40, beginning with Mr. Obama talking about gender equality in the work place, then marriage equality and gay rights. Just after, he talked about immigration reform, with an appeal to education. With each of these, the crowd cheered and screamed. Lastly, he addressed gun control and gun safety, and the way he framed it struck a reverent silence in the throng. And I was like, "Yeah, that's my President."

Thank God, that's my President.

Abortion

It just so happens yesterday was the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As such, today, after hearing coverage of the atrocities of abortion on their conservative news networks and radio stations, after discussing it in ultra-conservative worship services, and after reading about it on their various extreme right social media outlets (blogs, e-newsletters from anti-family planning groups, etc.), my Facebook homepage has exploded with friends (typically older, Evangelical, and very socially conservative) sharing essays and memes about abortion. I would like to address a few of these.

#1 ABORTION MEMES AND COMICS RELATED TO POST-NEWTOWN GUN CONTROL

Like this one:

FROM:  https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/184636_439426209461184_1135296535_n.png

Or this...

FROM: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/397486_471295912929945_1663445956_n.jpg

Abortion may "kill" more children a year than died at Sandy Hook and in other mass shootings in 2012, but that doesn't make abortion a greater tragedy. Wanting to protect the lives of children from mass murders does not necessarily require wanting to save the lives of all fetuses. Honestly, I can't believe how many people seem to think abortion is even an equal tragedy. 

The pro-life argument has two basic assumptions: that human life begins at conception (or, in the opinion of a minority of  pro-life advocates, sometime shortly thereafter), and that all human life is of equal value. In science, a hypothesis is examined through an experiment in a lab. Similarly, in philosophy, a hypothesis (in this case, the lives of zygotes are just as valuable as the lives of children) is tested with a "thought experiment." A good thought experiment moves a controversial issue outside of the controversial context into a context that is "safer" and has fewer biases, but without making any morally relevant changes to the real issue, in order to examine the issue at hand more objectively. 

Conveniently, this hypothesis (that the lives of the unborn are just as valuable as the lives of children) already has a well-known and frequently used thought experiment: the "burning fertilization clinic," by Jane Hamsher. It goes like this: You are in a fertility clinic, a fire starts, and, through a series of circumstances, you alone are able to save one child or some fertilized eggs, but not both. Which do you save? (see YouTube  for a better version)

Like the speaker in the YouTube video, I think the answer is obvious. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I seriously question your moral compass if you would allow a very much real, breathing, living child to die to save any number of fertilized eggs. Therefore, either life does not begin at conception from a moral stance, or not all human lives are of equal value. Either way, it is clear that zygotes (and probably embryos and young fetuses too) are not of equal moral value to children.

#2 IMAGES DISTORTING WHAT ABORTED EMBRYOS AND FETUSES LOOK LIKE

Like this:

While the above image is possible, it is unlikely. Although the dimensions and facial features are roughly correct, this fetus above is at least 3 inches, if not 4 or 5, which is rather long for a 12-week gestational age (age calculated since the mother's last period) fetus, which a caption with this image claimed it was. My guess is this fetus is 13 to 14 weeks. In addition, some basic math, 12 weeks equals 3 months equals one trimester, and while the abortion of this fetus is legal, most abortions occur before this point. One-half of abortions occur before 8 weeks gestational age (by the end of the second month), before the emotionally-appealing facial features develop completely and the embryo looks rather fish-like. As most of us eat fish, I don't think many people could be discussing the right to life of a 6-week embryo in a universal and morally consistent fashion unless they were also very concerned with the right to life of salmon, trout, tuna, and bass.

#3 DISCUSSION OF, OR ATTEMPTS TO, MEMORIALIZE ABORTION "VICTIMS" LIKE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS OR U.S. SOLDIERS

Like this , Or this .

I think, given the above, this is obviously ridiculous and, frankly, disgusting. But just in case you think it isn't, lets think about the "real" atrocities of the modern world, the real killers.

Like heart-disease, stroke, COPD, HIV/AIDS, and cancers

Like hunger

Like thirst

Unbelievable numbers of children die from malnutrition, lack of access to safe water, and minor illnesses, and this isn't even considering the plights of children forced to work under unsafe conditions, made sex slaves, abducted to be soldiers, genitally mutilated, or married off far too young (which, in turn, results in physical risks to the mother during a teenage childbirth, risk to the fetus for low birth weight and underdevelopment, and high infant mortality, as well as risks of abuse of all sorts from an older spouse on the child bride). Where are the analogous Holocaust museums for these children? Where are the fields of crosses for all this stolen innocence? Where? Where? These are the children in the burning fertility clinic, but the religious right and the ultraconservatives are wasting valuable time, energy, and monetary resources saving the embryos and early fetuses. They are saving the agar plates of zygotes and leaving millions of children to die. Jesus would have saved the children. 


[#4 CITING AN INSTANCE OF EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTRESS POST-ABORTION AND ADVERTISING IT AS THE NORM

I am not going to give a specific example simply out of respect for true trauma inflicted upon an individual. Almost an appendix, I want to briefly state that severe psychological ramifications are not the typical result of abortion. In every sense, abortion is a safer medical procedure than vaginal childbirth or C-section. Most women feel relief after their abortion, and those who do not suffer at about the same rate as new mothers suffer from post-partum depression. Psychological trauma is more likely is the woman is forced into the abortion (usually by medical situations, but a very small percentage by parents or sexual partners) or if the woman's family, friends, and sexual partner(s) do not support her choice. Please click here for a review on the literature.]

CLICK HERE TO READ PART II