Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Gay marriage in Indiana?
Heck yeah! Go read this article and smile. Even some Hoosiers are pro-LGBT!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
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.]
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)