You and me baby, we're nothing but mammals...

 In another thread, Dan made the claim that homosexuality was "natural".  He also claimed that homosexuality was "normal", but I'll leave that alone for now.  

Why would he make the argument that homosexuality is "natural"?    Given the context, I think it's safe to conclude that he is (at a minimum) implying that because homosexuality is "natural", that it cannot be a bad or negative thing.   I suspect, that he's really saying that homosexuality is good because it's "natural".  

Let's start with some data.  Apparently 450 species engage in some sort of same sex activity, which might seem like a lot, until you realize that there are over 7,700,000 species on earth.   .00006% of all species engage in some form of same sex coupling.   But, indisputably, those species don't exclusively engage in same sex coupling, so the .00006% actually overstates the number of species for which this is "natural".

Also, let's consider evolution.   Again Indisputably, one major factor of believing in Darwinian theory (or it's offshoots), is that one of the key factors in evolution is reproduction.  In other words homosexuals are an evolutionary dead end.   But, Scientific American to the rescue.   They posit the following.

 "In our hypothesis, the ancestral animal species mated indiscriminately with regard to sex, i.e., they mated with individuals of all sexes, if only because it is unlikely that the other traits required to recognize a compatible mate—differences in size, shape, color or odor, for example—evolved at exactly the same time as sexual behaviors."

Leaving aside the obvious conclusion that their hypothesis is impossible have the scientific method applied to it, let's look at the implications for Dan's claim that homosexuality is "natural".

What SA is saying is that it is or was natural for animals to engage in sexual behavior with any and every beast that crossed their path because this promiscuity would mean that at least some of the other beasts would reproduce.   While that's a creative way to dodge the challenge to homosexuality on evolutionary grounds, it really doesn't help Dan to suggest that homosexuals should be indiscriminately humping anything that they see.  

 In many cases, one animal will engage in same sex behavior with another animal as a way to assert dominance, in other words, rape.    One hopes that this "natural' behavior isn't what's being advocated for. 

I guess I'm having trouble making the lead from non sentient animals who engage in sex indiscriminately or as a way to assert dominance as models for human behavior.   

Now, a slightly different tack.

When there were discussions about how scripture treats homosexuality we were given two main arguments for why scripture didn't apply to the homosexuality we have now.

1.  The "There are only a few texts that ever somewhat reference something that sounds like it could be homosexuality." argument.  Let's call it the Scarcity argument.    If we accept the argument that scarcity in scripture is an argument against homosexuality being seen negatively, then why wouldn't we treat scarcity in nature in the same way?   Why would we assume that something that happens in .00006 species of animals, was in any way a behavior that is to be encouraged.  

2.  The "Loving Relationships" argument.  This one said that since the scriptural references were really only about prostitutes of some sort or another, that they didn't apply to the loving, monogamous, relationships that predominate today.  leaving aside the issue of whether "loving/monogamous/committed" relationships are even the majority of homosexual unions, there is statistically almost zero evidence to demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is animals is in the context of a "loving/monogamous" relationship.  

So, while homosexual sex acts may be "natural" in some broad sense, I'm not sure that actual animal gay sex is a great example to follow.

In conclusion, nature.   It's been famously said that "Nature is red in tooth and claw", in nature we see survival of the fittest, parents who eat their young, females who kill or eat their mates, and the like.  Nature is literally a "dog eats dog" world, the whole "circle of life" thing.  

So, given what we actually see in nature, why do we selectively choose homosexuality is the one single thing to use as an example to follow, and that it being "natural" is a positive argument in favor of homosexuality.

 

Ultimately I guess it depends of what "homosexuality is natural"  is supposed to mean or to prove.   

What really makes me wonder is why anyone who insists that all of nature came into existence as a coincidence, that there is no meaning or purpose to anything, that there is absolutely nothing beyond our finite existence, and "selfish genes" are acting purely in their own self interest, would think that we shoudl take our behavioral cues from animals.  

Well, if my dog can hump everything, it's natural and it doesn't hurt anyone, I think I'll start humping the legs of everyone I meet. 

 

Interesting Theory

I was just reading a Twitter thread by Neil Shenvi and he makes an interesting point.   He's arguing that the same arguments being used to further the trans agenda regarding the binary separation of genders, will likely be applied to other binaries as well.

If the biological gender binary is discarded as false, what would stop the same logic being used to declare the adult/child binary false as well.     In both cases we have biological evidence that all of humanity is divided into two groupings (M/F, Adult/Child).   Stan has an excellent video detailing the biological differences between men and women, so I see no reason to spend time on that well documented science.   But, we also see biological, physical, neurological differences between adults and children, and if we can ignore biology in one case  why not in the other case.  

I might dig deeper later, but given how we've seen the logic used to normalize homosexuality, co opted to normalize other behaviors, it definitely makes sense that we'll be seeing more attacks on the aduly/child binary in the future. 

Haiti

 As I've mentioned in the past, I've spend some time in Haiti, and it's a place I really enjoy going an opportunity to serve people in great material and physical need.  Unfortunately the group I've gone in with hasn't been back since 2018/19.   Between COVID and the unrest, they've been unable to go in.   

Recently, I've started to see some posts on FB from people I know in Haiti, as well as some other social media posts detailing the current situation there.  Strangely enough, the MSM doesn't seem to be investing a lot of time or energy in this story.    To call the situation tragic, is an understatement.

There are many facets of this situation, but one particularly raises questions.  I've written previously and linked to sources that document this, about how the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons personally managed to milk millions/billions of dollars out of Haiti for themselves and their cronies.   I think it would be interesting for someone to do the research to determine whether or not the Clintons actions led to the current situation.    Personally, I can't help but think that the actions of the Clintons have to be significantly connected to the descent of Haiti into the current situation.  

Finally, one must wonder why the Biden administration is hell bent on sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, while not seemingly showing any interest in the situation in Haiti.  I'm absolutely sure that the appearance of Hunter Biden profiting from companies in Ukraine has nothing to do with the current imbalance in treatment of Haiti as opposed to Ukraine. 

Potpourri

 There's a video at Townhall of Biden saying that "There is no such thing as somebody else's children.  They're all our children.".

There might be some context or spin that makes this sound less like Biden believes that our children actually belong to the federal government, but it sure seems like that's what he's saying.

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1650571132313952264

"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.  In this country I've been told, 'That's offensive' as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment"

Christopher Hitchens

There's been extensive coverage in the media of the black young man wounded in KC recently.   Strangely enough, the shooting deaths of 4 children and the wounding of 32 others in A, doesn't seem to have gotten nearly as much interest.   I wonder what could possibly explain this disparity?   Surely 4 dead and 32 wounded is significantly worse that one person with wounds that were never life threatening, isn't it?

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/04/us/naples-florida-deputy-missing-men/

CNN did this extensive story on an ex deputy who had had absolutely no wrongdoing proven, and absolutely zero evidence that he's actually done anything wrong.   Yet, you wouldn't know that there is absolutely no evidence of the crimes alleged, until the very end of the story.   It's an interesting approach, it seems unlikely that the deputy would bring legal action against CNN, because he would need to be deposed as part of the discovery process.   If you've never been deposed, you probably wouldn't understand why he's reluctant to do so.  

Groups of black youths in Chicago, as part of the "Teen Takeover" caught on video engaging in an unprovoked attack against a white woman, what are the odds that any of them will ever be identified or face charges.  Hell, the new mayor was all over making excuses to excuse this weekend of rioting.   

Kerfluffle?

 There's been quite a fuss over some recent Hollywood casting decisions recently, and I'm wondering exactly what the right answer is.

This recent trend of casting people to portray characters when they are of a different ethnicity, might have started when a Hispanic playwright decided to portray the US Founding Fathers as black rappers in Hamilton.  FYI, I've seen no research that indicates that even Hamilton was black.   It seems to be more of an attempt to discredit the immigrant who grew up poor, as opposed to an actual provable fact.   

I just saw an ad for Hamlet which has the Danish Prince Hamlet cast as a black man.  A few years ago, people objected to the casting of a black young woman to portray Hans Christian Anderson's Little Mermaid.   Although, it's likely that Hans probably pictured his fictional creature as a white European, I personally don't see expending a bunch of effort complaining about the ethnicity of a mythical, non human, creature some people did.

More recently, there's been concern over the live action Moana casting an actual Hawaiian to play Moana's Hawaiian older sister.  Apparently being 100% ethnic Hawaiian just isn't enough for some people.

 

Finally, Netflix is producing a "documentary" about Cleopatra.   They've decided to have a black actress portray Cleopatra.   This seems problematic, as all of the rest of these are fictional characters.  Cleopatra was an actual human, who had an actual lineage, which is known.  The reality is that Cleopatra was ethnically (primarily) Greek/Macedonian, not Egyptian or African.   Yet, somehow it's supposed to make 21st century black folks feel better about themselves to portray Cleopatra as something she wasn't.  

Now we just had a big budget movie about an historical African Queen that came out within the last year or so.   leaving aside the reality that this queen was NOT a good role model, it would have been ridiculous to have a white woman portray her.   

We, as a society, seem to have things that are much more important to spend time and effort on than this, yet some folks seem to disagree with that.

News

 A few days ago an event happened in Kansas City that has caught the interest of people across the country.   Before I dig deeper, I feel compelled to note that the Kansas City, MO area (including Jackson and Clay counties) has historically been a stronghold of the DFL, and has a significant % of POC in leadership roles.  

Tragically, a teenage boy was shot and wounded by an elderly man for mistakenly knocking at the wrong door trying to pick up his siblings.     Now we (the general public) actually know very few actual facts about what happened prior to the shooting.    What we know for certain is that the old guy shot the teenager with a small caliber pistol (most likely a 6 shot revolver), the teenager survived, was given first aid by a neighbor, and has been released from the hospital to continue recovering at home.  

What I find interesting is that based on these scanty facts, there is a groundswell of people who are publicly advocating for the shooter to be "locked up".    We've also seen a significant outcry complaining that the prosecutor hasn't rushed to judgement and charged the shooter with all sorts of crimes, withing 24 hours of the shooting.

As an aside, I feel confident that if any one of us was accused of a crime, that we would expect that the prosecution would carefully and deliberately examine the evidence before deciding what is an appropriate charge.    Just my two cents.

As of yesterday, the shooter has been charged with two charges, and will possibly face additional charges.   Yet, the outcry to "lock him up" continues.   

Now, at this point, I firmly believe that the shooter has likely been charged appropriately, should be apprehended, arraigned, and be heard on the appropriateness of bail.     Following that, he should be given a fair and speedy trial, with appropriate defense representation, and his punishment should be decided by a jury of 12 citizens from Clay County.    

I suspect that if the shooter is released on bail, that the "lock him up" folks will complain.  Yet I suspect many of those folks also support the recent push to eliminate cash bail and allow those who've been charged be freed without any pledge of performance.  

Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, we had a middle aged white woman who was surrounded and beaten severely by a mob of black teenagers.   We had a normal weekend in Chicago with something like 13 black people killed, and 30+ wounded.   We also had an event that encouraged people to run wild in Chicago.   We had (I believe) 4 black children killed in AL or MS, by a POC.  We also had a violent mob breaking into and looting a gas station/convenience store in LA, and multiple retailers closing stores in urban areas because they can't afford the large scale theft.   We also had a similar case in upstate NY, with much less national publicity.     We've also seen the president be very selective in choosing who to reach out to, and who gets invited to the White House. 

Let's be honest, every single one of these incidents, is a tragedy.  Every single one of these incidents has innocent victims, and guilty perpetrators who are still walking free (as far as I'm aware).    It's likely that some of these folks who were part of mobs will never be charged or tried.    For some reason, the one of these stories that gets the most play in the media, just happens to be the one where we have some of the least factual knowledge of the events, but it's fits a narrative.    

I look forward to learning as much about the facts of this case a possible before I form a conclusion, and I acknowledge that that conclusion might change as more facts are available.   Unfortunately, I think that the most concerning aspect of this whole thing, is the willingness of some to advocate (or appear to advocate) for certain people to be denied their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process simply because of their skin color and the skin color of their victim.  

I suspect that the millions being raised for the victim, will allow him to get the best possible medical care, and will likely far exceed his medical care needs.

Away

 Unfortunately, I'll be away from my normal life for the next few days.   I'm looking forward to meeting the family who will likely be my new in laws, and spending time with friends.   This means that the best that can be hoped for is that I might post some comments, or make some very brief responses until I get back. 

The greatest mystery of recent memory.

 https://www.newsweek.com/americans-deserve-know-who-funded-blm-riots-opinion-1787460

 

 

Newsweek, right wing racists.  

Insanity

 https://katv.com/news/nation-world/maryland-bill-would-prevent-anyone-under-25-from-being-charged-with-felony-murder-democratic-delegate-charlotte-cruchfield-justice-reform-youth-accountability-and-safety-act

 

 

Interesting take from Democrats in Maryland.  They appear to believe, and want to codify into law, that  people under 25 have brains that haven't developed enough to be able to charge them with felony murder. Yet, I'll bet that these same idiots would have no problem with someone under 18 having elective surgery without parental involvement, or that children under 18 are able to decide what gender they are and undergo irreversible medical procedures.  

Ethics

 Ethics not grounded in belief in God are forms of pragmatism and power.  "This is right because it works for the happiness or betterment (and who gets to define those?) of most people.".  Deep down we know that some things are not just impractical but wrong even if popular or "it works".

Tim Keller