Ever wondered why we have so many pregnant Christian teens?
Wonder no more.
You see, "Sexual relationships, while enacted privately, are public property." That's why birth control is so very, very bad. If people use birth control, the rest of us have no way of monitoring their behaviour and measuring their sinfulness.
How do you know if two married people are keeping their marital vows? (by the way, for you non-religious folk, you should know that Christians are required to have lots of sex). Why, it's the babies! The babies prove they're doing it right!
And how do you know if unmarried teens are being sinful, dirty miscreants? Why, it's the babies!
See how clear everything is when you outlaw contraception? The babies tell you everything. That's why contraception is bad. It lets you keep your sexuality to yourself, almost as if it were your own private business and not a responsibility of all of society.
Hm.
I suppose I should have stopped at "However, I salute their stupidity."
That was probably a red flag right there.
But if you're wondering why we have pregnant teenagers, look no further than that mentality. It's the mentality that birth control is a worse sin - by way of being premeditated premarital sex - than having a baby you can't possibly raise properly. You see, sex without birth control could just mean you got carried away. But sex with birth control means you planned it, you evil bastard.
Makes me glad to be an atheist. It means I don't have to rationalize stupidity like this. It also means Christians have no business invading my privacy to judge how I live my life.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
Sex Education in Ontario
Saw this one in the paper today:
Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation
Here's the exciting stuff:
Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.
Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.
The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...
Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt
You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.
Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!
Yes, well.
I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.
Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation
Here's the exciting stuff:
In its Facts about Youth pamphlet, the U.S. pediatricians college states that most students (more than 85 per cent) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.
It further states that "declaring and validating a student's same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful."
Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.
Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.
The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...
Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt
You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.
Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!
Yes, well.
I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.
And in Arizona? Fascists.
I hate to go straight to Hitler, but there's just nowhere else to go.
The Arizona state legislature has declared that police can demand to see documents from anyone that might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't have your proof of citizenship or a proper visa? You go to jail.
Look, jackasses.
If you don't like being compared to the world's most notorious fascists, maybe you shouldn't make laws that allow you to round up different looking people, demand their papers, and throw them all in jail.
Just saying.
The Arizona state legislature has declared that police can demand to see documents from anyone that might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't have your proof of citizenship or a proper visa? You go to jail.
Look, jackasses.
If you don't like being compared to the world's most notorious fascists, maybe you shouldn't make laws that allow you to round up different looking people, demand their papers, and throw them all in jail.
Just saying.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Meanwhile in Oklahoma: Assholes
They made a law that women undergoing an abortion must have an ultrasound - possibly an invasive vaginal one - before having the abortion. During the procedure, the person doing the ultrasound is required to describe the fetus out loud.
If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.
If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Gun Toting Hypocrites
So everyone has seen that video? You know the one? Where the reporters from Reuters are walking around an otherwise empty street somewhere in Iraq and the the American helicopter pilot reports that they have weapons?
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Idiocy? Banning Religion.
It's just the stupidest thing you could possibly do. You can't get rid of a religion or a culture by banning it. You'd think that people in Quebec would realize that all that does is drive it underground, romanticize it and make it stronger.
But the Quebec government is going to ban the niqab on government premises. It's the worst possible thing.
First of all, the women who wear these things are supposedly the victims of the a male-dominated religion. Let's just grant that for the sake of argument. So what are you doing to these victims? You're forcing them to choose between government services and the wraths of their evil husbands. Brilliant!
Second, it's a cultural thing. These women are acclimatized to feel naked if they don't cover their faces. I can't speak on their behalves directly, but it might just be like walking around topless for them. Do you know what the cure is for that feeling? Education. It may in fact be the case that certain women will never, despite everything our society offers, get used to the idea of baring their faces in public. So what? I doubt their daughters will feel the same.
What is logically necessary?
If a woman wants a government service that requires identification, she must be able to prove her identity. That's it. If that means showing your face, temporarily, then that's what they'll have to do.
Women who want a credit for a course involving public speaking must be willing to engage in public speaking. Otherwise they don't get the credit.
But to tell a woman to drop her culture and walk around naked (from her point of view) is simply ridiculous. I don't care how frightened you are of Muslims or brown people or people with funny accents, you don't get to run their lives like that. It's just not how we do things here.
I'll be perfectly honest. As an atheist, I feel that pretty much every religion is a curse on the human race. The subject of enlightening people is always a matter of concern. But this isn't the way. This just won't work and we should know better than to try.
But the Quebec government is going to ban the niqab on government premises. It's the worst possible thing.
First of all, the women who wear these things are supposedly the victims of the a male-dominated religion. Let's just grant that for the sake of argument. So what are you doing to these victims? You're forcing them to choose between government services and the wraths of their evil husbands. Brilliant!
Second, it's a cultural thing. These women are acclimatized to feel naked if they don't cover their faces. I can't speak on their behalves directly, but it might just be like walking around topless for them. Do you know what the cure is for that feeling? Education. It may in fact be the case that certain women will never, despite everything our society offers, get used to the idea of baring their faces in public. So what? I doubt their daughters will feel the same.
What is logically necessary?
If a woman wants a government service that requires identification, she must be able to prove her identity. That's it. If that means showing your face, temporarily, then that's what they'll have to do.
Women who want a credit for a course involving public speaking must be willing to engage in public speaking. Otherwise they don't get the credit.
But to tell a woman to drop her culture and walk around naked (from her point of view) is simply ridiculous. I don't care how frightened you are of Muslims or brown people or people with funny accents, you don't get to run their lives like that. It's just not how we do things here.
I'll be perfectly honest. As an atheist, I feel that pretty much every religion is a curse on the human race. The subject of enlightening people is always a matter of concern. But this isn't the way. This just won't work and we should know better than to try.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Coulter: Confusing Dissent and Censorship
So the bile-spewing Ann Coulter arrived in Ottawa yesterday and got so frightened by people who were legally disagreeing with her that she ran away and is filing a human rights complaint.
There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.
Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.
Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.
But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.
I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.
Oh noes!
So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.
Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.
There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.
Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.
Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.
But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.
I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.
Oh noes!
So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.
Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)