Atheist Chaplains, Gay marriage, and Army Intelligence or "Topping Orwell!"...snicker...

                Jason Heap has submitted his resume to the Navy Chaplain Corp. and he is being considered though he is an atheist.  He feels that atheists must be represented equally in the modern military just as people of differing sexes, races, and sexual orientations are.  So what’s the big deal?  Atheists are people too right? If we prick them do they not bleed?  Can’t we accept all?  Is this not just another way the religious are bigoted?  It could be considered thus in a world lacking in definition.  A world which eschews order and logic in favor of the warm fuzziness of relativism. 

                Many believe that there is no difference which cannot be ignored until it simply goes away and this may be quite practical until it is untenable; at which point we have forgotten so much we have no idea what the problem actually is.  We are dishonest with ourselves for the sake of some greater honesty.  This is how dystopias are built.

                Let us consider the case of Jason Heap, the would-be Navy Chaplain and the motto of the Chaplain Corp. “Pro Deo et Patria” or “For God and Country”.  The problem is that the suggestion of an atheist Chaplain is simply dishonest at its very core; as we cannot serve a God we don’t believe in any more than we can serve a country we don’t believe in.  Take for instance if you had a Chaplain who was an imam yet felt America was “the great Satan”. Here we have just the opposite of what is being proposed by Mr. Heap.  We have an individual who believes in God but not in country.  I feel that most would find this person detrimental to the mission of the Chaplain Corp.  The only difference between finding “Deo” significant and “Patria” is that as an atheist he already finds God insignificant and thus disregards the importance and weight of that part of the motto; though one can plainly see it comes first within said motto and rightly so for Chaplains after all.

                The problem is simple and pervasive in our culture; the problem is entitlement.  We feel therefore we are entitled and therefore we are, to modernize Descartes.  Therefore we have contradictory titles and terms becoming normal and accepted, like Army Intelligence. 

                Similarly we have the inherent contradiction within the term gay marriage.  How can this be contradictory to anyone who is not a bigot?  Well it is contradictory because marriage is about sex.  The problem is we have no idea what that means. We use the term “sex” generically as a catch all for pertaining to a person’s sexual organs.  We are wrong if we call masturbation “self-sex”.  We are just as wrong to call “homosexual sex” sex. 

                Why? How can I possibly defend such hate speech?  “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”  Well the answer is written not by our ability to intellectualize incongruities but in our bodies, ourselves.  We can see a vast difference in the ability of male and female organs to accept the male; no woman ever has to understand the term “bottoming”. Women are padded, protected, and lubricated in most healthy individuals.  Men accept men into thin walled, waste eliminators, with no natural lubrication save for perspiration, and no reason beyond the fact that there are nerves bundled there.  Can we spot the difference and this is outside of the obvious procreate argument; which actually is a valid argument regardless of what Judge Sotomayor opines.  Women have various obvious problems simulating sex as well, isn’t it all so obvious if we just look at it as a logic problem and not as “sex” per se.

                The trouble once again is that we are entitled to our emotions and so we are entitled to our entitlement.  So we have a Chaplain who cannot actually be a Chaplain and married couples who cannot actually “couple”.  Even the BBC knows what “coupling” really means.  We cannot accept what is true so we must make those who uphold those morals to be villains.  They are bigots and hate mongers, but on a very superficial level aren’t they also entitled to their feelings; of course not, so bully on until there is no meaning in words.  It is something greater even than Orwellian doublethink; it is nothink.

Problems Inherent in Comparing Race and Sexual Preference

                Recently, the news media has been drawing ready comparisons between the struggle for racial equality and gay marriage.  I believe there are many glaring problems with the comparison, socio-economics being one obvious area of homosexual advantage.  They are able to excel in their chosen fields and that has created a political war-chest which has fueled the political momentum they now enjoy. 

                Race has involved a generational struggle against socio-economic oppression because of the nature of race, i.e. skin pigmentation.  This explains how the homosexual individual has risen so far within the socio-economic system and people of color have struggled; homosexuality is inherently not generational because of the nature of homosexuality as not being biologically regenerative and it is inherently not superficially overt. 

                Racial equality, though it has been made complex because of socio-economic injustice, has asked us simply and rightly to simply overcome our superficial differences.  The argument is routinely put forth that race is genetically insignificant; meaning there is biologically no appreciable difference between two human beings down to their genes.  Homosexuals and their advocates often state that homosexuality is not a choice but based upon genetic predisposition; so this means that genetics is not insignificant but very significant in determining behavior.  So what will it be?  Genetic determinism, Orwellian double-think, or moral responsibility?

                To update the last update on civil unions in Colorado; I spoke too soon last time.  Civil unions have been defeated in a special session of the Colorado Legislature called by Gov. Hickenlooper.  God only knows why it got so far this year, but Speaker of the House McNulty finally got his house in order and sent the bill to the proper committee where it died.  I would like to reiterate the fact that in no state in our union has marriage been encroached upon by a vote of the polis, in fact just the opposite has happened.  Marriage is under threat from the social vanguard; this causes what has been borne out by history, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but the dictatorship of the vanguard.  It is our responsibility to protect marriage in the milieu of the culture at large.  It is of greater importance to protect marriage in our homes and hearts.  God bless you, marriage, and the family.

It’s not natural… What? It’s not.

                There is a law which would give same sex couples the “rights and responsibilities” of married couples making the rounds in the Colorado capitol for the second time.  It promises not to confer marriage upon these couples but rather “civil unions”.  There is by all accounts one thin line between this bill and the Colorado law books; it is a committee, the same committee in which it died last year.  Thank God for committees; as there is no instance in the country in which same sex unions have become law by a vote of the polis.  They have always been asserted by legislators and/or judiciaries.  Not that it’s unnatural for persons in positions of power to feel as though they need to negate the will of the people; so I will write of the promised topic- why is homosexuality “unnatural”?

                Some think that homosexuality is completely natural because of our genetic make-up; that is called genetic determinism; our genes determine our behavior.  Some people think that homosexuality is natural because two male penguins hang together and take care of an egg; that is called projection.  Because we can project human reason upon animals does not mean that they possess said human reason or that they could make our behavior seem reasonable to their animal minds via projection.  Projection is actually complex mental behavior although it is completely natural to humans.

                First, genetic determinism, I have touched upon this aspect in several essays and I roundly reject it as a significant behavioral determinate.  There are different theories as to whether there is actually a “homosexual gene” but in my appraisal it is an insignificant argument even if there is.  Genetics cannot significantly affect an individual’s behavior, even when one speaks of addiction it has been shown to only slightly increase one’s propensity to exhibit that addiction.  Individuals tend to be haunted by the living physical realities of alcoholism and choose to learn that “coping” mechanism in the paradox of embracing the demon to drown the demon.  Many individuals react in exactly the opposite way; violently renouncing the smallest drop of alcohol, as if it were an allergen, in case the specter would appear and affect the people in their own lives as they were affected.  The behavioral determinate is not so much the alcohol as parental abuse.  There is even in the genetic pull of alcoholism a real and powerful choice to be made.  Genetics becomes an excuse for not making appropriate life choices.

                Next, homosexual activity in nature among animals does not define what is natural for human beings.  If it were there would actually be no laws because animals kill each other, so can humans but it is considered in bad taste.  Animals cannot be held to any standard of ethics or taste; as animals are incapable of an understanding of ethics and they have no use for taste.  In order for homosexuality to be natural for humans based upon the natural world at large ethics would have to be unnatural.

                  I suppose ethics is unnatural but then so is logic and so are all of the traits which make humans unique.  Maybe we aren’t, I will have to read up on it in the chimpanzee book of chimp anthropology (chimpthropology) at the library of chimpanzee history on the Chimp U campus; although I could save myself some time and just look it up on the Chimp-net.

                So why does this even matter?  If it feels good do it.  Who does it hurt?  Is there so much love in the world that we can discriminate?  My body my choice!  There are many other bumper stickers style philosophies bandied about with the intent of foiling any reasonable objection and cast all who question the legitimacy of a lifestyle choice thoughtlessly into the cavernous category “bigot”.  Why does this matter?

                It matters because people matter.  It matters because marriage matters.  It matters because word definition matters.  How can an individual lovingly sit and watch someone do something which is totally misdirected?  Both sides can ask this question; we must not simply demonize one another. 

                I have not always held the views which I hold today; because I was an atheist, hyper-relative, and misguided in my appreciation of human sexuality.  I can tell you this I have never held views which were easier to defend, well balanced, and well reasoned as I have as a Catholic.  Because as a relativist scratches the surface of the bumper sticker catchphrases all they find beneath is a bumper.

                When science has discovered that all one needs to “cure” a homosexual is a little testosterone or ovarian steroid given at the right time or in the right place that question is a matter of human dignity.  The call to self mastery is a call to human dignity.  Human dignity is what allows humans their human nature; it is the threshold of the natural for human beings.  If one has eliminated the source and defender of human dignity as a goal on the path to one’s self interest the time will come that that path will lead to one’s own destruction; as one becomes a road bump on the highway of human “fitness”.

                The legislator offered that the legislation would provide the same “rights and responsibilities” as married heterosexuals have.  Heterosexual marriages fall apart because of instances of infidelity; whereas the likes of Dan Savage and Gore Vidal lobby the public to embrace an open sexual reality which is common among gay relationships.  The divorce rate shows that this is in no way palatable to the women of the world.

                Women want more of their mates not less; male homosexuals, it would seem, want to drive women to homosexuality as a refuge against their lack of perceiving an emotional difference between the sexes!  If monogamy is not a characteristic heterosexuals and homosexuals share then how could we ever have the same responsibilities; even if homosexual women are preternaturally bonded that is not natural as it requires no sacrifice of one’s nature as is inherent of heterosexuals and love in general?  I mean to whom are we responsible if we rule out our spouse and our God?  We are responsible to ourselves alone and that sort of scenario is never more than a sham.

                If you want your “loved one” to be able to see you in the hospital make them your medical power of attorney.  Heck, make them your durable power of attorney and have a signing ceremony.  What is at stake is the imposition of a set of “values” upon a group which are theologically opposed and that imposition was clearly represented by the fact that the legislator refused to add an amendment suggested by another legislator which would have allowed a conscience clause.  This clause would have protected religious institutions whose theology morally opposes the gay lifestyle.  It was refused as “bigoted”.

                So thank God for that thin line of committee legislators which separates this state from civil unions and probably separates every Catholic priests and myself from jail time.  So when the “inevitable” happens I’ll see you in the clink; that will be the only place one will be able to celebrate mass anyway!