The Morality of Sex (Part 2)

By putting sex into the category of a biological need it neutralizes the morality of it.  When combined with modern technological advances like birth and disease control, there then becomes a need to clarify where issues such as celibacy, promiscuity and teen sex come into play. 

Celibacy

By this new categorization, prolonged celibacy then would be the abnormal state.  And I do think that people that have deviate sexual appetites (meaning any form of rape, be it pedophilia, bestiality or any sex act in which one of the partners is either unable to consent or is actively protesting the act) are going to be attracted to a lifestyle that would mandate celibacy.  Now I want to be very clear here.  In no way am I insinuating that everyone who lives a celibate life is a rapist, but rather, people who are rapists are going to be attracted to this lifestyle.  People choose to live celibate for all sorts of reasons, including biological ones where there just is no sex drive.  And as long as the person is psychologically fit and healthy there is nothing wrong with living celibate, but likewise, there’s no virtue in it either.  In addition, often when a biological need is ignored, many people begin to fixate on it.  This, again, can give rise to deviate and harmful behavior.  At this point it would seem that celibacy would become immoral.  Staying celibate for some greater purpose, while harming others as a result is definitely wore than engaging in sex with a willing adult partner.

Promiscuity

So does this mean that all the single people can just go out there and start screwing anybody they like?  The answer is a little complicated.  From my own personal perspective, I think sex, being the creation of another human life, should be treated with a certain amount of reverence, and is best when confined to committed relationships.  Likewise, I also think that people who live their entire lives having sex with strangers are probably not very psychologically healthy, and missing a key element of happiness.    But from a purely moral standpoint, I cannot come up with an argument as to why this would be wrong (provided the criteria of consenting adults and prevention of pregnancy and disease transmission were met). 

Teen Sex and Abstinence

Once upon a time 13 year-olds in our society went out, got jobs, got married and raised families.  Then they usually died by the time they were 35 years-old.  Of course back then quality parenting consisted of keeping the kid alive long enough to work out in the fields.  Psychological well-being and happiness were not even fathomed with regard to parenting.  We now have longer lifespans and appreciate the well-being and happiness of our children.  Parenting has become more complex and therefore, we have been able to afford our children longer childhoods.   In short, this means that most 13 year-olds would not make good parents.  However, their bodies are those of a fully grown human being.  Remember that we humans are supposed to be able to procreate at a young age.  The teen years are when most people experience some of their strongest sex drives.  So to tell these people that they are supposed to just ignore those biological impulses and fight against such drives is completely unrealistic.  We are talking about the psychological equivalent of children and sex does have an emotional component to it, especially for girls.  Not to mention the responsibility of prevention.  In the hands of children sex needs to be treated very carefully. 

In fact, I would venture to say that we adults have a moral responsibility to the younger people in our society to arm them with everything they need to make decisions that do the least harm.  It’s been prove time and time again that abstinence only programs in our schools don’t work.  We can’t just ignore a biological need like sex by telling kids not to do it.  Kids have been doing this since the dawn of humanity.  Nevertheless, I would never say that 13 year-olds having sex in our society is a good thing.  But it’s going to happen.   Society has made it a moral mandate for eons and we’ve always had teen pregnancies.  That is why being realistic about this issue is the only moral way to deal with it.  Kids are going to have sex.  What we need to accomplish is to get them to understand all the responsibilities that come along with a sexual relationship, so that they are sure when they enter into that phase of their lives, they are ready for it.  We need to give them the honest dialogue about it and the tools to use to prevent tragedy should they choose to engage in it sooner rather than later.  What we need to stop doing is making abstinence seem like it’s a normal thing, as if there is something wrong with kids who have these desires.   These drives and desires are completely normal and natural.  Acting on them, is not a bad thing in and of itself.  Not taking the proper precautions is a bad thing.  However, who has committed the wrong when we as a society do not give our teenagers the necessary tools to prevent the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy or STD?  We condemn the pregnant teen mother with all sorts of names and insults when all she did was act on her instincts—her very strong instincts.  The pregnant teen mother needs to be treated with sympathy and solutions.  Her friends need education and birth control.  We as a society have a moral obligation to provide those elements for every teenager. 

The Morality of Sex

This is my two part blog on the Morality of Sex.  I was interviewed on Colin Lively’s radio program several months ago and talked about this.  I think it’s important to open the discussion of this issue because it seems to be so important in our society.  Politically, we legislate on it and judge our politicians and leaders by it, but are we doing it fairly?

The mention of sex will always elicit a reaction from people.  The gamut runs from snickers and giggles to outright rage from others.   In certain parts of the world people are executed because of sex.  Be it engaging in premarital sex, extramarital sex or sex with a person of the same gender, in many places, people take their lives into their own hands when they engage in sex. 
Most of these laws are based upon an archaic understanding of the world, as well as the realities of the harshness of existence on a planet which is in constant flux.  However, as we’ve been able to understand the world and control certain aspects of our existence, through modern science, many of the laws and principles driving our ideas need to be reevaluated. 
The existing premise about sex in the United States is that it is somehow bad, unless you do it with one unspecified, yet specific person and you make a formal and legal commitment to only have sex (and procreate) with that one person.  There are people who think the entire breakdown of society is because of sex.  Even if society were breaking down, I’m not so sure I would blame sex.  After all, sex has always been there and people have always engaged in it, so if it’s taken all these thousands of years until now for society to break down, I hardly think sex is the reason. 

Small History Lesson
While I’m not an anthropologist, it would seem to me that the issue of sex being a moral issue began in a time when life spans were about 30-40 years.  If a woman had a baby without a partner to help her raise it, the chances that she would die before the child reached the age to fend for him/herself was pretty great.  A child who perishes because s/he is not able to survive on his/her own is a great tragedy.  And even if someone takes the child in and provides for it, the child can still be viewed as a burden on society so the tragedy is not avoided, but merely minimized. 
However, because of the short lifespans, the impetus to procreate at a young age became greater.  This means that the drive to have sex became even stronger during the younger years.  And in fact, those instincts are so strong that I feel sex is a biological imperative.  Because of this, sex itself is NOT a moral issue.  There certainly are moral issues surrounding sex, just as there are with all other biological imperatives, but the act itself, from a moral standpoint, is completely ambiguous. 
A lot of people (mostly very religious conservative people) don’t want to hear this.  It upsets their entire world view.  But then so did Galileo once upon a time and the result was advancements in science and technology that have improved life for nearly every human on this planet (at least for the time being).   I say to those people, the world is in flux.  Get used to it.

Where does that leave morality? 
Sex is not an “option” but rather a need.  So where exactly does that leave morality and sex?  They still share a close relationship, but just some of the nuances have changed.  For example, if a person makes a commitment to only have sex with one person, s/he still has a moral obligation to honor that commitment.  If a two consenting adults, with no prior obligations take every precaution (and re-read that clause again because the requirements there are adults, consent and no other commitments) to prevent the transmission of an STD or cause an unwanted pregnancy then no moral wrong has been committed if they have sex with each other.  Notice that there is no mandate for the people to be of different genders?  That’s because homosexuality is not morally wrong.  It is just the fulfillment of a biological need.  And because pregnancy is not possible between the same gender, there never has been a rational argument for the prohibition (other than religious arguments which are usually so flawed logically that most philosophers discount their moral worth). 

This blog will be continued on Friday where I will touch directly on the morality of Celibacy, promiscuity, Teenagers and Sex, and Religion and Sex.

How Rick Perry is making a mockery of the Pro-lifers.

Note: Please don't forget to subscribe to my new blog The Liberal Diva. For the time being I will be posting both here and there, but eventually I will need to transition there.

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who claim to be pro-life have a genuine respect for the sanctity of life.  I do believe that the average Joe, on the streets and in churches praying for an end to abortions are sincere about their desire to protect human life.  I also believe that no other group is more misinformed and short sighted about this issue.  No other group is completely close minded to the actual facts about abortion and the real solutions. 
So here are the only facts I need to point out about this issue for the purpose of this blog.  First, abortions were illegal and women still got them.  So outlawing them won’t stop women from getting them if they feel they need them.  Second, there are programs out there which have proven to prevent women from getting abortions but nearly every Republican legislator out there opposes funding them (programs like education, birth control and healthcare).  Lastly, Rick Perry has been adamant about the abortion issue being a 10^th Amendment issue (the 10^th Amendment limits the rights of the Federal Government to those specifically outlined in the Constitution and is very rarely used in Supreme Court decisions because it is rather redundant).

It is this last issue I would like to emphasize.  Mainly because the 10th Amendment, when it has been asserted by states in court cases, traditionally has been used to protest federal regulations of labor and/or environmental controls.  For those of us who have been paying attention, Republicans like Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA 49) have been waging an all out war on the regulatory commissions like the EPA and the FDA.  It appears to be their goal to eradicate these commissions completely and given the pro-corporation bent of these legislators.  And Since corporations don’t get poisoned or cancer, the need for these governing bodies would appear to be completely unnecessary to them. 

So back to Mr. Perry and his “pro-life” stance (which I think should be better called a pro-corporate life stance).   Perry told ABC News,

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston.  “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, 'We’d rather not have states decide that.'”

I think that statement shows the nature of Perry’s true intent.  He’s garnering support from the anti-abortion crowd by using the emotionally charged issue of abortion and the archaic notion that if we outlaw it, we’ll save the lives of the unborn.  But as I pointed out above, that solution has already been proven to fail.  Yet why would a fiscal conservative want to spend so much money enacting and enforcing a law that wouldn’t do anything to save lives?  Why would the 10^th Amendment be so important to him? 

Because the corporate interests that fund him want those regulatory bodies to go away.  Banning abortion under the 10^th Amendment sets a precedent that corporations can then use to begin challenging labor laws, environmental laws, tariff laws, etc.  It would give carte blanche to the business world to exploit resources and people for their own financial gains.  As much as I believe in the sincerity of the average person on this issue, I truly believe in Rick Perry’s insincerity on it. 

Rick Perry is usurping the genuine desire the average person has for a better world and manipulating it so that those who already do live in a better world keep fewer and fewer people from enjoying it.  He is for protecting the life of the unborn, but when that unborn child does get born he opposes nearly all social funding for it and when that fetus grows up and commits a crime, he will allow it to be executed swiftly.  I’m still waiting to see Perry show respect for the sanctity of human life.  I do not know of one policy he has enacted that truly supports this intent. 

George Carlin used say “Republicans want live babies to be born to grow up to be dead soldiers.”  Rick Perry, it would seem, wants live babies to grow up just to be dead. 

The Evolution of a Liberal

I know I alluded to a blog about Rick Perry, and that's coming.  However, a dear friend of mine at the reunion this weekend suggested I blog about this, so consider this personal reflection a little something extra.

This past weekend, I attended my class reunion.  We were invited to bring our memorabilia to the event to share with everyone.  Tucked away in my sophomore yearbook were several old football programs and a basketball program that I thought would be fun to share with everyone.  Since it had been at least a decade since I had really looked at them, I eagerly glanced at them in order to remind myself about those days.  I began to giggle as I saw the stars I had put next to the football players I thought were so cute back then.  But my giggles turned to a huge gasp and utter shock when I saw that I had written “fag” next to the picture of one of the coaches.  Did I write that?  I don’t even remember that man.  I don’t think I ever talked to that man—EVER! 
Waves of shame washed over me as I quickly looked through all the programs, to exclude any that might have those references.  My first reaction was that I would bury the evidence hide the hideousness that had spewed forth from my hand.  Who was that girl who had written those things?  The woman reading them back certainly would have disliked her intensely had they come face to face. 

But then I remembered the insecure teenager who would do anything to get accepted and loved.  Those weren’t my words.  I have a vague recollection of liking someone who was on the football team and he called the coach that name.  Since I wanted to be liked and accepted, and group hatred is cheap and easy way to accomplish that goal (or so it would seem) I think I wrote the word so he (that is the guy I liked and admired so much that I defaced my football program, and yet haven’t the vaguest recollection of whom it might be) would like me.  It didn’t work.  Hatred never does. 

And yet, I can’t help feeling that the worst part of this story is not the word, but that it wasn’t my word.  It was the word of someone else which I regurgitated like a pea brained parrot, trying to get a treat.  The mind that was churning and the heart that was yearning to step up and say “this is wrong,” were igniting, but insecurity was dousing them at the slightest hint of a flame.  I wasn’t ready.  I didn’t know that picking up the cause of something that is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not because I get a direct benefit from it, is the truest and surest way to empowerment.  I didn’t know the strength that this one small girl had inside of her, if only she’d try.  And because I didn’t know, I must offer that truly dislikable girl an olive branch.  She can’t be faulted for what she didn’t know then, because she did learn from it.   And that girl and all of her mistakes would give birth to the woman I am today. 

So I gathered up those programs and took them with me to the reunion.  And really, no one cared what I wrote on them.  The fact is, my classmates were too thrilled by the memorabilia to be offended by the offhand comment of a 15 year-old school girl.  My goal was to bring joy to my fellow alumni, and I accomplished that.  I offered an apology for any offensive remarks, but I don’t think I even needed to do that.  The word “fag” didn’t brandish me as a hypocrite, because even as the seasoned woman I am today, I still have much to learn.  And today’s lesson is a review of the chapter “it’s not always about me.”

To Wisconsin and Beyond

Last November, the Tea Party claimed all sorts of victory when they took "back America."  Cries that the American people had spoken filled the air, and people like Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor, smugly pontificated about how the American system was broken and they were going to fix it.  But they never said exactly HOW.

Shortly after taking office in Wisconsin, the elected representatives of the Tea Party began implementing a plan that no one signed on for.  They systematically began an assault on one of the cornerstones of our American society: our worker's rights.  Rights that many of our grandparents fought for.  Rights that ensure that we in America have a standard of living which has been the envy of everyone else in the world.  Rights that many countries we used to look down our noses upon, have copied and implemented for their people.

Tomorrow, on August 10, less than a year after the Tea Party "(Took) Back America," as our entire economy seems to be imploding, Wisconsin will be holding an election that may very well be our only hope for solvency.  They have the ability to erase much of the wrongs which happened last November and if they do, it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the country follows suit. 

I personally think that all the recalls will go through and that the entire state of Wisconsin will go blue.  However, I am also sheltered by my liberal friends and my emotional need at this time to keep hope alive by listening to people who, like me, think that the Tea Party didn't "Take Back America" as much as they "Kidnapped America, Beat it to a Pulp, Held it for Ransom and Will Probably Kill it Anyway."  Okay, so maybe it isn't the catchiest campaign slogan but it seems to be true. 

I am truly optimistic that tomorrow's election in Wisconsin will be the shot heard round the world.  Tomorrow's election will be the beginning of America fighting back.  Tomorrow's election will prove to the rest of the world that we the people are paying attention.  We the people do know exactly which  people are responsible for the economic mess we are in.

What I'm not so sure about is how long this message will last.  While I do believe it's true that the Tea Party is responsible for the actual policies and stall techniques that have brought us to this point, even more responsible are the people who don't vote.  The people who, up until now, haven't been paying attention.  People who spend nearly all their downtime watching sports or reality television because politics is "boring." 

To them I say this:  you know what's even more boring than politics?  Unemployment.  But you know what's not boring?  Poverty.  Get off your fat ass, turn off the television, wake up and look around!!! You have no one to blame but yourself if you didn't vote.  Tomorrow is your opportunity to make a difference.  Tea lies.  Tea is incompetent.  Tea doesn't really care about you half as much as it cares about the boss that fired you so there are all the facts you need.  Tea isn't about making your life better as much as it is about making sure they win at all costs. 

If you live in Wisconsin, you need to get out and vote tomorrow.  You need to recall all the jerks that were elected last November and you need to put the right people into place.  The right people who are true and patriotic Americans that love this country more than they love their party.  The rest of America is depending on you to fire back with a vengeance.  The rest of America is counting on you to reclaim our country.  The rest of America wants you to Flush the Tea. 

How Atheists in America will Preserve Christianity

This weekend I was at a fantastic conference for women bloggers through BlogHer.  The keynote speaker the final day we were there was Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo.  One of the things she said struck me as outrageous.  She was listing ways in which the world has changed globally.  She listed things like a shift of economic growth and power primarily from the west to include the east; a shift from women not being very important to women being a key factor in economic growth; a shift from a world where church and state were separate to a world in which they are becoming one again.  WTF? 
Now I might be misinterpreting her intent here, but all the other examples she gave were directions that showed growth and progress.  They were going from negative to positive.  So I believe she was inferring that this was positive movement.  If she wasn't inferring approval of this shift, as CEO of a global corporation, she certainly gaffed then.  However, her gaff gives me the opportunity to point out one very key thing to Christians:  eroding separation of church and state will ultimately eradicate Christianity.
Demographic shifts in population growth in the U.S. and the rest of the world put Islam as the fastest growing religion today.  In less than 50 years it will be the worlds dominant religion and I believe that in the United States that it will be the same.  Research in this area is difficult, because it is usually funded by groups with a vested interest in a certain outcome.  But nevertheless, across the board all surveys show that Islam is gaining members and Christianity is losing members.  Regardless of the timeline, it's only a matter of when. 
When this happens, the "gains" that Christians think they are getting by homogenizing religion and government and legislating according to the precepts of their religion, will be the very precedent that Islam will be able to use to enforce Sharia law at a secular level when it becomes the dominant religion.
Here's the argument: we live in a country that is based upon democratic principles and as such if we were to repeal the portion of the 1st Amendment (and even with the freaky five that are on the Supreme Court now and the asinine way they have been ruling lately I hardly doubt that would truly come to pass, but nevertheless, there are those people who would like it to be that way and I never thought they would completely rule against our political system they way they have, so anything is possible) it would mean that the religion with the most adherents would be the dominant religion.  When that religion becomes Islam, Sharia law will have the precedent it needs to become the law of the land.  Upon that happening, it would be possible for Christianity to be outlawed altogether. 
Now it's important to note that this is the worst case scenario and fairly far fetched- but then so was the collapse of our economy and the downgrading of our credit rating and both of those things have come to pass too.  When idiots like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are out there displaying their Christian flag higher than their American flag, I think we have much to worry about.  And I think it's important to note that I don't mean to demean or in anyway diminish Islam.  Sharia law is fine for people who chose to adhere to it personally for themselves.  It becomes a problem when they want to impose it on others (even members of their own faith). 
Which leads me to the conclusion of my premise.  Atheists, agnostics, skeptics and apathists like myself, are the ones who are best suited to keep that precedent from occurring.  By not adhering to any religious belief we are the ones who will be best suited to make sure that all religions are treated equally.  We are the ones who will protect all religions equally.  By allowing those who are free from religion to legislate, we are really protecting those who most benefit from freedom of religion.  

The turd that raised the debt ceiling.

Generally speaking, I am not usually a conspiracy theorist person.  In my opinion, conspiracies are almost impossible to pull off because people are human and humans have emotions and egos.  People who are evil enough to pull off most conspiracies will usually also be very untrustworthy gatekeepers for a conspiracy.  So in order for a conspiracy to work, it would be necessary for everyone involved to have their hands equally dirty so that their secret can be kept, and even then that won't stop one of the conspirators from "cutting a deal."  That's why conspiracies involving 9/11 and Humans going to the moon, in my opinion are complete garbage. 
That being said, I would like to pose for you one conspiracy that I think that has taken place.  Now mind you, I have no facts about this.  Merely speculation and logic.  This theory involves the recent debacle with the debt ceiling and the turd sandwich congress passed that is essentially bringing down our economy and will be the economic undoing of the United States of America.
I would like to you to go back a few weeks when the big thing in the news was none other than Rupert Murdoch.  That lasted about a week.  Juxtapose that to the Casey Anthony trial before that which went on and on and on for several weeks.  Murdoch was in hot water.  He was being grilled by Parliament and decried by every political pundit out there until... warnings of the debt ceiling and rumblings from congress saying that they weren't just going to raise the debt ceiling but rather they wanted change.   And who was rattling their sabre the loudest?  Murdoch's darlings in the Tea Party.  And what did they end up doing?  Creating a turd sandwich so large that America will be eating it for decades. 
With all eyes off Murdoch, it went completely unnoticed that his son, James Murdoch, was reaffirmed as Chairman of the Board for British Sky Broadcasting.  In case you didn't know, Newscorp (Rupert Murdoch's company which owns Fox News) was set to purchase the controlling shares of BSkyB before it was forced to drop its bid because of the phone hacking scandal.  This would have made Newscorp the dominant media company in Brittan and therefore, it would have resulted in something akin to all propaganda all the time for England. 
As it stands, there is so much drama still going on with the Murdochs that I'm surprised they haven't turned it into a reality show yet.  First, they stopped paying the legal fees of the private investigator they used to get all the information for the hacking.  Second, two people very high up in Newscorp have come forward to say that James Murdoch, might have been very mistaken when he said he had no knowledge of the phone hacking.  There are no names of these two yet, but given that the private investigator will likely not be able to defend himself any longer, it is likely that he will quickly cooperate with authorities and spill everything he knows.  I suspect that the younger Murdoch is going to bet his cards on a game of  "he said, she said."
But back across the pond, we have our debacle.  We're scarcely paying attention to the House that Murdoch Built because we are watching our economy disintegrate before our very eyes.  Like the Twin Towers that crumbled before our eyes, our economy is doing the same.  Ironically, when Bin Laden attacked on 9/11 he said it was his goal to financially ruin the United States.  And now it looks like with the help of the Tea Party, his goal has been accomplished.  Who needs terrorists when you have idiots in positions of power?