Pretense

The arguments promoting homosexual "marriage" are ridiculous.  But so are most of the discussions opposing it.

Nothing in nature is quite as ridiculous or sublime as the human relationship that results in procreation and perpetuation of the human race.  One of the few acts of human behavior to surpass the drama of creating the next generation are the frustrated and frenzied obsessive sexual acts of homosexuals, a senseless and confused cultural engagement in parody of the biological imperative, that can never in any circumstance ever result in increase, either purposeful or accidental.

Every snickering naive post-puberty teenage human knows and understands the difference between sexual indulgence and marriage.  But proponents of homosexual "equality" now contrive to blur the distinction.  They are wont to insist that there is no substantial difference between Divinely sanctioned marriage covenants and the subject of an obscene joke.

Amid the overblown and contrived pageantry, flagrant public displays of wanton inebriated behavior, and prancing "pride" parades, what passes for moderation and reason are accusations from the politically correct - "rape culture" and "manspreading" are cause for postured outrage.  While deviance is celebrated as representing "tolerance" and "equality".  The advocates of this perversion act as if they themselves invented unrestrained sexual indulgence.

Despite the absolute futility of this perverted and depraved behavior, those who are obsessed about this pretense are now on the cusp of forcing everyone in the land to respect their deviance, and lend the dignity of judicial review to their prancing antics.  The AIDS/HIV epidemic in the United States is the "elephant in the room" that proponents so carefully ignore.  The well-known dirty secret is that homosexual practices, confined to 5% of the United States population, account for nearly 80% of the incidence of AIDS/HIV.  Certainly sufficient grounds for government intervention.

Those who dare to deplore this ugly perversion are censured and silenced.  Groups and corporations endorse this "equality" and bully any who presume to speak against it.  Respectable and decent persons who express any opposition to deviance are now despicable "homophobes".  And the raging hateful rampage against them, supposedly to defend against unfair "discrimination" is unequalled and relentless.

The Supreme Court is now called upon to lend their supposedly learned jurisprudence to promote and force acceptance of  the ridiculous pretense.  And if it were ever a question, why not homosexual "marriages"?  Why should civil government have any interest in promoting moral standards?  Even the raising of the absurd question before the court makes an absolute mockery of the judicial process.

Perhaps the biggest pretense is that so many raging activists now claim to be advocating for what they refer to as "love", as they scream profane epithets and make frenzied obscene gestures.

When all is said and done, my suspicion is that our modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah insanity will prevail for a season.  Some will persist in their insistence that good is really evil, and evil is good.  When the people realize what injustice has been wrought therein, it will be even more difficult to oppose.

This is the legacy we will hand to our children.  If they presume to disagree with this form of "tolerance", they will be punished.

For example, the bakery in Oregon that declined to provide cakes to a homosexual marriage celebration.  They did not try to interfere in any way with the two lesbian women becoming "married".  Did not yell at them, argue with them, or criticize their behavior.  Just would not provide them with cakes, and got sued for it.  Their business is now closed, and they face the threat of substantial fines.

It's all a big freak show, and I make no pretense about being amused.

Homosexual "Marriage"

Viewed from a wider perspective, nothing very dramatic actually comes with this disappointing development.  The encroachment has been gradual and incremental, since the initial "camel's nose under the tent".

 Supposedly, the Supreme Court has spoken by choosing to remain silent.  But nothing precludes revisiting the ignored appeals in the future.  Until the Court issues a specific ruling, the controversy has no closure.

Nonetheless, the homosexual players have become emboldened in their sense of accomplishment, which will result in inevitable greater sense of entitlement. Predictibly, they cannot  ever be satisfied with this concession or any other, but will continue pressing to “normalize” their deviance in other ways.  Already, homosexual partners are anticipating the next step in legal manuvering.  From a Deseret News quote, "Now that this is settled, the focus is getting adoptions done for those couples. That will be the No. 1 priority for them."

 Sadly, there is no lasting happiness to be found in the false promises of such deviant behavior.

I intend no antipathy toward any individuals – I am satisfied that the legal demands have been met, despite the majority of popular voter opposition.  But I have no obligation to recognize things as anything but what they really are.  This is strictly a legal fiction, legalizing homosexual "marriage", not some higher moral standard.

In my view, it is not and never will represent anything to do with principles of equality.  And it clearly violated democratic ideals, to have federal courts dictate what voters can approve, and have approved.

I predict that the sense of vindication and hubris will prove to be pyrrhic and ephemeral, as are the rewards of all of Satan’s enticements.

We will continue to decry and oppose the tide of evil, as with legalized abortion and other such offensive and evil abominations.

Official response from the Church as appropriate to this occasion.

I am in a difficult place, trying to reconcile the counsel for civility with current events.  But it has ever been so, even with followers of Jesus in former times...

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

  

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Life in the world continues…

United States HIV/AIDS Epidemic

Why is the Ebola scare such a media focus?   Ebola represents a potential epidemic threat.  HIV/AIDS is here now.  It seems to be the forgotten epidemic.  Not popular to talk about any more.

1 million people are currently infected with HIV/AIDS in the US.  The government estimates 50,000 new cases in the US annually, more than all the total number of Ebola infections worldwide in history

 Mr. Obama joins the scare about a potential Ebola epidemic.

"It is a marathon, but you have to run it like a sprint," Obama said. "How quickly we can contain it is within our control. If we move fast, even imperfectly, that could mean the difference between 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 deaths versus hundreds of thousands or even a million deaths."

This is unsubstantiated hyperbole.  According to WHO statistics, Ebola infection has resulted in less than 1,000 fatalities worldwide in all history.

From the US Government AIDS information page:

U.S. Statistics HIV/AIDS

           

HIV in the United States: At A Glance

Fast Facts

• More than 1.1 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 6 (15.8%) are unaware of their infection.
• Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM^a), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
• By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

CDC estimates that 1,144,500 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 180,900 (15.8%) who are unaware of their infection¹. Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level— particularly among certain groups.
HIV Incidence (new infections): The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year². Within the overall estimates, however, some groups are affected more than others. MSM continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, and among races/ethnicities, African Americans continue to be disproportionately affected.
HIV Diagnoses (new diagnoses, regardless of when infection occurred): In 2011, an estimated 49,273 people were diagnosed with HIV infection in the United States. In that same year, an estimated 32,052 people were diagnosed with AIDS. Overall, an estimated 1,155,792 people in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS³.
Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010, and approximately 636,000 people in the United States with an AIDS diagnosis have overall³. The deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis can be due to any cause—that is, the death may or may not be related to AIDS.

Figure1: Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States, 2010, for the Most Affected Subpopulations

By Risk Group

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008².
Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States⁴, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections². MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available¹.
In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)².
The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall².
Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 2010³.
Heterosexuals and injection drug users also continue to be affected by HIV.
Since the epidemic began, almost 85,000 persons with an AIDS diagnosis, infected through heterosexual sex, have died, included an estimated 4,003 in 2010³.
New HIV infections among women are primarily attributed to heterosexual contact (84% in 2010) or injection drug use (16% in 2010). Women accounted for 20% of estimated new HIV infections in 2010 and 24% of those living with HIV infection in 2009^{1, 2}. The 9,500 new infections among women in 2010 reflect a significant 21% decrease from the 12,000 new infections that occurred among this group in 2008².
Injection drug users represented 8% of new HIV infections in 2010 and 16% of those living with HIV in 2009^{1, 2}.
Since the epidemic began, nearly 182,000 injection drug users with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 4,218 in 2010³.

Followup on comment from Maggie Danhakl, Assistant Marketing Manager at "www.healthline.com".  Their web site offers good current information regarding HIV/AIDS.

Utah Traditional Marriage Support

Today in Salt Lake City, supporters of homosexual marriage staged a protest rally at the Utah State Capitol. There were reports in the Deseret News and the SL Trib. 

I for one have had enough of watching this happen without adding my own voice to the political scene. I oppose the legalization of homosexual "marriage", I support the promotion of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and am not convinced that these practices violate any man's rights or constitute any compromises to personal freedom. We are not obligated to sit quiet and allow our own rights to be compromised, just because we constitute the greatest majority in Utah. We can no longer tolerate being silenced by the angry demands of a few.

I have expressed my beliefs and concerns on this blog page, and would welcome any ideas or suggestions that might contribute to this cause. I believe it is time for a public rally to express the beliefs that the majority of good people uphold in Utah and around this great country.

Homosexual supporters and activists reported gathering more than 58,000 signatures on petitions - some reportedly even from Utah - asking the Governor not to appeal a District Court decision legalizing homosexual "marriage".

"I care about love, just like the rest of you, that's why I did this", one of the organizers explained.

The reports actually indicate that up to 1,000 supporters attended the rally at the Capitol.

Homosexuals continue their assault on traditional marriage with the demand that same-sex unions be legally regarded as equivalent to traditional marriage between a man and woman.  Legal challenge of the Utah state law that establishes traditional marriage by statute is what brought this situation forward.  By their own idiosyncratic definition, they justify perverted behavior by perverting the true meaning of "love".

The term obviously means different things to different people. In the October 2013 General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks reiterated traditional LDS doctrine - our first love is commanded to be for God, and we are commanded to have no other Gods.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment. (Matthew 22:36-37)

Jesus declared plainly his definition of love.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Elder Oaks elaborates.

Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior.  For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside.  Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.  We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

Elder Oaks' counsel suggests to me that the citizens of the State of Utah have  obligation to legally promote God's standard of morality.  This would include participation and support like that organized for the California Prop 8 campaign.

I have written here previously about legislating morality.  Latter-day Saints are prompted by their ideals and their doctrine to support and promote laws that reflect our understanding of God's laws and commandments. 

I believe it is a time to stand for something.  Millions of Utah citizens have made sacred covenants with God to uphold righteous causes.   Perhaps a representative sample of supporters should organize to gather in Salt Lake and other civic centers around Utah, to counterbalance the expression of those few hundred at this "gay" rally.  What is at stake may well impinge upon the future welfare of our families.

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10) (Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2001 General Conference address).

I will attempt to develop this idea further.  Any helpful suggestions would be appreciated.

Social Deviance

Deviance, in a sociological context, describes actions or behaviors that violate social norms, including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime), as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting standards of morality).

Standard distribution around the classic bell-shaped curve characterizes many natural functions, such as the metrics for generally describing human intelligence.  Metrics which scale the range of variance for many other natural physical and social characteristics of living creatures can be plotted to display this representative curve.

The classic study of human intelligence of Herrnstein and Murray presents their findings on the scope of metrics which evaluate normal distribution and standard deviation for human intelligence ratings, plotted under the bell-shaped curve.  Some of their findings are unpopular, and still controversial, even after the work has been in public circulation since 1994.

With some human social groups, a trend toward rejecting such traditional categorization has recently grown quite popular.  Among these certain social groups, the in-your-face attitude toward social tradition and norms has become rather commonplace.

Active advocates for normalization of homosexual behavior are some of the most colorful and vociferous.

Their representative symbols popularize their minority interests, promoting superficial "cause célèbre" and in some circumstances serving additionally to distract attention away from key assumptions that represent the deviance of more significance.

Some public demonstrations tend to accentuate deviant behavior, even to the point of advocating violent rebellion against social norms, which are represented as repressive and archaic standards of those who are commonly referred to with derisive terms like "homophobe", "bigot", "facist", and even "Nazi".

While these fringe interests tend to exhibit public sympathy for homosexual advocacy, there are a number of other special interests following this pattern.

Those identifying with "feminist" interests are another example.  These groups tend to share ideas and cross-pollinate to some extent.

While they claim to "celebrate diversity", what this slogan really seems to represent is the deviants, minority interests, and those who tend to fall outside the consideration of any normal focus.

Up until a short time ago, those exhibiting aberrant sexual behavior characterized themselves as "queer" or commonly used other self-descriptive terms which seemed rather to focus on the unique nature of deviance from norms.

More recently, the more public group of self-identified homosexuals adopted the "gay" label for themselves, and started an attempt to associate the group with benign symbols like rainbows and other colorful emblems, such as brightly pink-colored accoutrements.  This appears to be an effort to obfuscate any general perception of deviance from traditional norms.  They have won general public acceptance and the perception of "normal" from sympathizers in the mainstream media, as well as many professionals and academics, although many individuals seem honestly disgusted, when confronted with naked reality.

One popular idea being promoted assumes that whatever is natural must therefore be good.  This idea is rather easily refuted in the context of the ubiquitous occurrence of pathogenicity and disease in nature.  In addition this assumption about the relative goodness of natural things fails to account for the second law of thermodynamics.

In historical human populations, the incidence of those with the inclination toward homosexual behavior seems to have always been present as a minority representation of deviation from the norm.

Some advocate groups even promote the view that existence of historical accounts of such behavior in human and animal populations is proof that deviant behavior is normal and unremarkable, and that social repression of deviance is somehow a violation of "equal rights".

Another popular approach now is for these groups to characterize anything they choose to do as being wholly motivated by "love".

In a conversation I had last year, a young homosexual was complaining that the Mormon Church was repressing his expression of "love" with their old-fashioned rules advocating chastity and fidelity.  On further discussion, I developed some understanding of how he was using this idea.  His definition for "love" was unrestrained homosexual indulgence, whenever and wherever it suited him and his "lover".

The Church was not "repressing" this "love" at all - he admitted that he and his "lover" were sexually promiscuous.  I argued that this perfunctory "expression" is simply exercising a function of biology, much as in Pavolv's dogs.  There are many other legitimate ways to express forms of "love".  He seemed not to comprehend this line of reasoning, and withdrew from the discussion.

Imagine that!

Banana Bread II

What do I explain to my young sons?

These self-identified homosexual men claim to love each other, and bishop Buttars' cruel church is attempting to prevent them from formalizing their love as a relationship, just as men and women have been doing for ages. They want nothing more extraordinary than recognition of their love for each other, and the special things it qualifies other couples in that relation for.

Is there any flaw in this argument?

What reason do I tell my sons that my church continues to oppose such unions?

Is it really bishop Buttars fault?

What does banana bread have to do with it?

To be continued....

Advocating righteousness: No Apologies Necessary

I have seen a surprising picture developing out of recent controversy regarding LDS Church leaders supporting the proposed constitutional marriage amendment. It would seem that there are a number of people associated with the church, who feel guilty to promote unequivocal opposition to homosexual behavior.

In fact, a whole lot of them seem downright apologetic.

And, in fact, there are a significant number who presume to criticize the church for its continuing opposition to anything resembling approval for or sanction of homosexual "lifestyle".

It is a confusing position to advocate, because many of the proponents feel justified by their understanding of principles of "compassion" or "tolerance". They seem unable to discern how temporary concessions under that "compassion" rationale ultimately compromise the quality of life for everyone involved. Every experience through the history of human existence testifies that it is never compassionate to compromise with evil.

To me this ambivalence is difficult to reconcile. In my experience the church has never offered the slightest concession to those entangled in sexual deviance. Such sinful misconduct has always been unacceptable and condemned in the strongest terms. It is my understanding that church membership is automatically severed for individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. To me, this policy seems unremarkable and consistent.

I don't expect anything to ever change in this respect. But it would seem that quite a number of church members are even hopeful that it will.

Who thinks we owe the sinners an apology for advocating repentance and righteousness?