sapiens to be homo

Transport for London have intervened to block advertisements promoting ‘gay conversions’ that were due to run on the side of London’s buses next week.

The adverts were part of a campaign by fundamentalist Christians to promote ‘reparative therapy’ which they believe can ‘cure’ people of homosexuality.

One thing about the gay gene conjecture I don’t like is that it makes for weedy politics. The essential proposition is ‘don’t blame me, I can’t help it’. It is, I suppose, suitable for a movement which now aspires to nothing more radical than the right to get married like everyone else.

There’s clearly no obligation on anyone to be any more radical than they actually are just because they ride the other bus, and, if female, get off at Hebden Bridge. On the other hand, this is one of those occasions when a bit of radical vim and vigour might do some good because it’s one of those issues where more speech could be the answer. Let the evangelicals put their ads on buses. And let the gays go unto the lamaseries of the evangelicals and proseletize under the slogan ‘we’re gay because we want to be and it’s fucking great’ or something equally suave, and perhaps hand out illustrated leaflets. By the time the dust settled I bet you’d have far more transfers from the Jesus column to Sodom than vice versa.

7 thoughts on “sapiens to be homo

  1. There are two major problems with humans. Some think with their skin and others think with their genitalia.

  2. There are some products which have regulated rights to advertise in public spaces. I am thinking of tobacco or alcohol. Religion should be on that list as it is just as pernicious.
    I am all in for freedom of speech, but sincerely would rather not see banners stating how great it is to be gay as a response to others saying that is a sin (which I don’t want to see neither) or banners advertising courses to “unwash” your mind of religious ignorance and bigotry, as much as I think that some people would be greatly benefited with such courses.

  3. “Religion should be on that list as it is just as pernicious.”

    If so, then worst religion of them all is secular religion. Lets count the ways:
    (1) The secular societies of the world are in steep demographic decline, bringing their nations and civilizations with them. With no belief in the future beyond one’s own lifetime, there is of course no motivation to reproduce.
    (2) Murderousness under Marxism, clocking in at around 100 million, swamps the murderousness of all religious societies combined, by orders of magnitude.
    (3) Lack of personal freedom under many secularist regimes has far exceeded the lack of personal freedom under even the most extreme theocracies. In terms of actual detentions and constraints on movement, secularist societies have constrained and detained orders of magnitude more than even the most rigid theocracies.
    (4) Economic underperformance against all expectations based on things like human capital and resources.

    The most successful societies have been pluralistic and tolerant ones, but jeronimo shows extreme secularist intolerance, the kind that has historically led to extremely bad outcomes in a very large number of countries.

  4. Oh Dan, your answer is wrong in so many levels….
    You seem to be intolerant against that “religion” you call secularism and at the same time you don’t have any problem with bigotry, “because secularism is worst”. As bad as that imaginary “religion” could be in your imaginary orders of magnitude in your imagination, it does not make bigotry any better than what it is in the real world. By pointing that out I am not defending murder in any form or manner.
    But it is your firs point (1) which has me completely in awe. What is exactly the relation between reproduction and the belief of an after life? Are you saying that the rest of the species in our planet profess some kind of secret religion and have a set of mythical beliefs in resurrection that move the towards mating? Did the rabbits that arrived to Australia encounter a particularly eloquent proof of the existence of that after life which made them more inclined towards multiplying? Are we humans, and mammals in general, less capable of understanding the existence of an after life, with the very poor yield of our sexual reproduction system, compared to frogs or fish, not to mention viruses or other micro organisms?

    By the way, according to the record that measure how well a society functions I am a catholic. Maybe the societies that work well are religious by name but actually its members are not religious at all.

  5. @jeronimo –

    I think tolerance is terribly important. And hardline secularists have been historically been the worst at it, with murder upon murder upon murder upon murder on a scale never matched by anything in any religious society. Historically one would have been far likelier to die at the hands of a secularist state than any religious one in history, with around a hundred million deaths under Marxism alone. This doesn’t include the Holocaust, although that drew its intellectual support from Darwinism and eugenics. If your knowledge of history is so frail that you cannot acknowledge the horrific outcomes under strict secularism, then I haven’t the time to bring you up to speed.

    I can’t say exactly why Soviet Russia, Mao’s China, North Korea, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Eastern Europe and others have been so horrific, but in all religions I know of, murder is a terrible sin. Where you have had official atheism, the results have been catastrophic.

    I am not advocating theocracy but tolerance.

    Individuals like you scare me. The paint is barely dry on the history of the 20th century and its lessons are already forgotten. Or in your case, never learned.
    Here’s a place to start,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
    but I don’t think “learning” or “knowledge” is really your cup of tea.

    As for the first point, here is some data:
    http://www.d.umn.edu/~okuhlke/Fall%202006%20Classes/GEOG%203762%20Europe/Readings/Week%2013%20-%20Demography/EUdemogr1.pdf

    Comparisons with the reproductive habits of rabbits and viruses are nonsensical. These creatures obviously do not make planned fertility choices. Humans do, especially in the modern era. Then again, the fact that you would even make such an argument makes me think I am wasting time responding.

  6. I´ll tell you who makes planned decisions about their reproduction: priests and nuns. There you have them.
    Blah, blah, blah communist, balah, blah, blah, marxists does not make bigotry any better. I am not even going to enter in those fantasies.
    I am all in for tolerance, which includes respect to other peoples way of life. There is nothing tolerant in insulting gay people. Please practice your beliefs in your life, in your temple, in your home, in the way you dress, etc, but leave other people alone.
    I am an atheist and I have three children. If I don´t have anymore, or if I had them in the first place, does not have anything to do with my well reasoned and factually demonstrated conviction that there is no evidence of anything after the end of life, for frogs, rabbits, viruses, my own self or theirs.
    Definitely you waste your time if logic is the kind of argument that you can simply dismiss calling it nonsensical. We are just creatures like any other. All creatures plan their reproduction and the belief in an after-life is a factor irrelevant for the outcome of their decision. I mean, man, do a survey, ask any teenager what comes to their mind at the sight of a sexy looking naked body. See if there is any response relating the transubstantiation of the holy breath (it does not count if they have just seen a movie about zombies).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>