Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

I saw this conversation on twitter earlier today. Someone I follow on Twitter re-tweeted one of the tweets, which is how I saw this.

Other than one of the people who re-tweeted this, I don’t think I know any of the participants in this conversation, or who is involved (not at first glance):

I do follow several left wing persons and news sites on my Twitter account.

I sometimes visit left wing sites that discuss politics, feminism, entertainment, and other subjects, so I am partially aware of some left wing causes, views, and so forth.

However, I don’t keep up with the minutia of it and all the nit picky details of all liberal pet causes. Therefore, I do not completely understand their rationale for some views, or all the jargon they use.

Nor do I think I care to learn it all in-depth, as I only have one life to live and would rather spend it doing things like watching repeats of Zombieland on cable and new episodes of Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives.

Apparently, the woman who started out that thread (named Claire) is a lesbian, if I am understanding things correctly.

Here is one of her tweets (link to tweet):

“Not taking transwomen as sexual partners doesn’t mean lesbians don’t consider TW worthy of respect, safety, kindness, friendship, etc.”

—end quote—

Claire went on to Tweet this in the same thread:

“And it is pressure. This insidious idea that if a lesbian won’t consider sleeping with someone, she must be a bigot, is insidious & coercive”

—end quote—

If I am understanding this correctly, she is saying that some people who support transgenderism are demanding that lesbians should date men who underwent some kind of sex change surgery or what have you to appear to be women (I think these persons are called transwomen? As I said, I don’t care to keep up with all the rhetoric of liberal causes and their terminology.)

I cannot agree with a view that says you should date or marry people with whom you are not the least attracted or that you have moral qualms about.

I covered this topic on a previous post on my blog:

I have never felt very attracted to white guys with red hair. According to liberal logic, however, this somehow means I hate gingers, and they would lecture me and insist I date red headed men, even though I really do not want to.

Now you understand I’m not in favor of people who are overly picky in other regards. Like this guy:

Continue reading “Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)”

Gonorrhea Super Strain Becoming ‘Untreatable’

Gonorrhea Super Strain Becoming ‘Untreatable’

Another reason of why it’s good to be celibate (or asexual): you’ll avoid stuff like this.

And, by the way, I guess that medical officers in the UK are “slut shamers,” too.

(Link):    New Strain Of Gonorrhea May Become Untreatable, U.K. Officials Say

(Link):   New strain of ‘super gonorrhea’ puts disease at risk of becoming untreatable, doctor warns

(Link): Super-gonorrhea’ in UK may be untreatable, may show up in the US

  • Sixteen cases of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease, have been reported in the UK, leading the country’s chief medical officer to warn of the rise of “super-gonorrhea.”
  • The resistant strain hasn’t appeared in the US so far, but there is growing resistance to one of the antibiotics used to treat the sexually transmitted disease (STD). This week’s warning from Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s chief medical officer, followed a health alert concerning 16 cases in the north of England among heterosexuals.

Continue reading “Gonorrhea Super Strain Becoming ‘Untreatable’”

Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable

Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable 

The other day, I posted this (part 1 to this post):

I have re-listened to the podcast this evening and wanted to comment on some of what I heard.

In the program, there is a guy named Rodney who was once a conservative Christian, who drifted into liberal theology, and who now says he has a “deistic philosophy” and he says he is “agnostic about most religious questions.”

He says he has same sex attraction, and was put off to Christianity for (among other reasons):

How American conservative Christianity tends to over-identify with, or promote, the Republican Party (right wing American party), and that some preachers are too condemning of homosexual persons.

Rodney also says he does not accept the notion of an eternal Hell.

A few times, Rodney mentions that he has a deist- like view of God. He thinks all of us humans are rats, the earth is a big laboratory, and God is a scientist in a white lab coat observing us all but not intervening.

Rodney thinks if God is involved with human life, that God should do things like cause all members of ISIS (terrorist group) to drop dead of heart attacks. He does not believe that God helps people to pass school tests, find parking spaces, or cures diseases.

The show had a Christian author and guest on named Os, who replied to some of Rodney’s points.

_Some of my thoughts on the show and the topics Rodney raised._

1.) Politics and Liberal Vs Conservative Christianity

I am right wing politically and have been a Republican (GOP) my entire life.

I have very large misgivings about the GOP the last few years, though, so I’m not totally sure where I stand politically, though I do not ever see myself becoming a liberal or a Democrat.

I do agree with Rodney that too many conservative Christians conflate Christianity with the Republican party.

But then, a lot of liberal Christians or liberal Christian denominations entwine a lot of liberal beliefs and causes with the faith too, (such as support of abortion, the Democratic Party, liberalism, and homosexual marriage).

Continue reading “Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable”

Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage

This is a critique of the following post, and related ideas:

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

The guy that wrote that post has a tendency to make his blog temporarily private once he sees I’ve linked to one of his posts, then he makes it public again after so many weeks. You can read more about that wacko situation (Link): here, here, and here.

Lately, on other sites, there has been discussion on whether or not Christian preachers should stop holding weddings altogether, or if Christian preachers should only perform weddings for Christians…

In other words, some Christians are so upset over the possibility of Christians being forced to perform same-sex marriage, some are thinking that maybe Christians should not have anything to do with the government or secular groups in regards to marriage.

Here are a few links about the situation:

(Link):  Separating Civil and Christian Marriage: Should We Sign the Pledge?

(Link):  Should Pastors Disengage Civil and Christian Marriage?

(Link):  Pastors Sign Pledge to Separate Christian, Civil Marriage – via CBN site

Excerpt, from CBN article::

  • A new LifeWay Research survey on marriage and an online pledge drive shows support for a movement to further separate church and state roles in marriage.
  • Six in 10 responding to the survey said the government should not define or regulate marriage. More than a third also said that clergy should get out of the civil marriage business. 

I am not necessarily in agreement with all views by this blogger or this particular page, but it’s a critique of the Marriage Pledge position by Protestant Christians:

(Link):  The Marriage Pledge: Why You Should Not Sign It

Excerpt:

  • Their heirs, especially the Puritans and later the neo-Reformers, knew that all of life must be Christian, and to be Christian, it must be biblical.
  • The Bible provides the guidelines on what all of life, including the state, should look like. If the state is anti-biblical, you need to work to make it biblical, just as you would do in the family and church. You don’t get to opt out of them.
  • …But this option of cultural withdrawal isn’t available to the neo-Reformers. Douglas Wilson has offered several excellent practical, pastoral objections to The Marriage Pledge.
  • I would add that The Marriage Pledge is flawed at its root.The state, no matter how perverse, has a vested interest in marriage (will the church enforce disposition of children and property in the case of divorce? Hardly. And if she did, who would enforce the enforcement?). Should the church “disentangle” itself from the family since the family, too, is being redefined?
  • To be sure: the state can and does act unjustly (“no-fault divorce,” etc.). But the alternative isn’t anarchy, which despite its best intentions, is what The MArriage Pledge is suggesting. The state, even an apostate one, has a legitimate vested interest in marriage and the welfare of children springing from it.

Some Christians have a weirdo, odd ball view point that Christians marrying HETERO couples in today’s climate somehow is associated with the marriage of HOMOsexual couples.

I have written of this topic before, like here:

Yes, there are some Christian kooks who are teaching other Christians that if you, a hetero Christian, gets married in a state that has legalized homosexual marriage, this somehow invalidates YOUR (hetero) marriage.

These Christian kooks are teaching if you are a HETERO, Christian VIRGIN, yet marry your spouse in a state where homosexual marriage is also legal, this means you are NOT EQUALLY YOKED to your spouse because your entire marriage is invalidated, and they seem to imply you are sexually impure by extension.

And doesn’t the God of the Bible say he does not hold the sins of the father against the sons, that each person is responsible only for his or her own sins?

So what gives with Christians who are teaching this heresy that a hetero, Christian marriage magically becomes improper or sinfully tainted if it was held in a state where homosexuals are permitted to marry? God does not hold the sins of homosexuals against hetero Christians.

Anyway, this John Morgan guy seems to argue along a similar line in his post,

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

My intent here is not to copy tons and tons of this guy’s post, but it’s so hard to find just one or two paragraphs that summarize his thoughts here, I’m not sure what parts to excerpt.

Excerpts.

  • …We hear euphemisms everyday: Correctional facility instead of prison, collateral damage instead of accidental deaths, enhanced interrogation techniques instead of torture, pregnancy termination instead of abortion, etc.
  • We can add one more – marriage. Turning to the Oxford Dictionary again, we see that marriage is: “The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.” In short, it’s a legal sexual relationship recognized by the state you live in.

Continue reading “Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign”