From Arrows and Holes to Magnets and Poles: Yet More "Scientific" Claptrap Proving Gay Marriage Wrong

If it's not arrows and holes, it's magnets and poles: all so obvious. So simple. So self-evident, for God's sake. Why do the gays insist on mucking things up by asking whether the arrow fits the hole or the magnet moves to the pole?

These "theories" inevitably have several things in common, don't they? They're always the attempt of the theorist to impose on the wild diversity of the natural world as it actually exists and actually behaves a neat little schema that orders nature's wild diversity by ignoring huge pieces of evidence about the actual behavior of the real world.

Though these neat schemas claim to be based on dispassionate observation of the natural world, they ignore the abundant evidence in nature itself that things are far less simple than arrows fitting holes or magnets moving to poles. To the extent that these theories claim to be accurate, objective readings of nature, while they stolidly discount a great deal that the rest of us can easily see in nature with our own eyes, they're wooden-headed and quintessentially stupid "explanations" of nature and its design. They're wooden-headed and quintessentially stupid theological constructs.

They can't and don't convince anyone with much of a head on her shoulders. They convince only those who have already bought into the preconceptions the theories have been designed to serve.

And isn't it interesting that those preconceptions are predictably determined by the self-interest of heterosexual men who, without blinking an eye, take for granted that "God" designed nature to place them in the ruling position and everyone else in subservient places? What's so self-evident and obvious to them as they "observe" nature is self-evident and obvious because they have never been placed in a position in which they have to think critically about their assumptions regarding their unmerited superiority--and about the "God" they've made in their own image, who makes the entire universe to fit their needs as heterosexual men.

As I've said before, religious traditions that allow such stupidity to take center-stage in their apologetics are not religious traditions cultivating a bright future for themselves. Particularly not when they're religious traditions that, at their best, have long insisted that faith and reason work hand in hand as we engage in theological reflection . . . .