Well that's just prejudice!

 WARNING: This is going to be rather crude.

Says an anon when commenting on homosexual anal plunging and sex between infertile couples, whether due to old age, choice, or medical issues.

Anon writes:

"What you need to add to accept sex between infertile people (either from old age, medical condition, the use of contraceptive or not the right time of the month) and refuse it to gay people is prejudice. So yes, it worked better in the good old days.

Any time a straight couple have sex knowning that they are not fertile, they are doing it only to give pleasure to their partner, which is arguably one of the primary function of sex.

You can't have it both way. Pleasure-sex is either moral or immoral, for everyone.

Each "exception" (rape, non-committed or non-monogamous relationship, ...) has to be considered as immoral on its own."

Now sure what "good old days"  mean unless you're referring to a time where you'd personally feel uncomfortable where "pride" wasn't seen as awesome.

The above quote is an argument that is used by those want to point out the supposed hypocrisy of allowing sex between opposite sex couples who know that they will not conceive, or know that it's highly improbable. The argument doesn't work out - at all.

Why? Because even though couples who have sex strictly for pleasure they haven't misused their sexual organs: it's still penis in vagina, not penis in anus. Only the fucked up do anal. The primal urge to have sex with the opposite sex is as old as time; couples have sex without abandon giving no thought to whether to use contraceptives or to get fixed (this is a relatively new phenomenon for modernists). The natural consequence is a child - if the role of the dice allows it.

Homosexual acts are intrinsincally disordered. Let's face it, the act of two guys anal humping each other is neither beautiful nor erotic to a vast majority of the people on planet earth. The same with two girls rubbing their clits together. The vagina and clit are like "Where's my dick?" It's like other depraved sexual act e.g., fisting. that step one good step away from what what raw sex is: penis in vagina. Ain't that hard of a concept to understand.

Comparing real sex with homosexual acts misses the point of what makes opposite sex couples so different than same sex pairings. They just aren't the same no matter how much the LGBT+ activist wants it to be.

If old people have sex knowing that the chances of the woman becoming pregnant is quite low it's not actually a mistake nor equal to homosexual acts because the couple is still using their sexual organs for its main purpose written in our DNA. Even if the consequence of child bearing was not met it still a natural good due to the urge to mate. That's what sex is irregardless of whether the couple wants a child: mating, and all the emotions leading up to it.

You see, this is the issue with those who want to play the "gotcha card." They suck at it. The anti-sodomy camp says that the main purpose of sex is to conceive a child (which is true) so then the LGBT+ activist says "Well X  opposite sex couples can't conceive so what now! Homo sex is okay!" Not the silver bullet as they thought it would be.

Then there's this on birth control:

"There is nothing inherently morally good about creating life. Just as there is nothing inherently morally evil about not wanting to create life."

When the couple actively does not make themselves infertile, yes there is inherent good when life is created. With that said, using birth control to stop the creation of life is evil since it obstructs the natural purpose of ejaculation and when are "in the heat." It detaches the very real consequence of sex and children. But is that the same as two people committing homosexual acts? Nope. Not even close. Penis and vagina. It's that simple.

So, what can we eat?

It's been said eggs are bad.

It's been said sugar is bad. Okay, how about artificial sweeteners like Splenda or Stevia? Bad also.

It's been said olive oil is bad, so move to coconut oil.

It's been said tofu is bad.

It's been said all-purpose white flour is bad. Move to brown everything.

What if I want to make a cookie when using these standards? Diabetic cookies taste no where near as good as traditional cookies that use butter, or some sort of fat, and sugar. Let's face it, as American Test Kitchen bluntly admits, that it's about "health", not taste. One probably has to trick oneself into believing that diabetic cookies damn fucking good.

I like your sport, not your fans.

I enjoy sports. Being a spectator is awesome (depending on the weather) and participating in organized and non-organized sports has been a favorite pastime of mine. But remember I like sports, not so much its fans or whatever politics snags the shoes of its players.

Out of the major sports played in the States the following ranks how liberal/regressive each fanbase is.

 

1. Soccer (MLS): Simply the most liberal and there's no other way to go about it. I have a good feeling that many, many liberals found a sport to attach themselves to since the MLS is still fairly new and soccer (or football) is most popular sport worldwide, so it's where they saw fertile land to insert their politics. Growing up I'm quite sure the MLS was never this liberal, but in the past decade liberals have felt empowered to watch the sport while wearing scarfs of their favorite team when it's 65+ degrees outside. They probably couldn't make enough in-ways in American football, baseball, hockey and basketball, so they chose soccer.

Note: I for one loved the old MLS logo. Get ready to cringe: The new logo has symbolism to it.

2. Baseball (MLB): I read that baseball has liberal fans but conservative players. I think this is somewhat accurate. I've been on the receiving end of arguments where I basically was swarmed by 4 or 5 fellow baseball fans who disagreed with me. Irregardless of my arguments the spectators tend to keep politics out of the game.

3. Basketball (NBA): Yep, there are liberals here. I akin the liberalism within the basketball fanbase as the liberalism found in the parents whose kids are involved in Boy Scouts of America. Not a majority of liberals, but when the moment strikes they'll express views that would forever change the organization if not the game (e.g., had parents admit that they wanted to make BSA co-ed as far back as the 90's and while whole fully supporting openly gay scout leaders in).

4. American Football (NFL): There are liberals here, but they're more so about the game. You'd be surprised how many fans support Colin Kapernick and the kneeling as they express how racist cops are. You'll even get vets who gives zero shits about the flag.

5. Hockey (NHL): I bet there are fair amount of liberals it's just I never really saw an argument where liberals were in full force.

Girls I wouldn't date.

I consider myself rather "open minded" when it comes to dating, as in dating to marry, not dating just because or because feelings are reciprocated type of modern shit. But there are some deal breakers.

If the girl doesn't eat meat then we may have an issue. It's not a deal breaker. If she can't eat meat because her digestive system cannot process it, okay. If she's like some person who sees her identity on what she doesn't eat, like those who make their youtube channel about veganism, and if she's a vegan cultist then friends is the best we'll ever be.

Now, if the girl supports abortion then that's a major deal breaker. I can't date let alone marry a person who supports abortion. She can be gorgeous, smart, have a cute personality, good with money, and have little to no emotional baggage and I still wouldn't even consider her as marriage material. Because let's face it, she isn't for that one simple fact she supports abortion.

I wouldn't actually date an atheist - I just don't want to waste my time with that because I want my faith to be carried onto our children. The likeliness of the atheist supporting this is most likely slim.

I wouldn't date a Muslim or a Jew simply for the fact that our faiths just don't align on many things and, like them, want my faith - the Catholic faith - to be the one our children are raised in.

Now where does this "open minded" claim come from you might ask, after all I did state specific deal breakers. Well, I don't mind if the girl isn't the cutest, or if she's a bit chubby, or if she's not rolling in dough. I don't care much if she has a sizeable chest or if she has a butt that screams "squats." I don't care if she isn't "thick" aka thick legs. Aesthetically I'm fairly reasonable which encompasses how she looks with and without clothes. In a very cliche way, it's what inside that is the goldmine. I want to know how she thinks and why. I want her to align with my values. She can have one arm and I wouldn't care (I've seen a girl with just one arm and she was cute as heck).

So ideally a Catholic (if not, then a Christian) woman who supports life from conception till death. She can even have tats even though I think tats are ultimately hideous.

I believe my standards are reasonable given the day and age I'm living in. I seek someone different for the sake of truth, beauty, goodness. Lemmings mate and produce more lemmings. I want someone who is above a lemming.

Social Media.

This is comes from current cleaning of my mobile where I've decided to uninstall unused, if rarely used, apps alongside deleting or moving pictures and vids to a flash drive. I'm also thinking how I have been using social media and eliminating any accounts that aren't actually needed.

Facebook. Yes. Real Name. Main purpose to keep in touch w/ friends and family. Barely uploads pics.
Snapchat: No.
Instagram: No.
Twitter: Yes. Alias.
Viper: Yes. Real Name. Mainly used to talk to relative overseas.
Skype: Yes. Only used a few times to communicate w/ group projects; might keep it if group calls are needed.

I suppose you can count Linkedln as social media, and I do have an account, but my primary purpose are career networking and just putting my work experience up. I don't do anything on it besides those two. I am looking to make my own website where my CV will be present so I'm not sure where that would leave my Linkedln's profile since it'll make it redundant, but I suppose it's good to have just because it's become a staple among working professionals.

Compared to my peers and Gen. Y my use of social media is rather narrow since I don't use snapchat and instagram. An alias is used on twitter so I don't even count that. Viper and Skype are used only for specific purposes.

The criteria if an app would be kept are:

1. What it's purpose?
2. How often do I use it?
3. Why do I use it?
4. Is this app adding anything of value to my life?
5. Do I really need it?

Of course, this goes for spring cleaning your closet for anything that "builds up" (e.g., clothes, entertainment material, decorations, books).

As for this blog, it's just a way to pour my thoughts into. No one besides me and random visitors are aware of its existence.

Memorial Day, USA

The love story between modernism and Islam.

When issues with Islam are brought up (e.g., it being taught in public schools, though some students say it's on a historical context) defenders of it being taught tend to range from Muslims to secularists. There's not much in-between. Usually the secularists attack Christianity bringing up the Crusades, a common topic that supposedly exposes the religion for immense wrongdoings, and if the person who has issues with Islam is an American they'll say that America has been been raging war for the past 200 years across the globe. My favorite counter of those who try to make the Americas be on the defense is "it's all been verified."

Both of these talking points ignore the subject matter at hand and tend to build their talking points off of inaccurate history with poor analysis.

The Crusades:

The wars America has been have many, but a good historical exercise is to learn the motivations of entering a particular war and to see if these motivations later changed once involved.