Homosexuality: Part of God's Plan? - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson would make a horrible politician. He
owns, edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | HEALTH & WELLNESS | ACTIVISM | RELIGION

OK kiddies, I'm out of the loop on something, so I need your help. Please tell me the exact age you stop learning.

I can think of several periods over one's life when lucubrating new things is basically refused, and of course there are always people out there who give off the air of utter incapability when it comes to matriculation.

But, I've sort of been stumbling because essentially none of us ever stop actually acquiring information. Even my 93-year-old grandpa watches the news every day. Even if there's a possibility that what he sees isn't fully retained, the fact is, he's still learning something.

You could isolate yourself from everything. You could put yourself in an empty room for a week and you'd still learn little things without even realizing it. Your brain would become familiar with the room's dimensions. Your body would find the most comfortable place to sit out your solitude. Your mind would begin stringing together memories and scenarios that have never happened in order to suppress any boredom.

So yes, even if we think we're not learning, we are. Like right now, I just learned that Tide To Go pens don't take wood stain off white DC Shoes. It's a sonofabitch to be sure, and it's definitely no world-altering epiphany. But I learned it nonetheless.

"Matty," you're most likely saying to your computer right now, "Why do you always take five paragraphs to get to your point?"

First and foremost, I have to satisfy my Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder of having all my written works have some aspect that's divisible by five. But really, I want to get you thinking about the daily, hourly, minutely (wow--"minutely" is a real word? Nice.), secondly and microsecondly ways in which our brains are evolving. You can't refute the evidence in your own personal life that your brain evolves through learning.

And, since this is the Internet, there's no doubt that some Bible-thumping fundamentalist out there would say, "I dudn't learned nothin' this book dudn't uhlreddy teach me!"And to that person I say: "I assume it was read to you. But you did just admit your brain evolved through that teaching method."

So, that really brings me to my point--which is in the next paragraph.

Evolution (this paragraph makes 10--I can now continue comfortably knowing my OCD is fulfilled). Well, evolution and overpopulation. Well, evolution, overpopulation, and what nature (or God) might be attempting to do about it.

There are many theories out there about how nature fights back when we all get horny. One of my favorite bedtime stories is that God created HIV/AIDS to rid the world of all the gay people. This makes so much sense considering that it's only gay people who contract the virus, and once a gay person is dead, there are no more gay people born to take his or her place. Right?

Take a look at these statistics courtesy of Avert.org that totally prove the HIV/AIDS epidemic is only a gay thing.

So, as you can see, the greatest number of infected people in the United States are Black/African-American women, followed second by homosexual males. I guess God hates fags AND black ladies.

But, despite the global crisis that is killing countless people, it still hasn't stopped us all from procreating our horny little hearts out.

So here's where I'm going to get controversial. And who knows, this could be from my Mormon upbringing (which teaches that humans can become Gods through learning). But has anyone ever stopped to consider that perhaps God learns, too? Well, if you're in the school of thought that God created HIV/AIDS to kill homos, then obviously you think God learns. A God with infinite wisdom who never wanted gay people on this earth wouldn't have created them to begin with. Savvy?

But, pretending a loving God actually hates fags, let's just say he saw a bunch of queers running around and said to himself: "Hey! That's not cool! What's with all this love and general happiness? Stop it!" So he decides to take a course of action and destroy them all with a plague. God just evolved, see? He's correcting a mistake he made. That's called learning.

But, if you want a better example of God correcting mistakes, let's take a look at pre-Noah's Ark times. God literally was like, "Dang. That's some nonsense down there. I've gotta start over." Or, you can look at Sodom and Gomorra. God was like, "Shoot! Did it again! OK. Who needs salt?" And if one tries to pass off the old "free will" argument, then, arguably, God wouldn't punish people in this lifetime.

But back to evolution. Suspend any disbelief you have that God could perhaps be not perfect. Pretend for just a moment that he actually had to learn what he knows from somewhere or something. Do you think he planned to create a world where the very thing that gives us life (sex, just in case you were wondering) would destroy us?

According to Overpopulation.org, one-third of the earth's population is a result of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Holy crap! The site also describes how humans' need to constantly screw will basically doom us not only by decreasing our earth's resources through consumption, but by also increasing chances of war and carbon dioxide/monoxide levels, as well as pollution on land and at sea.

Right now the earth's population stands at more than 7 billion people. That's a lot of blogs. Hurry, while you're thinking of it, tell all your friends that The Skewed Review is the bestest most awesomest opinion site in the world. I just suddenly realized how big the competition is.

I often hear Christian fundamentalists argue that homosexuality is an abomination and against God's plan. Well, according to them, God's plan must for all of us to multiply ourselves into extinction. There's even talk from certain church's pulpits about how rounding up gays and lesbians and keeping them penned up would solve the gay problem because gay people can't procreate. In fact, I dedicated a whole article to it.

Of course, the Rev. Charles Worley who made those remarks didn't take into consideration that since gay people can't make babies, then it's certainly not gay people who are making gay babies. But that's beside the point.

Had he ever considered that God maybe made homosexuals on purpose? Perhaps because he wanted to see everyone have love, but perhaps keep the world's population at a reasonable size? OK, OK, I know, it's a stretch.

But how about nature? Nature is constantly evolving, and there's sort of this failsafe mechanism in place that keeps species from taking over, well, everything. In the past, human population has been kept under control by nature itself. The Black Plague in the Biblical times comes to mind. (I say Biblical times because, really, that's when the books were technically "translated.")

Or how about the small pox epidemic of the early 20th century? Or, hell, even HIV/AIDS? But medical advancement has outwitted nature in this manner. We're keeping ourselves alive for longer periods of time, and we're having babies at Nascar Race speeds. Why, we're even rewarding young boys and girls who spread their legs and basically hang signs around their necks that say "Open For Business!"

So this brings me to my evolutionary theory. I think nature (or God) has allowed us to evolve to allow for open homosexuality (at least among the educated and tolerant of us) because we fairy queens and butchy dykes are so capable of love, but we just happen to not procreate. This is like the best form of population control, actually.

And since there's no cure for stupid, there's always going to be idiotic teens or horny folks who "forget" to keep themselves protected and keep shooting out babies. And luckily, there will always be that gay couple that is fully capable and willing to adopt those children. (We just need to get stupid people on board to allow that to be a legal thing all across this great nation of ours.)

And there's also Brad and Angelina. They're pretty good at swiping up those kids, too.

So, recap time. Here's what I said that was blasphemous: God's not perfect. He's capable of learning. Evolution is real. Nature controls populations. Homosexuality is natural and even something that's needed. Some teenagers are sluts. HIV/AIDS is not spread exclusively by gay guys. Straight people are responsible for creating gay babies (there's literally no other way). You learn every day--even if you don't want to.

Thanks for reading! So, how about some feedback? Write your article! We'll publish it! Really! We will! Click here to read our submission guidelines, and then follow the instructions to submit your article. Guess what? The number of global hits on The Skewed Review increases daily. Get your opinion read! Submit! Submit! Submit!

Do You Believe in Magic Underwear? - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson may have his own personal views on life
and religion, but he's also capable of respect for others'
beliefs. Also, he edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.
Editor's note: The images in this article are provided
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons unless otherwise
noted.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | ACTIVISM | RELIGION

In a recent article posted on this website, I declared my somewhat wavering and very multifaceted beliefs when it comes to organized religions.

Is it possible that our creator takes an active role in our day-to-day lives? Of course it is. If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies, and suddenly it came to life, I sure as shart would pay attention to it every day.

Is it also possible that our creator ignores us? Uh, yeah. If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies, and suddenly it came to life, and suddenly I got interested in the latest episode of "The Real Housewives of New Jersey," then obviously there's something wrong with me because who pays attention to Bravo TV when your toys just came to life? But my intense ADHD would mean I stopped paying attention to my anthropomorphic plastic playthings. So yes, our creator could be paying us little or no attention due to something far more interesting.

And is it possible we were created by accident? Um, hello, totally! If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies and then moved to New Jersey, then who's to say it didn't come to life? It could have come to life and I wouldn't have even realized it.

Of these three theories, one of them could possibly include my making little rules for my Barbies and trolls. Let's say I want all my little Barbies to always stand on tip-toes (ha! Like they have a choice!) and I want all my little trolls to wear funny hats to acknowledge me. Silly, I know, but is it that much different from what we perceive as organized religion?

Did that Barbie just move?? Am I God yet?

OK, here's the funny thing about his article. It's not even about that. It's about Cher. I just wanted to get my daily diorama fix out of the way.

So, Cher recently tweeted that potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney wears "magic underwear." Now for those of you who don't know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allows its faithful adult members to take endowments out in their sacred temples. Part of those endowments includes wearing sacred garments that remind them of the promises they made to their maker.

So essentially, if I were God, I would want my little trolls and Barbies to wear something that reminded them daily of their promise to love and obey me.

OK, to prove that you acknowledge me as your creator, I want you all to twirl around three times each day and say "I'm a little teapot, short and stout!" Why? Because as your creator, I have really, really low self-esteem and I need to be constantly validated in order to be happy. Now do it!

In all actuality, virtually every religion practices this. Go ahead. Name a religion that doesn't utilize wearing some sort of article of clothing or jewelry that's a reminder of the faith. Jews? Yup. Catholics? For sure. Wiccans? Uh, you better believe it (and if you don't, just look it up. Find me a Wiccan who isn't all about the pentacle).

For Mormons, it's that sacred undergarment. In a way, it's a more humble way of acknowledging one's faith since it's literally so personal that nobody else sees it.

Now, do I agree that those who aren't allowed to wear the sacred clothes aren't worthy of being in God's house? That's a different article entirely. So let's get back to Cher.

When I search Wikimedia Commons for "Cher," this is literally the only image that pops up. So, yup. Here's Cher.

So, verbatim, Cher's tweet said, "I Feel if he doesn't get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we'll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH."

Not to be redundant, but here's a screen grab of what I just typed out--only straight from Twitter.

Now, I don't follow Cher on Twitter because she can't spell and her grammar is horrible. And if you know me, then you'll understand how spelling and grammar errors give me aneurysms. I was tracking down this tweet and I found another where she referred to Mitt Romney's car as the "car elavator." I think this was a reference to his whole dog transportation scandal that happened like, 40 years ago. But whatever. The spelling of "elevator" is what irked me.

In the "magic underwear" tweet, she's referring to Obama getting said ducks in said row, and "Richy Rich" is Mitt Romney. "WH" is the White House, I suppose.

I couldn't help but screen grab some more tweets. Here's just a few of the more legible gems courtesy of Cher.

Here's my point. All religions have structure. Some have more structure than others, obviously. But it's a bit weird that anyone would single out Mormons' use of a sacred garment as an attack against them--especially Cher. She's such an advocate for gay rights and is the proud mother of a transgender son. What would she say if someone were to attack Chaz Bono by saying something about his genitalia?

Can she disagree with Mitt Romney? Yes! Hell, we all can! But we, as a nation, have come too far to keep attacking people for their religious views and especially for their religious practices. Does Cher run around calling Rabbis idiots for wearing kippahs? She would need to in order to stay consistent.

I guess in a way she's staying consistent in that she's calling Mitt Romney the "whitest man," seeing as how she's pretty damn white herself. So maybe my argument that Cher's hypocrisy isn't Kantian is a fallacy. She's obviously a self-hating caucasian. So I guess she can bash religions all willy-nilly whenever she pleases as well.

Please let me reiterate a point. I don't agree with any one religion, and I certainly don't agree with many religious practices. However, I would also never go around demeaning a particular religion's practice unless it absolutely hurt me in a very personal way. And guess what? Someone's underwear has never hurt me, and I'm guessing it never hurt Cher, either.

I can tell by your underwear that you're against health care reform!

I'm not a Republican, but in my Internet search for all things Cher, I came across this graphic. I'm only leaving you with this image because I found it hilarious--not because I agree with it in any shape or form. Just enjoy.

YEAH! Next time you buy music CDs, you just remember that!  Thank you, Saberpoint.blogspot.com for this lovely rendition of Cher that will surely stay with us every time we buy music CDs. I know the next time I buy music CDs, I will totally remember that Cher hates Republicans. This will definitely affect my collection of music CDs!