There are consequences to what a person believes. Unfortunately, many people don’t often work out the full implications of those beliefs to see where they lead if consistency prevails. It’s one of the reasons we have poverty and drug addiction.

Not gaining a skill early in life of work-habit experience can follow a person throughout life and lead to a downgraded employment history.

The same is true of moral reasoning. Some people don’t think about how certain operating assumptions can work themselves through society if they care worked out consistently.

I saw this post on Facebook:

“Personally, I look at marriage as a ritual created by organized religion and not a function of natural human behavior. As a natural being, we are on this earth to propagate. The male of most species has a singular purpose to spread his seed to ensure the continuation of the species. It is a natural desire to seek this. It is only cultural and religious restrictions and rules that keep man from acting on natural instincts. We are animals . . . of course.”

It’s possible that the person writing this was being absurd in order to make the case that these are impossible opinions to hold in any consistent way. I love to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will.

Earlier in his comments he took a stab at “bigotry.” He equated discrimination to bigotry. They are not the same. And as I point out below, who gets to define what it means to be a bigot?

We discriminate all the time. There’s nothing wrong with it. We make discriminating decisions all day, every day. That’s why there are tens of thousands of restaurants, clothing stores, printers, car dealerships, etc. That’s why some people are our friends and others aren’t. That’s why we hire some people and not others. That’s why we like the services of one barber shop over another, and it’s not anybody’s business as to why.

We discriminate against all types of views we don’t find acceptable for whatever reason. The person who objects to a person’s view and calls it bigotry is discriminating against that view. He’s free to do so. And the so-called bigot is free to be a bigot, and if I agree that he’s a bigot (according to my definition), then I shouldn’t be forced to associate or do business with him or her.

Then there’s who gets to decide the definition of “bigot.” I think someone who sues a bakery for not baking a cake because the person asking for that cake promotes a way of thinking and lifestyle that is immoral is a bigot and a danger to a free society.

Is a black man who owns a printing shop a bigot if he does not print signs for a KKK rally? Hardly. The same is true of a Jew who refuses to do work for a neo-Nazi group. Or someone who denies service to a group that promotes sex with children.

“As a natural being”? What does that mean? Animals are “natural beings,” and they propagate by rape and many times kill off the seed-bearing competition. So is rape OK for human “animals”?

The person who wants to have sex with children and claims he was only responding out of natural animal instincts, is that OK? “Nature, red in tooth and claw,” as Tennyson put it; does this mean that gang violence is the logical outworking of “evolution and human nature”? Who’s to say otherwise if “instinct” is the guiding directive? Survival of the fittest is the operating premise of the “we’re animals” worldview.

If marriage is nothing more than a man-made ritual formulated by fictional religious precepts, maybe the same is true of laws against rape, murder, stealing, etc. Could these be social constructs formulated from the discredited Christian worldview? Maybe it’s time that we become consistent Darwinists and let the best man win in the daily struggle for life.

The “Bloodhound Gang” put it well in their song “The Bad Touch”:

You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin’ horny now.

Who’s to say otherwise?