{"id":1070,"date":"2007-03-20T09:28:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-20T09:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2007\/03\/20\/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex\/"},"modified":"2007-03-20T09:28:00","modified_gmt":"2007-03-20T09:28:00","slug":"whats-wrong-with-gay-sex","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2007\/03\/20\/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex\/","title":{"rendered":"What’s wrong with gay sex?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s a chpt of my book The Philosophy Gym<\/a><\/span> on homosexuality.<\/p>\n

Mr Jarvis, a Christian, was asleep in bed, dreaming of the Last Judgement. In his dream, Jarvis found himself seated next to God in a great cloud-swept hall. God had just finished handing down judgement on the drunkards, who were slowly shuffling out of the exit to the left. Angels were now ushering a group of nervous-looking men through the entrance to the right. As the men were assembled before Him, God began to speak.<\/span><\/p>\n

God: So who\u2019s next? Ah, yes, the active homosexuals . So tell me, Jarvis, what shall we do with them?
Jarvis: You\u2019re going to punish them, aren\u2019t you?
God: Why do you say that?
Jarvis: Because to engage in homosexual behaviour is wrong, of course.

The Appeal to The Bible<\/span><\/p>\n

God gently rubbed his chin and looked quizzically at Jarvis. <\/p>\n

God. Wrong? Is it wrong?
Jarvis: Yes. You say so yourself in The Bible.
God: Ah. The Bible.
Jarvis: Yes. Look right here. \u201cThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.\u201d Leviticus 18.22
God. Well, I may have been a little hasty. I\u2019m not sure about that bit now.
Jarvis. Not sure? You\u2019re God! You don\u2019t make mistakes!
God: Perhaps I am not the real God. Perhaps I\u2019m merely a dream God \u2013 a figment of your imagination.
Jarvis: Oh.
God. Also, why do you assume The Bible is one hundred percent reliable?
Jarvis: You mean it\u2019s not?
God: I didn\u2019t say that. But look, if you plan entirely to base your morality on the contents of just one book, you had better be sure it is the right book. And you had better be sure to what extent it can be relied upon, hadn\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

The Lord pointed to The Bible lying in Jarvis\u2019s lap.<\/p>\n

God: Flip forward a couple of pages. Scan down a bit. That\u2019s it. Leviticus 11.7-8 What does it say?
Jarvis: \u201cAnd the swine, though he divide the hoof; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat.\u201d
God: Ever eaten a bacon sandwich? Then you have sinned! Now a little further down.
Jarvis: \u201cThese shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales\u2026\u201d
God: \u201c\u2026ye shall not eat of their flesh.\u201d Didn\u2019t your last meal include moules marini\u00e8re? Why aren\u2019t you Christians out boycotting seafood restaurants and warning of the perils of lobster thermidor?<\/p>\n

Jarvis turned a little pale.<\/p>\n

God: If you read over the page from the passage about homosexuality, you will discover that it\u2019s also wrong to wear a jacket made from a linen\/wool mix.
Jarvis: I hadn\u2019t noticed that bit before.
God: Further on it says it\u2019s sinful to lend money for interest. Yet you condemn not one of these things, do you?
Jarvis: No.
God: But you confidently cite that particular passage of Leviticus to justify your condemnation of homosexuality. It seems you are picking and choosing.
Jarvis: But surely you no longer mean those other passages about seafood, jackets and lending money to apply? They\u2019re outdated, aren\u2019t they?<\/p>\n

God looked sternly at Jarvis.<\/p>\n

God: The word of God? Outdated? Okay, I don\u2019t blame you for failing to condemn those who wear jackets made from a linen\/wool mix. But you\u2019re using your own sense of right and wrong, your own moral criteria, to decide which passages of The Bible to accept and which to reject, aren\u2019t you?
Jarvis: Yes, I guess I am.
God: Indeed, it\u2019s because the morality of The Bible does generally fit in with what you already think about right and wrong that you are prepared to accept The Bible as my word, isn\u2019t it? If The Bible recommended stealing, lying and killing, you would hardly be likely to take it as My word, would you?
Jarvis: I guess not.
God: Then I think you should be honest. Rather than picking those bits of The Bible you like and rejecting the rest, and then claiming that your particular selection has my divine stamp of approval, I think you should just say that you think homosexuality is wrong and leave me out of it.
Jarvis: Very well.
God: Right, so if you believe homosexuality is wrong, can you explain to me why it\u2019s wrong? Why do these men deserve punishment?

Homosexuality is unnatural<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis looked out at the assembled crowd and scratched his head.<\/p>\n

Jarvis: I didn\u2019t say you should punish them. Perhaps they should be forgiven. But they have sinned. I can give you a number of reasons why.
God: What reasons?
Jarvis: The first is that homosexuality is unnatural.
God: Ah. That\u2019s perhaps the most commonly held justification for condemning homosexual acts. But in what sense is homosexuality unnatural?
Jarvis: Well, most people aren\u2019t actively homosexual. So homosexuality is an aberration from the norm.
God: In a sense. But then most men don\u2019t have red hair. So red hair is also, as you put it, an aberration from the norm. Yet there is nothing unnatural about red hair, is there?
Jarvis: True. What I mean is that homosexual acts are unnatural because they are not what nature intended.
God: Not what nature intended? Hmm. Again, you need to clarify. Do you mean that homosexual acts run against those tendencies that nature has instilled in man, those that come most naturally to him?
Jarvis: Yes, I suppose I do.
God: I see. But now what about cleanliness? Cleanliness is next to Godliness, they say. Yet it hardly comes naturally to most human beings does it? Children seem positively fond of dirt. Man, for the most part, is pretty filthy, and doesn\u2019t much mind being so. Your human obsession with hygiene is a very modern development. But then, by your own reasoning, cleanliness is morally wrong.
Jarvis: Oh dear.
God. Indeed, much that comes naturally to man is immoral. But he also seems naturally inclined towards greed, avarice, selfishness, infidelity and aggression. Humans have to struggle to control these natural inclinations. In fact it\u2019s only those who succeed in thwarting these repugnant natural tendencies that are considered virtuous. Yet you would now reverse this and say that these tendencies, being natural, are good and what runs against them bad! Let me introduce you to someone.<\/p>\n

Suddenly, Jarvis felt another person sitting close by. He turned to his right and saw a bald, serious-looking man dressed in a dark suit.<\/p>\n

God: This is John Stuart Mill, who lived from 1806 to 1873. Mill here didn\u2019t always give me a good press. In fact meeting me came as something of a surprise to you, didn\u2019t it Mill?<\/p>\n

Mill smiled nervously.<\/p>\n

God: But he does has something interesting to say about what is natural. Don\u2019t you Mill?
Mill: Conformity to nature, has no connection whatever with right and wrong\u2026.To illustrate this point, let us consider the phrase by which the greatest intensity of condemnatory feeling is conveyed in connection with the idea of nature \u2013 the word unnatural. That a thing is unnatural, in any precise meaning which can be attached to the word, is no argument for its being blameable; since the most criminal actions are to a being like man, not more unnatural than most of the virtues. <\/p>\n

No sooner had Mill finished speaking than he vanished in a puff of smoke.<\/p>\n

God: A fine mind, that Mill. So what do you say now?<\/p>\n

Jarvis looked a little irritated. He remained convinced that there is something unnatural about homosexuality, something that makes it morally wrong. But he was struggling very hard to identify exactly what this unnatural and immoral feature is. Then, after a few minutes, Jarvis had an idea.<\/p>\n

Jarvis. I have it! The penis has a specific function, doesn\u2019t it? It\u2019s designed for procreation: for the production of children. Homosexual activity is thus a misuse of that particular body part. One is using a body part contrary to the way nature intended.
God: I see. But then most sexual activity is morally wrong. For most sexual activity \u2013 even heterosexual activity \u2013 involves the thwarting of the procreative natural function. Masturbation is sinful: it cannot result in the production of children. Oral sex is sinful. The use of any sort of contraceptive device is sinful. Is that what you believe?
Jarvis: It\u2019s certainly what many Catholics believe, isn\u2019t it?
God: True. But look, if the justification for considering all these sorts of sexual activity sinful is that they involve using body parts contrary to their \u201cnatural\u201d function, then what about, say, wearing earrings? It hardly looks like a \u201cnatural\u201d use of the ears, does it, hanging lumps of metal off them? Yet it\u2019s not considered sinful. No doubt you would deny that wearing earrings involves, as you said, using a body part \u201ccontrary to its basic, essential function\u201d. But why?
Jarvis: I\u2019m not sure.
God: And in any case, the question remains: Why is it wrong to use a body part contrary to its basic natural function? I just don\u2019t see why it follows that if something comes unnaturally to us, or to a part of our body, then it\u2019s wrong.

Homosexuality is dirty<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis was struggling to answer God\u2019s question adequately. So he decides to try a different tack.<\/p>\n

Jarvis: Okay. Suppose I accept that Mill is correct. Morality has nothing to do with what\u2019s \u201cnatural\u201d or \u201cunnatural\u201d. Still there\u2019s another much more obvious and better reason for condemning homosexual practices. I hope you won\u2019t be offended if I speak frankly.
God: Be as frank as you like.
Jarvis: Very well. Homosexuality is dirty, isn\u2019t it? Sodomy \u2013 placing ones penis in someone else\u2019s anus \u2013 means that it is probable that one will come into contact with faeces.
God. What you say about sodomy is true. But does this show that all homosexual acts are wrong? No, it doesn\u2019t. There are plenty of active homosexuals who don\u2019t practise sodomy. You can\u2019t condemn them, can you?
Jarvis. No.
God: Also, there are heterosexual couples that practise sodomy, aren\u2019t there?
Jarvis: There are?
God. Take my word for it. But in any case, just because an activity is dirty doesn\u2019t make it wrong.
Jarvis: Why not?
God: You\u2019re a keen gardener, aren\u2019t you?
Jarvis: Yes.
God: Well, gardening is a pretty dirty activity, isn\u2019t it? Particularly where you live. There is rarely a day you spend in the garden that doesn\u2019t result in you immersing your hands in cat faeces, is there?
Jarvis: I guess that\u2019s true. You are right. Gardening is dirty, but it\u2019s not immoral. So I can\u2019t really use the alleged dirtiness of sodomy to justify my morally condemning it, can I?
God: You\u2019re catching on, my boy.<\/p>\n

Homosexuality is unhealthy<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis now tried a different tack.<\/p>\n

Jarvis: To engage in homosexual activity is unhealthy. That\u2019s why it\u2019s wrong.
God: Unhealthy?
God: Yes. Take HIV for example. HIV is an infection that results in AIDS. AIDS kills millions of people. And it is through homosexual activity that HIV is spread. Correct?
God: You are partially correct. HIV can be spread through all forms of penetrative sex. Indeed, many heterosexuals are infected too.
Jarvis: That\u2019s true.
God: Also, homosexuals may practise safe sex. Heterosexuals too. Practice safe sex and the risks are pretty low.
Jarvis: Hmm. Also true, I guess.
God: Perhaps it\u2019s true that homosexual acts are more likely to pass on the disease than are heterosexual acts, even if they are of the comparatively \u201csafe\u201d variety. But does that make it wrong? If it were found that drinking wine is similarly a bit less healthy than drinking beer, we wouldn\u2019t morally condemn those wine drinkers who refused to switch to beer, would we?
Jarvis: I guess not.<\/p>\n

Homosexuality corrupts the young<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis: But what of homosexuals who prey on innocent young men? That\u2019s wrong, isn\u2019t it?
God: But it\u2019s no less wrong when men seek to seduce innocent and impressionable young women, surely?
Jarvis: Well, yes, that is wrong too. But what the homosexual seducer does is more wrong.
God: Why?
Jarvis: Well, because the young man involved may then end up adopting a homosexual lifestyle himself. He may be corrupted.
God: You\u2019re assuming, I think, that homosexuals tend to be made, not born. That\u2019s contentious, is it not?
Jarvis: Well, isn\u2019t it plausible that some men who would, other things being equal, go on to have only heterosexual sexual relationships may have a tendency towards homosexuality that, given the wrong sort of experience at an impressionable age, may result in them then pursuing homosexual liaisons later in life?
God: That\u2019s not implausible. But notice that you\u2019re begging the question. If there\u2019s nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, then what difference does it make if a young man does end up engaging in homosexual acts? Why insist that this young man is corrupted?
Jarvis: Well, homosexuals live miserable lives. In many societies they continue to be vilified. So, as a result of his early homosexual experience, this young man may end up having an unhappy life. The homosexual who initiates the young man into this life must know this. So what the initiator does is wrong.
God: Perhaps. But even if what you say is true, is the blame for the young man\u2019s misery to be pinned primarily on the homosexual who initiates him? <\/p>\n

God pointed an accusatory finger at Jarvis.<\/p>\n

God: Wouldn\u2019t it be more appropriate to blame people like you for making homosexuals miserable by vilifying them?<\/p>\n

Homosexuals are promiscuous<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis didn\u2019t bother to answer God\u2019s question. Instead, he pointed out something about male homosexuals that does appear to be true. <\/p>\n

Jarvis: Male homosexuals tend to be rather more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Doesn\u2019t that, at least, make them worthy of your moral condemnation?
God: This, at best, would give me reason to condemn those homosexuals that were promiscuous. It would not justify my condemning homosexual acts per se. In fact there are many homosexual couples that remain faithful throughout their lives. And plenty of heterosexuals are promiscuous too.
Jarvis: True. But homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous.
God: In fact, there\u2019s a scientific explanation for that. Males seem naturally much more disposed towards having no-strings sex than do females. Ask heterosexual men if they would accept the offer of no-risk, no-strings sex with an attractive stranger of the opposite sex and over 90% say \u201cyes\u201d. Ask heterosexual women the same question and the vast majority say \u201cno\u201d.
Jarvis: That\u2019s interesting.
God. Yes. So you see, in heterosexual relationships, women act as a natural brake on the male\u2019s impulse to have sex fairly indiscriminately. For male homosexuals this brake is missing. It is unsuprising, then, that they tend to be more promiscuous than are heterosexual males. It\u2019s not that they are any less moral. It\u2019s just that they have more opportunity to do what most men, whatever their sexual persuasion, would do given the opportunity.
Jarvis: Nevertheless, you admit that male homosexuals do tend to be more promiscuous, and promiscuity is not to be encouraged. So male homosexuality is not to be encouraged, surely.
God: Your argument rests on the assumption that promiscuity is itself a bad thing. But is it?
Jarvis: Isn\u2019t it?
God: Can you explain to me why you think it is?<\/p>\n

Homosexuals use each other as means, not ends<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis: Well, take for example those bathhouses in San Francisco. You know, the ones in which homosexual orgies are supposed to have taken place. Men having sex with complete strangers at the drop of a hat. These men would be treating other men not as ends in themselves, but merely as a means to an end, that end being their own immediate sexual gratification. Now that is morally wrong, surely. It was the philosopher Kant (1724-1804) who said: \u201cAct so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.\u201d And that is quite right, isn\u2019t it? One ought to treat others as ends in themselves, rather than as the means by which one might obtain a quick sexual thrill. That, surely, is why such promiscuous behaviour is wrong.
God: An ingenious argument, I admit. But not persuasive. Let me conjure up for you another philosopher, Lord Quinton (1925- ), who has something interesting to say on this matter.<\/p>\n

A figure began to materialize to Jarvis\u2019s right. First some hands appeared; then a nose. Finally, there was Anthony Quinton standing before him (Quinton, incidentally, bears an uncanny resemblance to God).<\/p>\n

God: Ah. Lord Quinton. My friend Jarvis just suggested that it is wrong to use another person not as an end in themselves, but merely as a means to sexual pleasure. Homosexuals are less likely to enter into lasting, monogomous sexual relationships. They are, perhaps, more likely to engage in casual sex with a complete stranger, on a whim. Is it that a problem, morally?
Quinton: It is certainly true that long-term, morally and personally profound relationships are less common among homosexuals. How much does that matter? If I regularly play tennis with someone but do not see him except on the tennis court and at the health juice bar afterwards, if, in other words, I am interested in him only as a tennis partner, am I ignoring his status as an end in himself? More to the point, if I pick up different opponents every time I go to the courts, on a purely casual basis, am I acting immorally?
Jarvis: But hang on. Sex is not like tennis is it? Sex is a much more important part of life, surely.
Quinton: Except for a minute number of people sex is a more important part of life than tennis. A life in which it is merely a source of short-term gratification and not an inseparable part of a whole shared life is to that extent trivialised. But triviality is not a moral offence; it is, rather, a missed opportunity and one which, in fact, many homosexuals do not miss. <\/p>\n

God waved his hand and Lord Quinton began to dissolve into tendrils of cloud. As the last wisps drifted away, God looked intently at Jarvis.<\/p>\n

God: So you see, it may be true that some homosexuals use each other as means to an end and not as ends in themselves. But, as Quinton just explained, it\u2019s difficult to see why there is anything morally wrong with that. It may also be true that some homosexuals miss out on the kind of deeper connection that can be made only within a stable, lasting and sexually exclusive relationship. However, as Quinton also just explained, this is surely not a reason morally to condemn them.<\/p>\n

Jarvis scratched his head. He now felt very confused. <\/p>\n

Jarvis: But I felt sure that you would condemn homosexuality.
God: If two consenting adult males want to enter into a sexual relationship, why not? So far you have not given me a single convincing reason why such activity demands my condemnation. Homosexual sex does no harm to others. Nor does it appear to do much obvious harm to the individuals involved. Why shouldn\u2019t people engage in it if that is what they want?

Homosexuality and \u201cfamily values\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis: You say that homosexuality does no harm to others. But perhaps it does. Perhaps it has a corrosive effect on society as a whole. For doesn\u2019t it eat away at the institution that lies at the heart of any civilized society: the family?
God: Why do you say that?
Jarvis: Well, for a start, if everyone was exclusively homosexual, then there would be no families, would there? The human race would die out!
God: Does that make homosexuality wrong? I think not. For, similarly, if every man became a Catholic Priest, that too would mean the end of the family. Yet there\u2019s nothing immoral about being a Catholic Priest, I hope?
Jarvis: No. But look, societies that fail to condemn homosexuality crumble. Once homosexuality is considered a morally acceptable alternative to heterosexuality, the result must be the breakdown of the family. And the family is the glue that binds society together, is it not?
God: You seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is like some sort of disease that will inevitably eat away at the vitals of society unless strongly dealt with.
Jarvis: Yes, I am.
God: But why must a society that tolerates homosexuality crumble? Actually, it seems to me that societies tolerant of homosexuality thrive just as much if not more than intolerant ones. And why do you believe homosexuality is a threat to the family? Why can\u2019t we have both strong families and tolerance? You really have made no case for any of these conclusions, have you? <\/p>\n

Jarvis grimaced.<\/p>\n

God: In fact, it seems to me that your attitude towards homosexuals is driven less by reason and more by emotion: by feelings of disgust and revulsion.
Jarvis: I do have strong feelings about them, yes. They do revolt me. And shouldn\u2019t society take into account the strong moral convictions of the great many who have such feelings?
God: But it\u2019s clear, isn\u2019t it, that morality isn\u2019t simply a matter of emotion? Just because most people feel that something is disgusting or abhorrent doesn\u2019t make it wrong. After all, plenty of people feel strongly about the moral inferiority of Jews. Plenty feel similarly about blacks. Plenty feel sickened by foreigners. Yet all these feelings are without justification. That kind of \u201cthem and us\u201d sentiment on which \u201cthey\u201d are held to be dirty, nasty and immoral comes very naturally to you humans. Perhaps you should be more vigilant, more on your guard against letting such feelings get a grip. As Ronald Dworkin points out, you certainly shouldn\u2019t mistake such feelings for moral conviction. Isn\u2019t that right, Ronald?<\/p>\n

Another shadowy figure started to take form next to Jarvis and began to speak.<\/p>\n

Dworkin: If I base my view about homosexuals on a personal emotional reaction (\u2018they make me sick\u2019) you would reject [it]. We distinguish moral positions from emotional reactions, not because moral positions are supposed to be unemotional or dispassionate \u2013 quite the reverse is true \u2013 but because the moral position is supposed to justify the emotional reaction, and not vice versa. If a man is unable to produce such reasons, we do not deny the fact of his emotional involvement, which may have important social or political consequences, but we do not take this involvement as demonstrating his moral conviction. Indeed, it is just this sort of position \u2013 a severe emotional reaction to a practice or a situation for which one cannot account \u2013 that we tend to describe, in lay terms, as phobias or an obsession. <\/p>\n

Jarvis looked uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

God: See? You\u2019re in the grip of a phobia or obsession.
Jarvis: Oh dear.
God: Having said all that, let\u2019s get on with the judging. <\/p>\n

God reached forward and pressed a small red button on his armrest. Immediately, the hall was bathed in an eerie red light and the air filled with the deafening \u201cParp! Parp! Parp!\u201d of a claxon. Jarvis noticed that over on the left of the hall a number of doors had sprung open and little horned creatures with long tails were pouring out. These devil-creatures immediately began to prod the assembled homosexuals back in the direction of the doorways with their spiked forks. Many of these unfortunate men were now holding each other and whimpering.<\/p>\n

God: That\u2019s right. You all burn.
Jarvis: In hell?
God: I\u2019m afraid so. They didn\u2019t follow instructions. Couldn\u2019t be clearer. You pointed out one of the relevant passages yourself. Homosexuality is an abomination. I razed Sodom to ground, didn\u2019t I?
Jarvis: But a minute ago you said\u2026
God: I have been testing you. I have pretended to be a bleeding-heart liberal in order to establish your commitment to The Bible. I do tests. Don\u2019t you remember Isaac and Abraham \u2013 Genesis 23?
Jarvis: But what about forgiveness? Aren\u2019t you going to allow them into heaven?<\/p>\n

God pointed to the men being herded about by the devil-creatures<\/p>\n

God: Let them into heaven? How can I?
Jarvis: But I thought you said…
God: There you go, thinking again. It\u2019s all in the book: The book you hold in your hands. Take a look at Corinthians, 1, 6:9-11. It says very clearly that \u2018abusers of themselves with mankind\u2026shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but ye are washed\u2026ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus.\u2019 Now these men are not \u2018washed\u2019 are they? They don\u2019t repent. In fact, they flaunt their activities proudly before us. That one even has a \u2018Gay Pride\u2019 banner.<\/p>\n

There was indeed a worried looking man standing at the front with a slightly droopy cardboard placard.<\/p>\n

God: It\u2019s all very clear: they go to hell.
Jarvis: Really?
God: Rules are rules. So who\u2019s next? Ah yes, the lobster eaters. Come on down!<\/p>\n

At this Jarvis woke up, his bed soaked in sweat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s a chpt of my book The Philosophy Gym on homosexuality. Mr Jarvis, a Christian, was asleep in bed, dreaming of the Last Judgement. In his dream, Jarvis found himself seated next to God in a great cloud-swept hall. God had just finished handing down judgement on the drunkards, who were slowly shuffling out of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,67,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-god","category-homosexuality","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}