Delayed Post

Sorry I didn't get around to posting yesterday.  I was busy re-packing some boxes from when I moved a year ago from "crap thrown in a box" to "packed and stackable" so it makes moving easier.  I learned after 4 years of college and many moves post college that as long as your boxes are all the same size and shape (approximately) it makes moving easier.

And then I had a friend that needed some company, so there was the potential for a radio show there called...well I can't tell you what it was called because it involves names...blah.

So, since I'm not doing anything horribly strenuous on Saturday, blog will happen on Saturday.

Can't believe

I can't believe that I forgot to write about this.  Maybe it was a brain lapse, or I'm just that totally out of it by working second shift.  Or maybe I hadn't had enough coffee.

A friend of mine posted this link to the Give A Damn organization on my Facebook page.  The story also references an article from the Advocate which you can find here.

I'm not quite sure how to feel about this.  I mean I'm happy that steps are being taken to reduce religious bigotry, but I find myself in a precarious place theologically.  Let me make an attempt to explain.

I recently read the book Homosexuality and Ethics (linked to in a previous post), which focused more on Christian Ethics/Moral Theology.  And while I personally ascribe to (and need to do more research on) the views of religion and homosexuality as presented by Helmut Thielike which is that, if I remember correctly (and I may be paraphrasing poorly), homosexual "acts" are intrinsically evil (i.e. sinful) but the state of being homosexual is no more or less unforgivable than being human (i.e. inheritors of Original Sin).

Every time I present this viewpoint to any Lutheran theologian that I speak with, they always bring up the same arguement, and that is true repentance breeds change.  That is to say that if one is truly repentant of whatever sin they are repenting of, then the will endeavor to change their behavior so as to not perform the same sin again.

My problem with this argument is that if it is all about actions, couldn't this be a case of "take the plank out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brother's".  The reason I say this is because how many "Christians" go to church and repent of damnable sins (which they all are) and leave Church, they continue to indulge in the same sins seemingly without regard for their "true repentance".

So my question is always, "What is the difference between the repentant homosexual who doesn't change his/her sexual practices and the fornicating christian who continues to fornicate after being absolved?"  Very rarely do I get a satisfactory answer to this question.

Also, for those who can put 2 and 2 together, this is the basic premise of "The Project".  Albeit that the final version will be longer and have a great deal more references.

I guess I'm just in a state of uncertainty.  But change always does that.  Whether this is for good or for ill, I can't say at this point.  I just hope that it doesn't spell more trouble for the Lutheran Church as a whole.  I can't say that I'm not happy about the change, but I can't say that I'm totally elated either.  I'm just going to take a step back and wait to see what comes from it.

A conglomeration of Issues

Wow, there's a lot going on in the world.  Most notably there was a meteorite over the Midwest of the US.  And a volcano grounding most air travel into/out of Europe.  I guess it just goes to show us that no matter how advanced we get technologically, we can always get smacked down by our own planet.  And the things it hurls at us from the sky.

But let's take a look closer to home, and less about what the planet is doing to us and more about what we are doing to each other.  Because while the planet is capable of widespread destruction and death, the worst the planet can do is kill you.  Human beings are capable of so much more.

As evidenced by this story which gave me a bad feeling in my mouth.  I just can't believe that two lucid adults (who just happen to be older folks) who also have all of their legal "I's" dotted and "T's" crossed can have all of it stripped away because some uppity workers of the county decide that they're not worthy of the basic respect and dignity all human beings should have.

In reference to this article I have thought about writing a letter to the president imploring him to use whatever measures he has at his disposal to help ease the suffering of the survivor.  Since he just enacted legislation that would force hospitals to allow visitation rights to same sex couples, I think this is a timely issue to show a little strength and prove that there will be consequences for overstepping your bounds.  Not to mention asking what's the point of having all the legalities in place for things like this if they can just be ignored anyway?

As a matter of interest I am mentioning this article about sex-slavery in Afghanistan.  I'm not judging on anything except the sexual exploitation of minors, which is despicable any way you look at it.   I'm at least going to watch the thing online when it comes out.

Echoing the sentiments of the first story I mentioned, this article shows that you don't even have to be gay to be fired.  You can only be fired for seeming gay in a workplace filled with heterosexual innuendo.  So now you don't even have to actually be gay, all you have to do is have others perceive you as gay, and whammo you'll be fired.  Let's just conveniently forget that the perception of homosexuality is purely subjective.

I guess I'm not surprised that this could happen in the South.  But I guess that's the way things go in down there.  But at least when confronted they relent.  I have a feeling however that once all the hubbub is finished, retaliation will be huge, you know like in school when the teachers aren't looking...

In a groundbreaking study Harvard has determined that Sexual Minorities are at a greater risk for violence.  Duh!  What's more interesting is that the above story appeared right next to this story about two drunk girls kicking a man to death in the UK.  I kinda hope they'll throw the book at them.

I ran across this story a day or two ago and didn't really know what to think.  On the one hand they allow those who do not conform to their beliefs to join, just not make decisions about the directions of the group.  So on the one hand they're allowing for discourse regarding different viewpoints by allowing those who hold them to attend the meetings.  However, since they're using school resources and space for these meetings they should be held accountable to the schools policies regarding groups.  Just like all other groups.  I feel that this is a blatant attempt to hide bigotry behind the freedom of religion argument.  Bad form.

As a testament to the fact that our government is totally off the deep end, this story proves that they're now thinking that they're going to be fighting in the streets of the States at some point in the near future.  They're worried that kids are too fat to fight, and somehow this is us letting the terrorists win?  I'm sorry, I thought joining the army (outside of being drafted) was voluntary.  Not to mention the rigorous basic training program that they have, which is guaranteed to shed poundage.  (Seriously have you ever seen a fat army guy who's currently serving?)

Well that is certainly a lot this week.  Not a lot of huge revelations, but enough food for thought I think.

Oh, before I forget I finished reading the book by John Boswell and have moved onto The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer which is something that I started reading a long time ago, but never had a copy of until I found on in the local AMAZING used bookstore hear in Milwaukee.  I found the Boswell book to be very informative.  I'm not sure how most religious people will take to the understanding that in the middle ages the Church was a refuge for gays and lesbians and a vast amount of homosexual love poetry was written by monks and nuns.  And that it wasn't until the late 13th/early 14th century that discrimination and criminality was associated with homosexuality for any lasting period of time.  *sigh* Oh well.

More next week, hopefully!

End of the World as we Know it...

So I'm beginning to think that the end of the world really is nigh.  I mean just look at some of the things that I'll be mentioning today and we'll see what conclusions you draw.

First of all, with the number of earthquakes that we've had recently across the globe, doesn't it seem a little odd to anyone?  Personally I'm waiting for California to break off the continental US.  That alone will convince me that something is really most sincerely wrong with the world.  Anyway, on to the main events...

I was actually appalled when I read this article.  I can't believe that in some parts of the world even the dead cannot rest peacefully.  It sickens me that there are those in this world so filled with hate that they would actually dig up the corpse of a fellow human being in order to express that hate to their community (and because of the effects of mass communication) the world.  I just think that there are better ways to make a point, and the dead should remain peacefully buried/cremated/liquefied/mummified/at rest.

Speaking of hate, and taking a look at the plank in our own eye before we go spouting off about the speck in our brothers', I came across this article and, I'll be honest, my first thought was "this is news to people?"  I kinda figured after President Obama was elected that there would be a surge in such activities.  I actually thought it was going to be worse than it was, thankfully it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.  But then with the Healthcare ruling, and the reactions surrounding that, (I attempted to find the actual articles from more journalistic sources, but failed, so here are a couple links which both say the same thing that the article I had hoped to find would have said) Article A, Article B.  The fact that a ruling on healthcare in this country, where a woman can die in the waiting room hospital and nobody pays attention, which starts the revamp of things, (I get that the story is a couple of years old, but nonetheless still shocking for our post-industrialized nation, don't you think?) can cause such an extreme reaction is just more evidence that it's easier to hate than it is to compromise or love your fellow humans.

Then there's this, which while I think is a good thing considering all the risks around sex, I found it very interesting that a gay icon would say that.  Now I only make that statement with the knowledge that the gay community is known for (stereotypically and literally) being rather free with (and militant about) our sexual rights. So for a gay icon like the Lady to support abstinence/chastity over sex is a huge boon to our community.  Although, I'm personally surprised that more people haven't vilified her for that statement.  But I guess that's the power of celebrity. 

I came across this story while I was looking today and was rather intrigued.  Mostly because (I'm sure there are more, I just haven't heard of them) I was wondering how many Christian music artists/other Christian celebs are going to have to come out in order for the christian community to realize that Gay's aren't going away, and they probably know more of us than they think.  The first time I thought this was when I found out that Katy Perry (I kissed a Girl and all that) was formerly a Christian music artist.  Huh, well who knew...?

And then, probably as the biggest harbinger of the end of the world, Bill O'Reilly in a moment of either extreme passion or clarity offered to pay the court costs that the ruling foisted off on the father of the marine who's funeral was protested by "that organization" (I refuse to mention the name of "that organization" in my blog for similar reasons that I will not link to Ex-gay ministries).  While I'm not a big fan of Bill, and usually think he's an inflammatory rhetorical boob, I have to say that he has gained a smidgen of grudging respect from me for this move.  While I'll admit that it was more than likely either a move to gain popularity or involve himself in the politio-judicial whirlwind surrounding that story, either way it was still a nice thing to do.  Let's hope he has the cajones to follow through.

Well there you have it.

Clash of Technology with some LGBT thrown in for good measure

So another Wednesday, another blog. Today it's all about the review of the movie I've seen, the book I just finished reading, and a few other things.

Firstly. I went to see Clash of the Titans. Before I give my rating of the movie, I'll go over a few things about it. Warning, this may or may not continue spoilers. Foremost, Perseus was not accompanied on his journey by the clockwork owl. Bad move. Also, the storyline was incredibly choppy compared to the original. (I only say these things based on the fact that I grew up watching the original 1981 Clash of the Titans). Now I've not viewed the original in a long while, but I remember enough of it (I think) to make some comparisons.

The biggest difference is that in the 1981 version, the story was structured similarly to the tales of greek mythology wherein a hero fights against the decree's of the gods because that's what heroes do. In 2010, the whole reason for the movie was that humans had (more or less) declared war on the gods.

In the 1981 version, Calibos was his own character and was cursed by Zeus into a bestial form. In 2010, he was dual-character-ed as the human stepfather of Perseus and his bestial appearance was more his disfigurement from being struck by a Zeus-thrown lightning bolt.

Also, the scene involving the giant scorpions (while incredibly well done, if not a bit long) broke away from the original in that the scorpions came from Calibos' blood as opposed to the blood of Medusa's head.

In 2010 there was a new character/race called the Djinn (according to Wikipedia they are: "gentle and benevolent Sand-Demons with magical powers"). As far as I know there was no such race in the 1981 version. (Ergo, they were added simply to show more special effects.)

Thetis was actually Calibos' mother in the 1981 version, as opposed to some immortal being who want's to help Perseus. Hades was the main protagonist in 2010 as opposed to a jealous Thetis. Calibos was supposed to be married to Andromeda in 1981 and there is no mention of this in 2010 because Calibos is actually the wife of Perseus' mother (as mentioned above).

I could go on and on, but I won't because I don't have that kind of time. Suffice it to say that I was unimpressed with the movie. Now, I will say that normally I don't make such an issue out of some of the issues above, because I understand that sometimes things have to be cut/changed for the sake of prognosticated cinematic success. My reasons for this are is that the 2010 version is billed as a remake of the original 1981 film. It can't be called a remake if the entire storyline is changed. That makes it a whole different movie.

So, I give the Clash of the Titans 2010 a 3 out of 10.

Moving on, I finished Homosexuality and Ethics and I was really let down. I had hoped that it would be a more understandable book for the average person. It turned out that it was more of an academic text riddled with very obscure academic terms and meant more as a reference than anything. So not overall happy with it, but still grateful that I have it as I think it will benefit "the project" in the long run. I was impressed by the varied viewpoints in the book, as I think it makes a good attempt to present those views as dispassionately as possible. I was a little miffed at the constant comparison or supposed connection between homosexuality and pedophilia (which is nothing more than a stereotype). But since the copyright date of the book was 1980 (if I recall correctly) it makes sense. We've made great strides since then, unfortunately not enough.

Next book to read is (I think, unless I decide that something else would be better) this (I didn't want to type the whole title).

So I've also been reading some articles posted on the walls of some of my Facebook friends. This article was interesting, even if it was an opinion piece. I was impressed by the presentation of the idea that homosexuals are just as normal as everyone else. I was also impressed by the information held in the article. As opinion pieces goes I think it states it's point with very little bias, which is good. I also think I agree with one point in the article that once homosexuality comes into the picture, people stop looking at you as a person, and start looking at you only in regards to your sexual orientation, which isn't fair or right, but it is the truth.

I also saw this article from GLAAD (also interestingly enough on the same profile as the story above) and figured it was worth mentioning. I've recently been meeting with an old professor of mine, and while we disagree on Homosexuality (and we agree that we disagree) it doesn't stop him from speaking his mind. I've mentioned that conversion therapy and such is dangerous to people. This comment launched us into a conversation regarding the political pull of the gay rights movement in counseling and mental health. Now, I have to say that I would never subject myself to anything resembling Ex-gay therapy. I've also read some things by Wayne Besen who is a militant opponent of any sort of Ex-gay therapy/Ex-gay ministries. You can find his information regarding these things here. I refuse to put links to any site that would take a reader to anything like an Ex-gay ministry or anything like that, but if you were really interested I would encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Ok, so there's not extra things thrown in for good measure, but that's a lot of writing and opinions. Hopefully I'll have just as much by next week.

[EDIT: It seems like I'm always forgetting something, in this case it was the technology part. Apparently my blackberry broke up with my school email. Since my school email is essentially my business email address this was bad for me. Since my FB account also went through that email, it was kinda important to get email from that account, so I could also get FB notifications on my phone. (all of which is important since I lack a computer.) So, I had to set up an additional GMail account and change my FB contact email. Then I had to make sure that my school email would forward all messages to the new email address. And then I had to set up the new email address on my Blackberry. Basically I had to get some sort of couples therapist for my school email and my Blackberry so that they'll continue to talk. *sigh* Technology is so complicated.]

Settling In

Well, I'm settling into the routine of new job schedule and everything, which is going well I'm happy to report.

I finished reading And the Band Played On earlier this week, and I have to say that I'm rather shocked and incredulous about the whole thing. I don't even want to get into it because it would take way too long and would make me sound like some sort of nutcase.

In the requisite gay news, Ricky Martin finally announced that he was gay. *yawn* Tell us something we haven't known since the late 90s.

I didn't get a chance to write the blog yesterday as I was busy and seem to have twisted my knee. Mental note: refrain from doing that again.

I started reading Homosexuality and Ethics and I have to say that it's a pretty interesting read. It starts out by presenting four different views regarding Homosexuality in the context of Moral Theology a.k.a. Christian Morality, with a few sub views thrown in for good measure.

The copyright date of this book is 1980 which is interesting because I finished reading the section that goes over the viewpoint that homosexual acts (and therefore homosexuality) is intrinsically wrong/evil/sinful and I thought it was interesting that even though these authors present a religiously conservative viewpoint regarding homosexual-ness they also make sure to mention that they are solidly against any civil discrimination regarding homosexuals (in the realm of employment and housing discrimination). They do make a special mention regarding marriage and it is the conservative christian viewpoint regarding gay marriage minus the vitreous bile spewed by the christian right today.

Also, between reading this book about ethics and the previous one about the AIDS epidemic, it made me realize that sometime in the 80s, during the Reagan administration, fundamentalist Christians began to throw their weight around in the political arena. People like Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson began to infuse their religion with politics (or vice versa) and make a play for power. It was this abominable blend of politics/religion that caused political policy to be influenced by religious morals rather than political needs and justice.

I was thinking about this the other day and when we ask people to sit on a jury, we make sure to require them to put any bias' they may have, regardless of what they are about or where they come from, in order to have them reach a (relatively) impartial ruling. Why can't we require this of our politicians/representatives/justices?

[EDIT: I forgot to apologize. I was going to write a/this blog yesterday, but got busy and really needed to get some sleep. So I went to bed early. Sorry for the schedule change. I will do my best to achieve consistent Wednesday updates. It's just that with only one day off in the middle of the week, I've got a lot to do and only one business day to do it all in.]