Mental Rumblings

So, I haven't been updating.  I've been busy, and focusing on other things, ergo my blog has been languishing.  Which is not to say that I haven't had deep thoughts that ought to go out into the world, just that I don' think that they can be put here.  They're not bad, but they're not for public consumption, I think. I have been thinking about journaling more, but again, that leaves my blog to gather dust and cobwebs. 

Maybe I need a focus?  Something more to write about than my opinions, because let's face it, if I can't bring myself to write about them then clearly they aren't that important to me.  But then again, my opinions make up my voice, my thoughts, my personality, more or less.  If I don't care about them anymore, what do I have?  *le sigh*

I suppose I could write my opinions on Gay Rights and the fight for Equality, constantly coming out (no pun intended) against the GOP and other bigoted homophobic public figures.  Call them out, and hold them accountable for what they say and expect them to back it up.  I could focus on religious issues, but does anybody really care?  I mean outside of the liturgical and theological community who really cares, unless it pertains to an issue currently in the public eye.  Naturally I have to have an interest in two issues that are, for the moment, polar opposites.  Despite years of work on both sides, it seems that reconciliation isn't going to happen.  Perhaps the turmoil I feel spiritually comes from this?  I'm not sure.  I'm rereading the Dragonlance Chronicles (Autumn Twilight, Winter Night, Spring Dawning).  Usually I feel a connection with Raistlin.  He's an outcast, slave to his passion which leads to his downfall, and is physically weaker than most other people but has his own brand of strength.  Lately, however, I've been feeling a connection with Tanis Half-Elven.  A child of rape, he lives in two worlds, elf and human, and neither wants him.  He struggles for belonging and faith, which he can't wrap his brain around, at least until the end of the story.  I think he's sort of like me, or I'm like him.  I exist in the realm of the theological and the homosexual, and currently neither side really understands my beliefs which causes me to have one foot in each movement.  Gay rights people want me to change religions, to something that's gay affirming.  But asking me to do that is like asking me to give up the bedrock of what I believe in.  But asking me to ignore/abandon/change my sexual orientation and not embrace it as a part of who I am is tantamount to the same thing. 

No wonder I have such inner turmoil. 

I did not intend this blog to end up this deep, but when you get started sometimes things just come pouring out, and if that's the case then I just broke the dam.  Hope you, dear reader, didn't get washed away, and are still with me.  And technically, at least in central time, I'm still on time for a Wednesday entry. 

Happy Wednesday!

A break in the heat which also means a break in blogging inspiration

So, I slept for 11.25 hours last night, woke up at around 12:45pm central time (I usually get up around 10am) and went "What the F***!".  Then I remembered it was wednesday and spent the morning checking Facebook and my webcomics and some news sites, trying to discover something to blog about. 

So I found a couple of things.  One of which is here.  In regards to a comment said at an HIV/AIDS fundraiser.  And I agree, there needs to be more information about the fact that HIV/AIDS is not just an old persons disease.  It can happen to anyone at anytime.  From elderly people to infants, because it is borne on the blood.  Any contact with infected blood, from a car accident victim for example, potentially carries a risk of infection.   It's not just from gay sex, or hetero sex, that you can be infected.  If the idea that HIV/AIDS is a sad, old person disease is a prevalent one, we are doing our future and our young people a disservice by allowing it.  More information is always a good thing, whether you want to hear it or not.  At least if you know you can make an informed decision. 

Also there is a comment beneath the story that makes a point as well.  The A in AIDS which means Acquired.  To a lot of people that means that you have to do something, you have to go out of your way to end up infected with HIV.  As mentioned above, that is not true.  The infection of an individual can be a complete accident or a result of a mix of factors.  Only one way to get infected is via intercourse (homo or hetero).  As mentioned above, because HIV is a blood borne infection, any contact with infected blood carries a risk, no matter how small, and that is something to keep in mind.

Salt Lake City apparently is banding together to combat hatred and intolerance, in this story.  I think it's wonderful that a community, both hetero and homo, are banding together to show solidarity against this sort of tragedy.  I do think, however, that it's sad that it took the beating of this poor young man for this sort of coming together to occur.  It's very disheartening that in our everyday lives that the LGBT+ community can't find this kind of cohesiveness.  I realize that human beings tend to gather together in the face of tragedy, suffering, and persecution, but what most young people don't understand (or care about) is that everyday we are viewed as second class citizens by anyone of our countrymen or peers, we are being persecuted, we are suffering, and it is a continuing tragedy that some can't let go of their hate. 

So, we'll go on.  And hopefully, to quote Dan Savage and company, it will get better.

There's a Liberal in the Deep South, Parents who do it right, and Homohelp!

So it's been awhile since I've had anything to post (which is not to say that there has been nothing going on in the world) and since I have had any time to actually do a little research and get a coherent post out of my brain and into the internet.  But fear not, as I have finally completed all of those things, while doing dishes, laundry, and earning a paycheck.  I want a cookie.

Where to start?  I think I'd like to begin with something that's been on my mind for awhile.  A while ago, a friend of mine (We'll call him Sunshine, you can find his blog to the left titled "my life on the z-list") posted a graphic with a link to a site called Homohelp.  It's a fun little site with snarky, helpful, and sometimes uplifting messages to help members of the LGBT(and more) community to get through life with a little bit of a laugh.  I'll admit that they have made me laugh from time to time.  But there was one that I read, and I haven't really been able to get it out of my head.  See it below, and then further on for why it's in my head.

So there it is.  I read that and it was as if it started something in my head.  So I've been thinking about this phrase off and on since I saw it posed in May.  I realize just as much as anyone that there is a point when having interaction with the LGBT+ community (the plus is to denote all the other letters in the acronym) that everything is about them and their orientation.  And yeah, it gets a little tiring from time to time.  But just as I thought that, I reminded myself that in the struggle for equality, isn't that exactly what we're fighting for?  The right to not be thought of as different or less because of who we are attracted to/love.  So maybe pride isn't necessarily just about celebrating gayness, maybe its about finally being able to express yourself in whatever way you want, no matter what, and live a life that makes you happy.  If that means embracing the gayness of oneself or someone else, or having the strength of character to come out and join the ranks of those fighting for equality, then yes, pride is more than parades and glitter.  Our pride is found in the riots of Stonewall and on the fence with Matthew Shepard.  Our pride is dirty, broken, bleeding, and beaten.  But we still have the strength to fight and celebrate, and *that* is something to have Pride about.

Wow.  That's a little deep, even for me.  Well continuing right along let's talk about parents.  Some parents have a rough time of it and some parents don't.  Other parents are doing it right, at least as far as I'm concerned.  Sunshine (see above) linked a story to his blog which you can find here.  The original story can be found here.  And I have posted it below, with no malicious intent or infringement intent either, because apparently Tumblr and Blogger don't like each other.

“Mommy, they are just like me.” 

My oldest son is six years old and in love for the first time.  He is in love with Blaine from Glee. 

For those who don’t know Blaine is a boy…a gay boy, the boyfriend of one of the main characters, Kurt.

This isn’t a ‘he thinks Blaine is really cool’ kind of love.  It is a mooning at a picture of Blaine’s face for a half hour followed by a wistful “He’s so pretty” kind of love.

He loves the episode where two boys kiss.  My son will call people in from other parts of the house to make sure they don’t miss his ‘favorite part.’  He’s been known to rewind it and watch it over again…and force other to, as well, if he doesn’t think people have been paying enough attention.

This infatuation doesn’t bother me or his father.  We live in a very hip-liberal neighborhood, many of our friends are gay, and idea of having a gay son isn’t something that bothers either of us.  Our son is going to be who he is, and it is our job to love him.  End of story.

He is also six.  Six year olds get obsessed with all kinds of things.  This might not mean anything at all.  We always joke that he’s either gay, or we have the best blackmail material in the history of mankind when he’s a 16 year old straight boy. (Take that naked bath time pictures!)

Then the other day we were traveling across the state listening to the Warblers album (of course), and in the middle of Candles, my son pipes up from the back seat.

“Mommy, Kurt and Blaine are boyfriends.”

“Yes, they are,” I affirm.

“They don’t like kissing girls.  They just kiss boys.”

“That’s true.”

“Mommy, they are just like me.”

“That’s great, baby.  You know I love you no matter what?”

“I know…” I could hear him rolling his eyes at me.

When we got home I recapped this conversation to his Dad, and we stood simply looking into each other’s eyes for a moment.  Then we smiled.

“So if at 16 he wants to make a big announcement at the dinner table, we can say ‘You told us when you were six.  Pass the carrots’ and he’ll be disappointed we stole his big dramatic moment,” my husband says with a laugh and hugs me.

Only time will tell if my son is gay, but if he is I am glad he’s mine.  I am glad he has been born into our family.  A family full of people who will love and accept him.  People who will never want him to change.  With parents who will look forward to dancing at his wedding.

And I have to admit, Blaine would be a really cute son-in-law.

So there it is.  I have to say that if all parents were as in touch with whatever true spirit of raising children there might be, these two have finally got it.  They realize that children are weird and that's ok.  And if he grows out of it, so what?  If not, so what?  And they're even mature enough to have a little humor about it with the "big announcement" comment and the blackmail material.  If all parents were to retain such a calm and sense of humor in the face of dealing with a weird infatuation of a 6 year old, maybe the world would be in a little better shape.  I'd be interested to see where this kid is in 10 years.

And now, for the Pièce de résistance, I finally found a liberal in the deep south.  I'll admit I was a little elated so realize that they exist down there and I hope he keeps doing what he's doing with his blog.  I was a little disappointed to see that he got his start with blogging as a reaction to some crazy homophobic preacher in the south.  I wish to extend my sympathy and empathy regarding all of that, and state for the record that not all of those who call themselves Christian are insane and psychologically manipulative through the use of religion.  Which I have to say that after watching a few YouTube videos of this pastor's preaching, I have to say it's a little cult-ish.  In that it uses similar ways cults would to break people down and reprogram them.  You can find one of the videos at Ashton Elijah's blog, (the video is at the bottom of the blog post) and another one on YouTube from the David Pakman show.  So, Ashton, keep up the good work, and know that you're not completely alone.  


So on that note I leave you, until next week because I have more laundry, dishes, and shopping to do, and it's not going to get done by itself.  Happy Wednesday!

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.]

True Blood, "Gay Issues", and Good Christian People

Alright so this week’s blog is late because I’m busy trying to tie up loose ends before I head to NYC on Saturday with the BF. We’ll be there for 9 (count ‘em NINE) days, so next week’s blog will come to you all the way from the Big Apple. Since I’ve never been east of Indiana (unless you count those trips to FL, but since we didn’t leave the state…) it promises to be one of those life changing experiences. So we’ll see.

I’ve been looking around for some interesting news stories and things to comment about and I found a lot if disparate issues in very small news stories. I also would like to write a small review on the beginning of Season 1 of True Blood.

I managed to procure a legitimate copy of the first season of this new vampire series which is being produced/aired or whatever on HBO. I figured since I wasn’t going to be getting into Twilight anytime soon I should at least get some sort of vampy thing to slake my thirst. (I have a feeling bad puns are going to be floating around this post a lot). I’m unsure if you’d want to read the review, because there are going to be some spoilers, so you’ve been forewarned.

Granted I’ve only had the time to see the first 3 episodes, and I already thing that the whole show has a really good feel to it. I especially like the fact that the vampires have severe weaknesses, which could actually kill them. Most notably, they never go out in the sun. Another thing which I think is very interesting is that in the beginning they show one of those signs that are in front of churches where you can customize the letters, and the sign reads “God Hates Fangs”. One of the more overarching issues of the show is the issue of vampire equality, now that vampires have “come out of the coffin” and wanted to become a part of society. This mirrors in a huge way the struggles facing the gay community at this point in history. Even more poignantly the fact that a sign that reads “God Hates Fangs” is only one letter away from letting people know that God also hates cigarettes from the UK. But overall, after 3 episodes, I like it. I think its going to be a decent show, especially with all the vampire hype. The only thing that I wish was explained more was how that damn waitress got to be telepathic in the first place… I also am tickled to say that I love the whole feel of the show, from the attitude of some of the characters to the fact that there’s even a black gay character. One con, I suppose would have to be the preoccupation with sex, as that seems to be the favorite pastime in the little imaginary town of Bon Temps, LA. You can’t go 5 minutes in the show without seeing someone banging someone else. Kinda irritating, but the boys are good to look at so I suppose that makes it okay…sort of.

In the same vein (there’s those puns again) as talking about True Blood, I discovered this story about the author of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which are what the television series True Blood is based on. I like the fact that she seems like she’s just a (forgive the expression) “down home” southern lady, who’s just a writer of fictions. But I also think that if those books are as good as they seem to be (I have yet to have the pleasure of reading them, but HBO made a series out of them!) then she’s a literary genius. Okay, well maybe not a literary genius, but at least she has some good sense to write about something of which there is already a huge hype about.

Moving away from True Blood, (which I’ll say again, is amazing. Makes me want to get HBO since they also did Six Feet Under, which I didn’t find out about until after it was over, so that I can watch these shows. Which annoyed me) there are a few interesting, and very small stories that I’d would like to comment on.

I’m wondering if the bigger issue with this article should be more about the rights of business owners to turn away customers or about sexuality. On the one hand, I can see how this is just a huge ploy for some major gay publicity, but at the same time I can see where the one owner, Zaharakis, is coming from. Speaking as a gay man who goes out clubbing (probably more that I would like to admit) I don’t want to go out and see a bunch of women partying it up. I go out because I like to people watch and I like the eye candy, and a bunch of women who are celebrating heteronuptuals and feel like they can get totally plastered because there’s no chance that they’re going to be taken advantage of in a gay bar, are not my idea of a good time. But, and I’m glad the article mentions the other side of the issue, in that some business owners may want to tap that market such as Binninger, who then started offering a whole night for women who want to do that. I suppose that’s the wonders of the Capitalist society of the US. Notice this is also happening in Chicago, pretty close to where I live.

Even closer is this story, which I cannot believe. Not only am I infuriated about this issue because it’s an issue that is essentially a “gay” issue, and in my home state no less. It’s also against everything I believe as a bibliophile because it’s a total throwback to the middle ages. I would like to think that we as a society and a culture, and an intelligent race have moved beyond the need to destroy literature simply because we don’t like what it says. Not only that, but it’s also a censorship issue, which I’m also against, because books are written to be read. If you don’t like the subject matter, don’t read the book. Problem solved. If you read the article take note of this passage (Please note that this is a direct quotation from the source, and not in any way altered by me, nor does it reflect my views or ideas):

“The CCLU claim describes Baby Be-Bop as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and
anti-Christian,” and charges that the four plaintiffs, “all of whom are elderly,
claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the
library” because the book contains the word "nigger" and derogatory sexual and
political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible
jeopardy, adults and children alike.”

So a few questions that I have about this are what are elderly people doing in the young adult section of the library anyway? And provided they were there with grandchildren, why are they calling attention to this instead of just ignoring it? I’ve been in libraries before, if you ignore something (a book) it’ll get lost and ignored in the depths of the stacks. Not only that, but they claim that “their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book…” What did they do, read it? Again, if you don’t like the subject matter, why read the book? They also claim that it’s anti-Christian. Having never read the book, I can’t say that for sure. But I can infer from the language used that they are attacking it on those grounds due to the added clout/publicity that it gives the suit and also because the book deals with homosexuality. In regards to the N-word that the book uses, I have yet to see a group of elderly people want to change the language in Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, which I have read, and also contain that word in a derogatory term. As far as people’s lives being in jeopardy, I can only say that the only way people’s lives will be in jeopardy is if we allow this sort of censorship to occur and keep knowledge away from the masses. It is ignorance that causes violence, not knowledge, at least in the wider sense.

An addendum to this, which is more of a story than anything else: I remember when I was younger, my mother was very into watching the television show The Waltons and there was one episode that really stuck out in my mind. It was an episode that was set during WWII and the hype surrounding the Nazi’s and their regime. These good Christian folks living on the mountain got wrapped up in a hate filled mob and decided to go out and find all the German books they could and burn them. Well one of the Walton kids, who also discovered a woman living nearby that could read/speak German, was very upset about the book burning, and got this woman to read from a book and translate. What she was reading was the Bible, in German, which these Christian people were horrified to discover they were about to burn.

Another issue we have with good Christian people, and homosexuality is this story. I think this is a sham, and totally uncalled for. I agree with what James Cole says about this opening a can of worms that cannot easily be closed about how therepists and counselors deal with clients. Not only that, but it was my understanding that as someone who provides such services, you have a duty and are ethically bound to help the people who come to you. And if you can’t help them, due to whatever issue you are unable to help them, you’re ethically bound to refer them to someone who can help them. This crap about not having to even refer someone based on the fact that their sexual orientation or some other issue somehow causes problems due to the religious beliefs of the therapist is crap. I’ll have to keep an eye on this story to see what happens.

And finally, this story illustrates just how crazy school administrators and things can be. While there are children being bullied for even appearing/seeming to be gay by the perceptions of others, and committing suicide, school officials would rather keep a student from graduating for a little showboating at a graduation ceremony. I think this is a total waste of time and resources, and it effectively illustrates the skewed priorities of our educational administrators and those in charge of school policy. Stop worrying about little things like this and start worrying about the lives of the children in your care!

Next week: Blog from NYC!

It's been a busy week

Alright, so it’s not really Wednesday, but I had a really rough week with the unexpected death and subsequent funeral of a close family member. That'll put a crimp in anyone’s week and plans for blogging. But, all is not lost as I have managed to accumulate a whole slew of interesting tidbits that I found as I've been poking around.

So in reference to my disdain for Adam Lambert who we all knew was gay, but managed to keep his fame alive by not actually saying the words "Dude, I'm gay" or some other trashy Lambert-esqe equivalent, I came across this which I was going to use to make my point. Unfortunately as keeping news around doesn't seem to be a big deal for interweb archiving, it's gone. But you can see my point by the "keep guessing" part of the headline. (Another post will be devoted to the idiocy of keeping historical records on something as fleeting as computers, and the utter stupidity of the Kindle thingy).

Now for a repeat issue, (even though I feel like I'm beating a dead horse) this really irritates me. Not the whole anti-bullying legislation (which has been a LONG time in coming) but the reaction to this from the Christian groups and the Catholic Church that is mentioned. I find it reprehensible that the bishop in question would compare a legislation that would protect children from being bullied by their peers and offer sanctions to those who would continue to bully others using homophobic language with the gay marriage debate. That's like comparing apples and pineapples. There's absolutely no correlation. And to say that this legislation is a prelude to allowing gay marriage, is just plain ridiculous.

Not only that, if you read the article the one faith based group is afraid that "...if the bill passed it would lead to the expansion of the state’s hate crime law and anti-discrimination laws to cover gays." I'm sorry, is that such a bad thing? Perhaps in your eyes, at this point in time, it may be so. However, I cannot believe that if one of your children was beaten to death for being perceived to be gay, you'd be in the front lines of trying to get a hate crime legislation passed in your state, if only so you could see justice done for your child. Even if that's not the case, hate crimes are very real, and I for one believe that they are under-punished (or whatever the term is).

Another interesting story caught my eye, and I just couldn't resist making a really interesting comparison. We have fought over keeping religion out of public schools and other institutions that have ties to the state for, well, for most of my lifetime of (nearly) 24 years. And from what I can see we've been incredibly successful. This is fine, if you’re going to go all the way and completely separate church and state. But isn't it interesting that we don't want religion in public schools, but religion and religious institutions have a great deal of influence when it comes to marriage which grants all sorts of civil benefits and rights?

Along that same line this article by Time Magazine illustrates just what I've been saying ever since I started paying attention to the gay marriage debate. If you don't believe me, just find a previous post about gay marriage on this blog, I'm fairly certain that it's around here somewhere. But it’s about time that someone with a touch more clout than I have finally decided to take the idea and run with it. Good for you!

I'm pleased to see that someone else also dislikes the bad boy/pretty boy combination vampires (that break all vampire rules) that Twilight has introduced to mainstream society. Although I'm intrigued by his new book about vampires and the interesting take that he's bringing to them, I have to say, as I've said before, I'm a vampire purist and that's what I look for in a vampire tale. Ok, enough with the vampire proselytizing.

I discovered something interesting about blogger.com, which is that you can post your blogs by email. This is a nice idea should it actually work. So needless to say I tried it and if failed. No worries, there will always be more time to blog. Also, if anyone out there who reads this darn thing knows anything about formatting block quotes in blogger, let me know, because your skills are in demand. At least from me.

Regular Wednesday updates will resume next week, provided that nobody else in my life keels over and/or the world doesn't end