Yesterday opponents of gay marriage celebrated a decisive vote in the New York State Senate, where a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated 38 to 24.
DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Prop 8, etc., etc. are all still alive and kicking. Gays in the USA face a bleak, uphill struggle for basic civil rights and as unpalatable as it is for me to admit this to my largely straight, female audience we only have ourselves to blame.
My friend Peter Tatchell the UK gay rights activist wrote to me recently when I asked him what gays in the USA should be doing – or what they were doing wrong said,
“It sounds most depressing in the US. But they have to sort it out. The only really serious LGBT direct action group in the US is the radical gay Christian movement, Soulforce (part of the LGBT Metropolitan Community Church). They focus on challenging homophobic churches. If they could apply their direct action tactics to the wider LGBT civil rights struggle, they could be very effective.”
After Maine, many gay rights activists speculated that lawmakers around the country would be wary of supporting same-sex marriage legislation. While a CBS/New York Times poll show that support for gay marriage is growing, Maine served as a reminder that most Americans still oppose the idea. According to a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 53 percent say they don’t think it should be legal.
We are left these options: education through the marketing of GAY (I would rather spend millions on marketing than lawyers), coalition (as in Harvey Milk’s preferred method) or (my personal favorite): DIRECT ACTION. This means that where ever we face inequality, homophobia, hate crimes or murder we act decisively in huge numbers and demonstrate at the location of any of the above-much like we did at the Mormon temple in Los Angeles after the Prop 8 ratification.
People are getting angry, look at Justin Bond’s (popular award winning radical performance artist) recent twitter response to the New York state No vote. I think he perfectly articulates what a growing number of us feel.
“From now on “friends” can’t let “friends” hang on to the delusion that they are compassionate if they idly watch their henchmen run the show.”
“As if by saying they care it makes it true. FUCK THAT! Stand up to the bullies in your churches, on your streets, in your government.”
As usual it’s the men who face descrimination everyday simply by putting on high heels and make up who are VISIBLE enough to take a stand. The trannys who fought at Stonewall were the bravest because they had nothing to lose. It’s funny because the preferred ‘drag’ of contemporary gay men is the greek muscle warrior-however most of them are too apathetic to fight. Ironic?
There are a huge number of silent gay men who simply sit around and passively wait for change. They do NOTHING to make change happen apart from making endless excuses and apologies for their apathy. I had a long email chat with the erudite, gay Mickey Rapkin senior editor at GQ magazine who expects change though quiet lobbying.
I wrote: Things ain’t changing whilst people are being dignified. Does direct action scare you? Does risking your life for what you believe in appeal to you? Are you ready to smash windows? Ask any European and they sneer at the US gays for being meek, for not fighting. What happened at Stonewall changed things. What needs to happen is not going to be comfortable.
He was dead against any kind of direct action. Upon further enquiry his ideas about marriage differed wildly from mine. He said, “No one is forcing you to get married. Marriage is about economics, not religion. It’s about tax breaks. That’s something Republicans should certainly understand.”
Let me make it very clear what I think about marriage. If marriage is our aim then marriage is a commitment between two people vowed before God. Vows that include monogamy, honesty and love.
Many gay men that I speak to think that marriage is merely a contract and not a bargain made with each other before God. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. If marriage is simply, as Mickey says, a contract then a civil union will do just as well.
Are we gay men ready to look at our sexual conduct? Our morals? Are we prepared to commit?
I don’t blame Mickey Rapkin for being frightened. In my opinion he is simply deluded. The government and the church rely on his muddled ideas and complacency.
There are others in the community who get momentarily excited about change but they too fall by the way side. When I interviewed Perez Hilton earlier this year he was excited about the march on Washington but what happened to his enthusiasm? Again, I read what he writes on twitter and there is little or no follow up. He has millions of Twitter followers that he can marshal to influence politics like he does record sales but he does nothing consistently.
All I know is that I watched in awe at Peter Tatchell marched all over the UK wherever there was injustice and took direct action. He made things very uncomfortable, not just for the government but all the complacent stay at home gays who would rather watch TV than engage with real choices.
Direct Action is the next logical step.
Even though I do think marriage is a legal contract first (because I’m not as religious as you), I also agree with you totally about direct action.
The man who brought me back to church (after a 20-year hiatus) is a gay, elderly Episcopal priest. He’s been out for over 40 years, and lives openly in a committed relationship. He also marched with Dr. King, and still attends anti-war protests and other social actions. His courage inspires me every day.
You really do have to walk the walk!
Please, and I don,t mean this to sound defiant or angry in any way, could you educate me about the place of homosexuality in the bible. By extension God’s view of homosexuality. I have always been given to understand that God in no small way does not approve of homosexuality. I do NOT claim any inside information about God’s opinion on any thing. I can scarcely claim to understand the tiniest fragment of the smallest shred of God’s existence. I wrestle with faith moment by moment. I chafe at the notion that God has a sex, which is to say that I choke on referring to God as a ‘He’ or ‘father’.
So but as I understand it the bible is pretty clear about the condemnation of homosexuality.
How then does it make sense that God would sanctify a homosexual marriage? … vows before God and all.
Truly a sincere question.
That said I watch your work on the rehab show with great interest. I find my self in the grips of this addiction also.
Dear Scott, the bible condemns many things but I tend to view it thus: a manual written during the last two thousand years that has much to teach us. However, as with most things we take what we need and dump the rest. I am sure you are as selective as me about what you choose to believe. Ideas about menstruation, shell fish etc are probably worth ignoring. As humanity has evolved some ideas that the bible posits are best left behind. One of those archaic ideas found in the bible are notions about same sex couplings. My god probably works for me differently than for you. I believe in a benevolent, inclusive God divorced from religiosity. And in as much as I believe one salient truth that the bible teaches me that there is that of God in every man…also called INWARD LIGHT, the distinctive theme of the Society of Friends (Quakers), the direct awareness of God that allows a person to know God’s will for him. It was expressed in the 17th century in the teachings of George Fox, founder of the Friends, who had failed to find spiritual truth in the English churches and who finally experienced a voice saying, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.” A phrase used by Fox, “that of God in every man,” has often been used to describe the Inner Light. Robert Barclay, Scottish author of the influential systematic statement of the doctrines of the Friends, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1678), stated that “the Inner Light is never separated from God nor Christ; but wherever it is, God and Christ are as wrapped up therein.” Most Friends believe, however, that the Inner Light should not simply be a mystical experience but should result in a person’s working for the good of others.
After reading your answer and Janine’s I have quite a bit to think about. I have never been any sort of anti gay rights. I sort of think that is ‘self evident’ or so the constitution reads as I recall.(…all men are created equal…) You are correct about how many things are falling off in the keeping with the letter of the Bible. And that it might be better to be more after the spirit of the “Word”. It is my belief that while the “Word of God” is infallible the interpretations of that word by man are subject to all manner of agenda driven editing and misunderstanding and corruption. I am no theologian and have no deep understanding of Christianity. the WWJD thing rings in my head. Some how I just cant see Jesus standing there and condemning any one to hell for being in love. That just doesn’t make sense to me. My confusion comes from Janine’s last paragraph though. In effect it sounds like she would have you look for and embrace a theology that conforms to your own set of beliefs. In effect creating a god in my own image and likeness That doesn’t make sense to me either. There has to be some Gold standard that should be maintained. I don’t suppose that I will be around long enough to see how all this washes out. Society moves slowly enough to ensure that I wont have to deal with the ultimate end of this sort of debate. But if things continue along the same trajectory as has been faster and faster changes things could get pretty weird. Some guy in Japan just married his PDA thingy. This is a debate that wont be won or lost tonight and it wont be decided by you or me. Although as some one actively pushing toward an end … you could be the next Rosa Parks.
As I read down the page there are so many important considerations to this debate and important points being made by people who clearly have more understanding about this than I do. I will hope to get out before I make a fool of my self.
Thank you for your considered words Duncan.
I have a feeling you were not asking for *my* opinion about homosexuality in the Bible and how faith in a God/Higher Power can co-exist with a blessed, full relationship that may (or may not) include an official marriage…but that has never stopped me before, so here goes…
It is quite simple…God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible is a mix of *opinions* and *beliefs* that existed at that time, or shortly after due to the fact that most information at the time in history was passed down orally, until it was written by religious persons who were educated enough to know how to read and write.
Other things that people have tried to pass off as ‘God’s word’ that come from the Bible…slavery ( the new Americans relied on this to support their *economic* needs ), racism – in the Old Testament the Jewish people were enslaved by the Egyptians, amongst others and physically did the work, some until death, that the Egyptian culture is given credit for to this day. Have you ever heard in common conversation that the Jewish people built the pyramids…they did.
Also, sexism…women were chattle, owned by their fathers and then their husbands. This one is quite common knowledge, or hope it is. Used for breeding but expected to be chaste (try that one on for size..lol) they could and sometimes were murdered, according to the laws of the day by those very men.
I would hope that you would consult a different reference or historical text for your information. There are many *inspirational* books, spiritual or otherwise that can help you find what you are looking for. Best to take some time and look inward, simple time alone to think, journal, meditate…to solidify your faith, your values and what *YOU* believe – not what a book says.
Respectfully,
Janine
Dear Janine, I totally agree with your take on the Bible. Frankly I look more to Shakespeare than I do the Bible for evidence of mans ‘condition’ but as this seems to be today’s theme I am hanging with it. The point I made earlier to another commentator is this: I take what I need and dump the rest. This applies to any philosophical/religious teaching. Humanity evolves the Bible stays stuck in time. All I am striving for-personally-is serenity and authenticity.
Just as a point of curiosity you tell me not to look to a book, the bible… “consult a different reference or historical text for your information.” but in the next line… “There are many *inspirational* books, spiritual or otherwise that can help you find what you are looking for… but you close with… what *YOU* believe – not what a book says….
Book or no book? Yes, a book just not the bible?
Seriously though I think I understand what you are trying to say. I would say this… I am not looking for any thing more than an understanding of the gay mind set. Not being gay that is some what alien to me. Similar to not being black. I can not truly understand what it is to live with understanding that all your feelings and attitudes are some how counter to society at large. It must be very stressful. I am a middle aged white guy I try not to have prejudice or racist thinking. I am just looking for some path to understand and empathy for a fellow human being.
I do have a question though I once heard it said that the homosexual community doesn’t want heterosexuality crammed down their throats… What does that mean? I ask that from this perspective. Being hetrosexual I have difficulty understanding what it is to not be hetrosexual. The same as being an English speaking person I can never know what it like to hear English not understand it and simply comment on the sound of English. I have been told it sounds like dogs barking. Each language has a different sound quality. German, Hebrew Japanese, Vietnamese they all have distinctive sounds which are knowable. But I wont ever hear English and asses just the sound… just the meaning. I suppose that if there was a way to string together random English words with similar syllabic content to a legitimate sentence and issue that as a sentence that might give me a beginning of what that could be like.
wow I talk to much
… oh and to be clear and to give you some insight in to who I am.
I do understand that the bible was not written by God. The bible we have today is an over edited translation of a translation something like you might find in a instruction manual from something made in China which was originally written by Korean reading a Taiwanese version of a Japanese re-write of a Danish manual.
There are lots of things in the bible that when taken out of context can make a point any point you care to name I am sure
I am totally aware of all that you mention about the pyramids and who really built them. If you have a HUGE slave population and huge engineering projects that require massive man power to complete it only makes sense.
I am also aware that women were the heads of many the religions before the bible came along? Women were the priests. I don’t claim to know the time line that changed all that, any longer, but in many religions women were the heads of the temples. Menstruation was the time when their power and strength was at its highest not some reason to be put out to the ‘red’ tent till you were clean again.
I hope that by my seeking some understanding that you do not judge me as some stupid backwards redneck hillbilly. Redneck maybe but not stupid or backwards. Which is the sense that I get from the tone of your post.
Howdy Scott,
If I might start out being a bold, antagonist atheist.
Who cares what “g*d” things about any number of things?
In the best of nations and national progress there is a
harsh wall of separation to allow either the free
exercise OF religion as well as the free exorcism of
religion (freedom FROM religion).
Who cares if some g*d, even if real, opposes abortion.
It is critical to our Constitution right to privacy to
have the OPTION.
Having said that, if your particular version of what I
believe to be no more than an adult’s imaginary friend
(and I think that of one’s Bible g*d, as well as my
understanding of Duncan’s g-d of his understanding)…
…is the Bible g^d, let me give you some thoughts:
Jesus said not a word on the issue of same sex relationships.
Narry a drop of red ink in all the red letter editions of the
bible has been spilled…and that is a great deal less than
the drops of red blood from gay and lesbian people spilled by
his followers.
Second, the only seeming new covenant material speaking to the
issue comes from Paul. A person who never met Jesus, a person
who wasn’t a disciple of any sort. A murderer of Xians before
“seeming” to become one.
I say seeming, because many academics and purists believe that
Paul is a Hellenic Jew (Roman ally pretender), who was seeking to
take this small religious movement and make it more Hellenic.
This same fellow was just as AGAINST hetrosex as anything else.
He encouraged people to stay single (he claimed an end to the
world was near)…
And where he seemed to speak of same sex relationships, he was
really speaking of temple prostitution.
Clearly, one could be against prostitution (even mixed gender
prostitution) and not actually be against heterosexuals.
Finally, I will end with the story of the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah. In this myth, two angels come to visit the city.
They’re given refuge by Lot’s family. The people decide they
want to humiliate the visitors by raping them…
Lot, the enlightened guy he is suggests they do his daughters
rather than the strangers. People have seen this as an attack
on “homosexuality” as if same sex rape is better than same
sex …sex.
However, when you look to read what is identified as the S’ns
of Sodom in Isaiah, the sins are worshiping idols and lacking
HOSPITALITY.
This is a story about people, especially in tribal times, being
unkind to strangers.
It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality and doesn’t
even speak to sexual ethics at all! (Hence, there’s no real
condemnation of a man offering up his daughters for forced sex
with all the people of the village.)
I think Duncan has given the correct answer to the seeming
prohibitions of same sex relationships in the Tanak, but to this
I will add, there no where are there any words about same sex
female relationships.. WHY… because women are property in the
eyes of the Bible. (And thus by extension, the Bible g0d).
After all, when it says don’t covet your neighbor’s ass or
wife… They weren’t meaning don’t stare at his butt and his
honey. It was saying, don’t wish for your neighbor’s cattle
either his donkey (ass) or his wife (the real beast of burden).
Cheers,
Paulie
Paulie
Thanks for your considered opinion. I appreciate your time and your thoughts.
This is the first time I have had the opportunity to ask an openly gay man his opinions about his thoughts about being married before God and being gay. I have never heard a reasonable and rational person express their opinions thoughts and beliefs on the subject. From what I read of Duncan and his appearance on the rehab show Duncan is about as reasonable and rational is it gets. What I know of the subject is what I get from the news and that is not reasonable or rational. I believe that I am entitled to my up bringing and all the crap that goes with it. Just as you are, just as Duncan has an upbringing that has crap in it.. and wow does it have crap. NO child should ever experience what Duncan has experienced… ever.
Duncan managed to impart the same basic message to me with his answer without bloodying my nose with it. (Without attacking my belief in God and the bible)
My sense of your answer is that if you were a child and your parents told you to avoid heroin because it is dangerous and harmful to your health and society at large you would say “Fuck off Dad I will do as I damn well please.”
Some where some how society has to have a rock bottom set of rules and regulations that are immutable and unchanging. The slippery slope way of thinking is reasonable reaction… where do we draw the line with the concept of marriage. 4o years ago Homosexuality was a psychological disorder to be treated now we are discuss homosexual marriage. There are those that worry about what the next 40 years will bring. The classic example is the NAMBLA group. Cant they stand on the shoulders of the Gay marriage legislation to demand their rights… then who is next? Sheep fuckers. I don’t mean to equate Gay sex and Sheep fucking. I was just looking for the most outrageous extreme end to that line of thinking. The bible is a good place to start. But just like the Muslim extremists religiosity taken out of context and to an extreme is… well deadly. Christianity is certainly no different. Plesee do not hold responsible for the hyper ultra right wingers out there running around in hooded sheets setting crosses on fire.
I had hoped that I started my post/reply in such a way as to come across as being genuinely interested in Duncan’s feelings and thoughts. Not trying to trap him in to some deep monster theological debate spinning off in to a dozen different directions… I don’t think I ever once in my post indicated that I was any kind of authority on any of this. I have read the bible ALL of it even Leviticus so I can say that I recognize each of the scriptures that you refer to. It is a difficult and cryptic read at best. I honestly don’t understand his position and honestly wanted to start understanding. I felt that was the ‘truly’ Christian thing to do.
I don’t think there is A Correct answer to this. How many people are involved in this? That’s how many answers there are to this.
Oh and by the way what not coveting they neighbors stuff is really about is; don’t measure your self against your neighbor. Do your best in all things and don’t get caught up in keeping up with the Jonse’s or judging them their habits. Be happy in your self and your circumstance. Its got nothing to do with cattle or beasts of burden… asses or wives.
Thanks again
Scott
Scott, thank you also for the reply.
A few points. First, about your
slippery slope argument.
If there is a slippery slope, we’re
on it. We “got on it” with str8
marriage.
The slope starts, let two people
…one man, one lady… enter into a
legal contract which carry with it a
whole host of rights and requirements.
At that point, I say to you, it is
clearly reasonable to let those two
consenting people be of the same
gender. That’s a slope, I invite us
to slip upon.
Does that then REQUIRE or MANDATE the
bestiality team marriage to a
non-human?
Well, I both don’t think so, as I think
we can have the good sense to see that a
beast cannot meaningfully consent.
How about NAMBLA?
Well, we have a legal system that says
a child cannot consent. And if that
group can ‘stand on the shoulders’ of
another civil rights group, go for it.
If they have a fight, let them have it.
I stand on the shoulders of past civil
rights activists with Virginia v Loving
the case that decided two consenting
adults of different races can marry.
So, again I say “Slope On”
I am happy to have a situation about
which I’m not thrilled (sheep weddings)
in exchange for a situation that must
be able to happen for me to have equal
rights. The ability to see my loved one
in the hospital, etc.
The second point I have is your view of
me and “authorities”.
I think you missed my view. If there is
a g+d and that g+d is personal…and is
an authority (lots of “maybes” there).
Then yes, you’re correct, I would object
to its tyranny on purely ethical and moral
grounds.
For example, the Bible g+d…that one
is utterly loathsome.
Dawkins said it when he wrote: “[That
one is a] misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bully”
So no, I wouldn’t tell my very real Father
who has earned a right or two to guide me
by his investment in me when I had no other
option than to be dependent…as well as…
the test of his judgment.
All the same, as a good boy, I’ve definitely
had to rebel and be myself.
How much more for an imaginary “father”
Cheers,
Paulie
wow… ok. I can clearly see that I am doing nothing but pissing you off with my questions and my feeble attempts at understanding . You clearly don’t buy God and Jesus and the any thing that follows. So it follows that anything I say is only going to anger or humor you… (Will you get a load of this looser?) For instance you say that your real father has earned the right to guide you by his investment in you. To which my immediate reaction is that Jesus was scourged the crucified to atone for your sin. That is huge investment. Its an investment I doubt that you would make for an entire planet’s history and future. And but the way I understand it Jesus would have invested just the same if only to save you and you alone. But you reject this line of thinking so completely and utterly. I can only assume that you view me as some ignorant ‘opiate of the masses’ slack jawed mouth breather for holding such opinions. Which I assure you will win you no points with anyone you are trying to convince. So as far as I can tell there is absolutely no common frame of reference for us to get a hold of in this discussion. I cant raise a single point that you would find even remotely meaningful and I feel the same condition exists for you. To label God with that litany of …ical’s has nothing for me relate to. I cant even comment on it. Certainly the old testament is loaded with horror stories and upon that one point I guess we can agree. But from my view point God is the ultimate seat of ethics and morality and has earned the right to guide as any parent might for a child who was going off the tracks. I guess I did miss your view. But not because I wasn’t looking for it, because it is was coming from a place so far outside my frame of reference as to not only not be on the same page or in the same book or even in the same library. I don’t believe I have ever engaged in conversation with anyone as absolutely arrogant in my life. I wonder if all Atheists are this dead sure of every thing. How comforting it must be to know all and see all. I wish I had just a tiny portion of that confidence. but me… I am just a guy looking to learn something… and I guess I did.
Scott,
I am open to having you own a
total lack of common reference.
I am even open to having you
hold whatever image or thoughts
of me you configure.
However, I would prefer to offer
you my sense of myself where you
created that image of me and my
thoughts or behaviors.
You say: I can clearly see that I am doing nothing but pissing you off with my questions and my feeble attempts at understanding
To this point I hope you will take
my assurance that I am not at all
pissed off by you. Nor do I judge
your motivation or perspiration in
\your attempts at “understanding”
In fact, perhaps I am the one failing
to understand your aim and thus I am
talking or sharing from my perspective
and not addressing a part of your
question / direction. (And if that is
the case, I apologize both for my
failure to be perceptive and for the
way in which is reifed an image of me
in your mind)
You also say: anything I say is only going to anger or humor you… (Will you get a load of this looser?) For instance you say that your real father has earned the right to guide you by his investment in you. To which my immediate reaction is that Jesus was scourged the crucified to atone for your sin.
Again, I cannot speak to future feelings.
I may at some point respond exactly as you
have predicted. What I can say, for now,
is that I do not look at you as a looser
at all.
I don’t seek for you to humor me either.
Now, let’s look at your comment about the
mythic sacrifice of Jesus and your view
that g=d is somehow the source of morality.
Let me first point out: Do you think
something is MORAL because “g-d” does it
(or says it) … or is it morally true
and absolute and g8d just some how has
access to the rules that or outside
“her/him”…
If something is moral because of g0d
then morality is both horrifically
relative (again those old covenant
commands) but even worse, is really
an egoist’s tyranny.
I would reject that “standard” (if
one could even call it that) on the
face of it. THEN having rejected it
as a standard, I would use my ethical
faculties to determine ethical action
on my part. In that sense I could
quote the Psalmist: “Don’t you know
you are god?”
If the morality is outside g2d and s/he
just happens to have access (perhaps is
even the only one that can access it)
than that g3d is not …if you will…
the “author” of morality.
Nor does it mean that the actions of
that g3d are moral. For all we know
that g3d could be “switching it up”
or not telling us the whole story.
After all, that g3d might think of us
like a little child…and explain to
us morality like you and I might say
to a 3-year old who asks “Where do
babies come from?” …We might say
“The hospital” …or “Mommy’s Tummy”
Or even “A Stork” …but we would not
explain intercourse.
I will for now forgo the ethical
arguments against this “honor killing”
of Jesus for “me”
You also say: I can only assume that you view me as some ignorant ‘opiate of the masses’ slack jawed mouth breather for holding such opinions. Which I assure you will win you no points with anyone you are trying to convince.
I am sorry you are able to only assume
one thing about me and my ability to
view you.
I am very clear that a number of very,
very smart; ethical; and generous folk
who are believers. There are even, I
rather suspect, FUNDAMENTALISTS who are
so…
So, if it is of any value to you. I
do not so judge you at all!
Now, even though you build a straw person
on which to then suggest I shall win no
points with those to whom I wish…
…I do want to caution you, that this is
a public blog. So it is not, you, per say
or you exclusively with whom I wish to win
points.
And I dare say, it is very likely that one
with different flexabilities than you, OR
one with a great sense of humanism will be
able to read my rather well reasoned recant
of the “Slippery slope” argument…
…and they will be like, “Oh wow, Paulie’s
right” if there is a slope we’re on it with
any marriage. Then we should trust ourselves
to make smart choices, ethical choices and
maybe even to be faced with unpleasant but
fully lawful choices…
..as to whom else should get all these rights.
Maybe YOU are unable / unwilling to see my
point or concede one, but I wouldn’t toss
me off to the wholly ineffectual, mate.
Finally you say: I don’t believe I have ever engaged in conversation with anyone as absolutely arrogant in my life. I wonder if all Atheists are this dead sure of every thing. How comforting it must be to know all and see all. I wish I had just a tiny portion of that confidence.
I would be most interested in the
third party observations of others.
The most arrogant person you’ve
ever conversed with in your life.
I’m am sincerely curious to know
if I seemed to be “arrogant” or
more to the point to have acted
arrogantly toward you (toward
Scott) in this dialogue…
If you’ve read this, do please
tell me…because I believe a
strength found in humility and
there is a serenity to be had in
not having to “know it all” as
you suggest I seem to give off.
All, the same, I wonder for you
Soctt if the finger that points
is not only not the moon, but is
also not at me.
Cheers,
Paulie
PS Again, I think if there is a
problem here it is the function
of tone on the Internet and not
your character or mine.
The state shouldn’t be able to “marry” people–it should only be able to bond them as family through legal arrangements like adoptions and civil unions. It’s crazy to me that even atheists and agnostics like me are “married” by a government that is supposedly divorced from religion. I don’t *want* to be married, though I may want to become my best friend/lover’s closest kin. Why make it a package deal?
I think the problem with marriage “equality” is that it is impossible to separate religion and marriage, which means that religions, which may or may not “condone” homosexuality, have a say in whether couples are allowed the legal bonds of coupledom. The American government should wash its hands of marriage entirely–only bonding people through civil unions–and let each individual church deal with the mess with its congregants. Religious questions have no place in Congress!
Actually, the church positioned itself as the authority on marriage in the middle ages in order to attract the people who *couldn’t* marry how they wanted in “normal” society–namely the young marrying for love, and women. The church was the authority that started the idea that EACH party must VERBALLY consent to a marriage, that marriages could be annulled by EITHER party, that it was individuals and not entire families or societies that entered into the marriage contract. The church started out by empowering people to take power over their own lives and bonds. Why has that changed?
But my real question is: ok, you’ve got me. It’s horrifying to think of people living in fear and inequality, and I would be happy to take direct action to stop it. But how? I’m supportive of the people I know in the gay community, I call the cops on anyone who is cruel in their treatment of others–including their rough treatment of gays, I joined the right organizations in college, I bought Butt magazine last week for f***s sake…but most of the gay men I know form cliques centered around partying and superficial cattiness and GQ. The one gay man I’m still close to has applied to work for the Human Rights Campaign, was rejected, and is now at a loss. I say he should think about doing his MA in queer studies, but he drags himself through the law school app process.
What should we do? How do we get involved? Whenever I see injustice I speak up, and I involve myself in the community as much as possible–not that anyone seems to happy to see a femme “straight” girl like me–what should I do? And more urgently, my friend who yearns so much to be a part of an enriching gay culture and who is caught up in clubs and magazine pictures–what should HE do?!
I’m a die-hard feminist and I see the same cowering in women as you do in gay men…why? With complete seriousness: what can we do?
Religion and marriage are technically separate for those who celebrate the sacrament of matrimony and understand the legality of marriage. If all they want is the legality…I’m not the biggest fan, but I really don’t care anymore..but I do care about the sacrament of matrimony. The idea behind the sacrament is the arrangement, promise, and truth before God…but it’s not just the gays that need to think…we all do. It’s imperative for all to examine their conscience before marriage or matrimony, but both deserve much more respect and forethought than anyone is giving it nowadays. The argument made by the gays on TV in FL before the 08 election was that they deserve marriage to get the health insurance, death benefits, and would have an easier time adopting. Okay, well that’s the legal part related to marriage…not matrimony. You want the legal part? Fine. But unless we all hold ourselves to higher standards…very few (straight and gay alike) should really enter into matrimony. The divorce rate is astronomical and it shows me how people (gay and straight) enter into the sacrament like they do the legal portion…it can be broken. It’s a depressing thought for the few who are trying to bring back the importance of the sacrament and the sanctity…and the idea that oyu are sure…not a on a whim.
What about lesbians who refuse to perform femininity? The are gay too. They get beat up on the front lines too.
Dear Ja, I tend to only comment about gay men as I believe strongly that gay men and lesbians whilst equal in their condemnation by others tread different paths. Ideas of commitment, from my understanding, between lesbians are more profound than the majority of gay men I have chanced upon. Of course I know that the oppression you deal with is exactly the same as gay men societies response to lesbians has been tempered, sadly, by straight mens fantasies-therefore lesbians in the UK were never outlawed or perceived as threatening to the ‘natural’; order.
To confuse matters for those of you who believe in the polarizing straight/gay debate re. the church, the bible etc. It is pretty evident to me that the silent majority in this argument, the ones who cast the final vote are those people who routinely sleep with both sexes. They are always excluded from this discussion yet, as I have said a million times before, are the ruling majority.
The sexually fluid are never courted by either end of the spectrum..they are routinely vilified. The gays, upon finding that a straight man has slept with another man claim him for their own and the straights cast him aside as a gay man in waiting. Straight women who sleep with women are accepted as what they say they are because straight men love women together as a staple of their fantasy life..it wouldn’t serve them to accuse them of being lesbians.
Let’s face it: straight men and gay men determine the agenda for everyone else. It stinks. That’s why we don’t get the votes. In countries where there is no shame about sexual experimentation like the secular UK the gays have equal rights. This is no coincidence. Here is the USA we make it our business to define and categorize everyone else.
For things to change we have to start reaching out to every man. We gays must stop being so prescriptive about other people’s sexuality. It is NOT okay to assume that people are anything other than what they say they are.
I realize that this represents a huge cultural shift in sexual politics but essential before any real change occurs in the USA.
I think that all people should have the right to get married. What two people do with their life is their business. I think the world needs to learn more about love instead of hate. I am not gay but I feel that all people should be treated equal. Marriages today are such a joke, look at Tiger Woods… everyone thought of him as a perfect person and he too didn’t take his marriage seriously. If people like Tiger Woods can get married then everyone should be able to get married. Just my opinion and if I made anyone upset I am sorry. Just speaking my mind.
If everyone and anyone can get married just because they feel like it..then what the hell is the point?! The gay part doesn’t bother me so much as the idea people of all walks of life just don’t care about the idea of a marriage and what is was supposed to mean. I’d rather see a country full of committed people instead of one where politicians just sit there and bitch…while they go home and cheat on their wives.
Direct action and protesting would cetainly help and be a lot of fun, but I don’t know how much it would help. Self-identified gay people are a very small minority in this country and the majority’s opposition to gay marriage ties into their non-concious moral disgust mechanism. Women’s suffrage was different because half the population are women, and all members of the population are intimately related to women. The black civil rights movement was different because the injustice they faced was so egregious that only the most hateful bigot could oppose the movement by the time it came to the national forefront.
Gays do not have the same level of strength in numbers in our favor, and women and blacks didn’t have morally-entwined and rationalized disgust to contend with. People “feel” that gayness is wrong, it’s an unconcious emotional reaction that they later try to rationalize as correct. Judeochristianity gives them both the feeling and the rationalizations. So I don’t know how much sway protesting and confrontation will give us, but I would like to see more of them. Gays aren’t as angry as they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s because we have much less to be angry about than gays did back then. We owe those people for the freedom we have because their revolt was instrumental in getting us where we are now.
The bisexual issue. Bisexuals, in behavior or in orientation, aren’t the silent majority. Studies show that men have a primary orientation. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, but men fall close to the ends of the spectrum. For women though it is more fluid, but they too self-identify as gay or straight much more often than they identify as bisexual.
The marriage issue. This has nothing to do with the religious sacrament and everything to do with the legal contract. We want state and federally recognized marital contracts, we want to be treated equally under the law. I don’t care if people call it “civil unions” or “marriage” just as long as the rights are exactly the same. Anyway, if you want to have a “marriage” sealed with God’s approval, you don’t need a church, just go off into the woods or something, say a few lines of mumbo-jumbo, and presto, you can be married in God’s eyes. That’s exactly what happens in a church, minus the formality.
I understand your beef with gay sexual morality and I probably largely agree with you on what’s immoral sexual behavior and what is moral. But the gay circuit scene isn’t representative of the gay population, it’s just the most visible.
Dear Kevin,
Direct action is not fun at the site of a murder motivated by homophobia. It is not fun to face a factory full of people where discrimination exists. I can tell you that direct action had direct results in my country. The working class have a long, proud history of demonstrating on the street. Demonstration and direct action empowers people. Comparing our struggle with the black civil rights movement or women’s suffrage is simply unhelpful and I tend to avoid it. As for how many there are of us..who cares? Civil rights are not based on population percentages.
Where we are now? Where are we now? What freedom are you talking about? As for what people ‘feel’ about gays I am of the belief that they are taught to hate and discriminate. A firm hand from government is always useful. When government endorses a minority, defends a minority the people tend to listen. The gays have been thrown under a bus. Again, comparing anger then and now is subjective. Not interesting to me.
I don’t agree with your bisexual analysis. My point was more about the gays being prescriptive about other men. I know that bisexuality galls you Kevin. You loath the notion that many people have a choice.
I totally agree with your civil union solution but gay marriage is the aim of most gays and even though I don’t believe in it myself I would rather add to the debate. In your opinion marriage has to do with the contract. In my opinion it has to do with the religious sacrament. You minimized my belief in God. I wonder why you did that? I don’t have an opinion about your secularity. I certainly don’t want to mock you for it Kevin. I understand that atheism is a bigger problem for people in the USA than homosexuality.
As for your last sentence you insult me by assuming that I think the gay circuit scene is representative of the gay population. Over all your comment kind of stank of that imperious gayness that keeps you from getting the votes. You are so damn sure of yourself. Whilst I am willing to shift my perspective you are not. This gay intransigence will keep you and your brothers and sisters stuck behind every single enlightened western country in the developed world.
I didn’t mean to diminish the seriousness of the crimes and injustices that people protest against by using the word “fun”. Protesting is empowering, liberating, emotionally meaningful, and at times, fun. Anger and solidarity together can be fun. Insulting and confronting stupidity and intolerance is fun, in my opinion.
I mentioned the fact that our numbers are smaller than other minorities because it’s a relevant factor in determining how difficult a minority’s struggle against the majority will be. That’s why it matters.
Gays do have more freedom now than they did only a generation ago, that’s just a fact. We’re more represented in the media and in politics, and it’s easier in many parts of the country for gay people to live openly than just a few decades ago. Did I leave you with the impression that I thought it was perfect for us? It’s not. We still have a long way to go, but I brought this up to explain why it is today that gays today aren’t as rah-rah as they were back then. We feel complacent because of the freedoms those people won for us.
If you know that bisexuality galls me that’s because you have no problem knowing things for which you have no evidence. It doesn’t gall me. Before I read about the issue I not only assumed that Kinsey was correct, I reveled in the the thought that all these sexy straight men were secretely pining for me. I think what I think about the prevalence of bisexuality because evidence matters to me.
The aim of the equal marriage rights movement is just that: equal rights. Some people are caught up on semantics and they may have a good reason for that, I however am not. Religiously recognized marriage was never the issue.
I didn’t minimize your God-belief, I minimized the notion of God-sanctioned marriage, and I did so because you’re confusing the marriage rights issue. God sanctioned marriage is irrelevant. I didn’t think you were going to be offended, I’m sorry that I offended you.
I’m sorry I implied that you thought that the gay circuit scene was representative. In your blog you lamented the lack of romantic commitment in the gay community so that’s why I assumed it.
My comment did not stink of gay arrogance, how did it? And it’s not my attitude that treats our community as second-class citizens, it’s straight religiously-derived bigotry. I am not willing to compromise on my contempt for such bigotry and I think that stubbornness is our strength.
Certainly there’s a long, uphill battle to come.
At least there is the following consolation: We’re on the right side of history. The stats on attitudes towards gay marriage by age are unavoidable. And unlike economic and general political views, these attitudes don’t become more conservative with age, so the young voters who generally support gay marriage now will become mature voters who support it in 10 years, while they are replaced by tomorrow’s young voters who will also support it…. The trend is indeed unavoidable.
An abstract and perhaps cold consolation for those of us living in the now. But something to take some comfort in?
p.s. I see your and Jennie’s hidden smiley faces! 🙂
jason, thanks for that! however, i am british and can get married there tomorrow-except we call it civil union and if you married me we could live freely all over europe. we are not waiting for a generation of will and grace watchers to give us hope. lol
I’m glad I live in Ontario, Canada where gay unions and gay marriage can be performed. I will quote who I consider to be our greatest Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The State has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation.
Although I was raised Catholic, I believe the bible is simply a storybook and primer about the establishment and continuation of a religion. God did not write the bible. Stories were copied over and over and over again. Much like first nations people pass down stories. Who knows what the original story looked like or sounded like. I went to see an exhibit of The Ten Commandments and The Dead Sea Scrolls in Toronto at the ROM. And I had hoped to feel something about those little bits of paper. Something that would move me in faith or I would be enlightened. Although the exhibit was very good. It left me feeling uneasy and with no real questions answered, etc.
Sorry for blabbing on. But I do believe in gay marriage and gay unions. At a a 50% divorce rate for straight couples, could gay couples do worse?
Hmm . . . . you should have written about Jennie.
You teach film-making, right? The small, human story ALWAYS outweighs the big, socio-political one. I know this is on your mind, but . . . is your guilt making you take on more than your share of the burden? You have at your fingertips (because of a brave path you chose) an opportunity to help some people at this moment. Don’t lose the chance to make as big a difference as you can, by your own story, RIGHT NOW, by fighting a dragon that may never be slain . . but will die of old age eventually.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not entirely disagree with your position and I deeply respect your passion for the subject. Just keep yourself in the picture, too.
Wow Kevin I don’t know where to start with that last bit of yours.
I guess to begin with as one of the “opposition” I dislike, in the extreme, being called stupid, Ignorant perhaps unenlightened possibly conservative certainly but NOT stupid. Again as some one who finds him self in the opposition I don’t see that the Gay rights movement has let up at all. Perhaps that was my living proximal to San Francisco for a long time. “We’re Here We’re Queer Get Used to it” still rings in my ears! It has always been the one bone of contention for me that Gay people wanted religiously ordained marriage. I am all for equal rights. No one should not be denied access to an injured loved one at the hospital because they are not married That is just cruel! No one should denied medical or any of the other legal things that go with being a couple. My only hesitation was the sanctified before God aspect. But Duncan’s words made that some how more palatable. I chafe against the bigot label too… but I can with absolute certainty agree that there are bigots out there having live a while in Texas as well. I wish that were not the case. Organized religion brings out the worst and the best every where because of the passions involved with faith. Bigotry in America absolutely and but in an emergency more often than not religious Americans are the most likely people to be handing you a water bottle and clean clothing and food.
Crap I didn’t leave soon enough now I have gone and made a fool of myself.
Big Geek, It goes deeper than ignorance. Americans are not a lost jungle tribe who might abandon their silly superstitions if only the light of civilization graced their presence. Americans LIVE in a civilization where scientific knowledge, knowledge about human nature and human origins, ideas by the world’s greatest philosophers and enlightenment thinkers, are all accessable to them. Their ignorance of reality is rooted in a character flaw, a stubborn incuriousness to all things that don’t validate the bullshit they were forced to believe growing up. This psychological trait is typical of humans in general, and it’s one of the things that makes people stupid. Humans are by nature…stupid. There are more articulate ways to explain this without being insulting (heuristics, confirmation bias, blah blah blah), but quite simply, people are stupid and irrational. It usually takes education and open-minded parents to raise a person so that they don’t end up ruined. There are a few rare gems who can succeed despite their environment, but they really are rare. All this is forgiveable though, I myself am stupid at times too. But when people actively strip away equal rights from another group of people they cross the line from willful ignorance and into asshole territory. They deserve ridicule and shame, spades are spades.
Regarding Duncan’s stance on the marriage issue. I don’t want to criticize him anymore because this is his blog and he’s not, nor am I, looking for debate, but I have to say something about you finding his words palatable. I don’t care if people want to believe that God has anything to do with the strength of their commitment. But he went further than that and was scoffing at the commitment of couples who marry for economic reasons, and who don’t believe there’s anything sacred about the institution. Atheist, agnostic, spiritual-but-not-religious, deist, irreligious, secular, other…these are people who might not view marriage as a sacred institution, but they’re still just as capable of committed romantic love as the Catholics who support a vile bureaucracy. If they marry for economic reasons that says absolutely nothing about how serious their emotional commitment is to each other, one way or the other. Also, he scoffed at open marriages and I thought that was unfair. An open relationship would never work for me, but I can’t say it wouldn’t work for any couple.
On organized religion. To garble a famous quote: Religion is the best ideology at getting otherwise moral people to do despicable things. People have empathy and the moral impulse because we evolved them, any irrational ideology that appeals to the selfish nature of humans has the power to corrupt those impulses.
It seems that you have manage to be born on the next rung or three up the evolutionary ladder. How frightening it must be to be so alone on this backward dirt ball of a planet filled with frightened stupid willfully ignorant dull witted scarcely evolved out of the trees upright walking primates with no more curiosity than to find out what is on the next channel. Oh and thank you ever so for your divine forgiveness. I don’t know that I could have lived a day longer knowing… Oh wait that would assume that I or any one could actually know any thing beyond what we want for Christmas. Greedy narrow minded bigoted assholes that we are. Some how I thought that my willingness to ask an honest question earned me an honest answer not a headbutt. My mistake. I guess its time for me to slither back the salty slime covered rock I thought I evolved out from under. This is clearly the big boy pool and I am not evolved to ask such questions let alone participate in such high level discussions. You have fun wining the hearts and minds of us dull witted mouth breathers with your attitude. See you at the polls.
Kevin, I see that you’ve also
lifted the dander of “Scott”
What’s so funny to me is how
he speaks of you as being up
the evolutionary rung (I even
wonder if it’s an attack on
science?)…
…when “we” humans have a
genome 1.23% different from the chimpanzee.
So, of course, we’re largely
backwards animals.
While I hope that Big Geek
doesn’t feel you’ve called him
names or think him stupid in
some special/unique way.
So you know a fellow humanist
and anti-theist activist saw
your post for what it was.
Cheers,
Paulie
… and all I wanted to do was learn from Duncan’s rehab work.
I wish I had someone like you around when I was thirteen, fuck that would have been grand. I stumbled onto your blog through that fucking terrible ass rehab show on vh-1. It was three in the morning (only thirty minutes have passed) and I couldn’t sleep. It’s not much of an excuse. The fact that I turned to reality television in hopes of tranquilizing myself is probably more damning than the admission that I was watching such an exploitative and douchemongering piece of shit in the first place. Anyways, I like your stuff. By your stuff I mean your blogs. I’ve only seen one of your films (AKA) and it was good shit. It was at some utterly fucking shameful queer film fest a friend dragged me to and was the only redeeming thing about the whole experience. I really vibe off the fact that that you don’t seem content with merely assimilating. I feel that way too. Because of where I grew up, being queer kind of lumped you in with the punkster trash and hardcore kids so my sensibilities are pretty standard issue “subversive”. That white picket fence isn’t good for shit besides keeping our neighbor’s asshole kids out of our yard. Didn’t really have a specific goal in mind when I started typing, other than to let you know that I’m going to be monster lurking your blog from now on. The last time I really connected with a writer I discovered via the magic of the interwebz the guy kind shit his pants a bit when I tried to holler at him. Understandable, since I was underage at the time but dunno. Still kind of a dick move. I was being all emotive and vulnerable and shit. I’m not that kind of delusional fuckwit going around saying “I prefer not to label myself” or “Being gay isn’t the most important part of me” because when I see that shit I read “IMACOWARDIMACOWARDIMACOWARD/MORON/ETC” but because I’d never really connected with any kind of depiction of faggotry in the mainstream media I felt pretty isolated in my queerness. All of my dudes were chill with it, but I was pretty much the token gay in the local scene. The only gay culture I’d been exposed to repulsed me pretty hardcore so when I found something I could actually relate to it was a pretty powerful experience for me. So yeah. Mad props.
Declan,
There are legitimately repulsive things
in this world.
At the same time, I might suggest to you
that using terms like “I’d never really
connected with any ind of depiction of
faggotry…”, as well as, “The only gay
culture I’d ben exposed to repulsed me
pretty hardcore”…
…those may well be “IMACOWARDIMACOWRD…”
comments as well.
In fact, from a structure standpoint, it
is revealing that you decry what you’re
not saying and how you see people who do
say those kinds of things (I prefer not
to label myself…)…
…then you use a “hardcore” label like
faggotry. And you proceed to basically
say …if that’s what being gay is, count
me out.
While I cannot apologize for another man’s
rejection of your vulnerability, I am sorry
that you were so rejected.
And while you might think/wonder if it was
your age at the time, chances are it was
something to do with him and you were an
innocent bystander.
Best of wishes to you…
Paulie
I disagree with Jonathan. Your blog has many insightful revelations into who you are as a person and the journey of self discovery that you are still exploring. The issues you feel strongly about are part of who you are and what you believe in. If you were continually talking about yourself and your recovery the blog would be flat. Keep up the good work!! As a film maker / artist you have a voice to make heard the social consciousness of the current climate in the world. Artists have played a major role in providing their opinions throughout history and have had a dramatic effect on society. Voltaire showed his distaste for the greed throughout Europe. Kâthe Kollwitz made a huge contribution to bringing about awareness of the importance of compassion towards the less fortunate. We live in a country that has moved forward in certain areas of human rights, but still allows the fundamental christians the power to suppress many people’s justified rights. Keep bringing these issues to the forefront Duncan, that is what is important
Off topic, but maybe you should think about the title of this last post a bit.
Its passive aggressive. You know Jennie feels distance, she’s been writing about it. Your title mentions her and then ignores her in the posting, albeit discussing a very important issue that deserves your passionate and strong posting.
Its just, she already writes about how she feels the closeness isnt the same. And in your posting’s title, you micro-recreate that push/pull dance.
Hi Scott, I am not more evolved than you, or a chimpanzee, or an amoeba, or an E. coli bacterium in the literal sense. You were probably speaking figuratively but I am hesitant to give you the benefit of the doubt based on what you’ve already betrayed about yourself. In my previous post I misspoke, I wanted to edit it to clarify that I don’t think people are hopelessly “ruined”, because there’s always the potential for enlightenment no matter how old or incoherent a person is.
My posts were never in response to your questions. I avoided responding to you because this is not that type of blog, and because I didn’t want to deal with your rambling ass. Paulie was already handling you patiently and adeptly anyway. My posts may have hit you like a headbutt, but they were honest.
But now that you addressed me I would like to point out something absurd about your beliefs that you brought up just after you accused Paulie of being arrogant in the same breath that you accused him of being so sinful that only the blood sacrifice of another human being could atone for him. The Jesus story. Assuming the Jesus story is accurate, on what planet is it moral for another person to pay the price for another’s transgressions willingly or unwillingly? How does the punishment of one person absolve another person of guilt? And if Jesus is spending eternity in blissful Heaven, how was that a sacrifice?
I am not looking forward to a response, those are just rhetorical questions to get you to start questioning, because as I said, you’re not destined to remain ruined. Hopefully the next time you find yourself in the voting booth, you won’t vote like a bigot.
I am sorry Duncan, Janine, Paulie and Kevin.
This is my first foray into blogging in an arena that involves such fiery passions. As I stated in my question to Duncan I simply wanted to understand his thinking on this issue nothing more. He educated me in a way that I found… well enlightening which is what I was looking for… and I as I stated in my response to that… I had a great deal to think about now.
I was not looking to have my education questioned or my character assassinated and my beliefs refereed to as absurd. And I do not appreciate it any more than anyone else would and I believe I reacted accordingly… defensively.
Like you I was not looking to debate any one. I believed that I was using the access to the great thinkers… to enlighten myself, to undo some of the ruination left to me by my narrow minded parents. I found that the responses to my simple question remarkably inflammatory and as such I found my self… well inflamed.
I did not believe that I insulted any one here with my question. If I did I apologize for that as well. I do not, however, apologize for my beliefs any more than I expect anyone else to apologize for theirs. We are both entitled to them. And As I said I am for the rights of all people gay straight black white… I find that to be … “self evident”. What I was seeking was an answer to a more personal question.
Kevin I have no excuse but by way of explanation for my attack… I that I felt compelled to take up for Duncan. That was clearly not mine to do. Duncan is clearly much more capable of defending himself and his position than I am. That was foolish on my part. My empathic reaction based on his recovery from addiction, because I find my self in that same boat. Again I should not have… and again I do apologize.
Paulie I apologize for labeling you as arrogant. By way of explanation for that I would say this… I do believe in God as the ultimate authority, your creator and mine and to intimate that you don’t care about a cohesive social structure beyond you getting yours came across as arrogant and I reacted, not responded to it. Again I apologize.
I would ask that in the future when you… find your self facing down some one who is asking to understand your position you will try not to totally assail them and call them stupid, willfully ignorant rambling ass, incoherent, unenlightened, assholes and I will try to have an open mind at the polls.
Finally… I find it difficult to walk away from a discussion with out having achieved some level of understanding. But I don’t see that happening this time because as I said to Paulie our view points are so divergent and our beliefs too intractable. But I would add this. I do not disagree, or perhaps I should say that I very much do agree with many of your assessments regarding organized religion. The Catholic church is a corrupt corporation. People do despicable things in the name of God… all of them. Not, all of them being people… all of them being gods.
Thank you all for your thoughts and may God bless.
I hope you’re not labeling me as a “great thinker”. If you want to understand how the universe works, why the scientific method is the only method for discovering objective truths, why personal experience is unreliable as evidence, why anything less than equal rights for all people is immoral, the historicity of Jesus, the psychology behind religious faith, the logical absurdity of supernatural claims, the arrogance of unsupported certainty, the wholly natural mechanism for our existence, etc., there are many, many, many books that you could read by the real “great thinkers”.
If you want unlimited patience, if you want your objectively absurd and potentially dangerous beliefs to be treated with kid gloves, what you’re asking for is dishonesty.
To me, your humility and sincerity came across as false. Going on and on about how little, insignificant you could not possibly understand a shred of a scintilla of God’s plan, yet professing with certainty that not only does God exist, but that he sent his son/self down to earth to be butchered like an animal for the sins that you somehow know I am guilty of to be inexplicably forgiven. That’s some pretty specific knowledge, wouldn’t you say? Or “innocently” wondering if child rape would become legal if gay marriage became legal. Even the most dumb-skulled hick can understand the difference between consent and non-consent, so I think you were being an unctuous slimeball there. Or would you rather I believe that you’re dumber than the dumbest-skulled hick?
Not all atheists or gays are as contemptuous of religious belief as I am, I’m pretty sure that most don’t even come close. So keep that in mind when you feel the urge to retaliate against people like me with your vote.
Kevin, we are truly comrades.
If you wish text or talk to
me at 312-566-6195.
Cheers,
Paulie
Let’s start a revolution, Duncan.
I’m a follower of Jesus, AND I am a believer in two people commiting to each other in marriage whether they are straight, gay, or WHATEVER.
When you are ready for direct action…CALL ME UP. Love.
Oh, wow, Scott. I’ve already
replied to you earlier only now
reading this.
Your apology is accepted.
I don’t know how I seemed to say
you were stupid or speak about/to
you in any way relating to your
character or nature.
I also apologize if I did this.
It would/is wrong.
AS far as attacking your beliefs.
Are more specifically calling a
belief absurd…
…I do think that is valid.
I’m not sure I did that. Or maybe
I did refer to a given belief as
absurd (as I might say the belief
that the earth is flat – one held
by the bible, or that insects have
4 not six legs – another in the
Bible, or that bats are birds, ibid.
or that there is a secret purple
gnome with a horn that can give me
eternal bliss (but he’s invisible).)
These are absurd beliefs.
Bear in mind it doesn’t meant they
are not TRUE… (though some of
those beliefs are demonstrate-ably
not true).
All the same. I welcome your words
of reconciliation.
I am sad that I didn’t read these
first before responding to what I
saw as an attack on another anti-
theist.
Cheers,
Paulie
PS Keep your heart and mind in peace.
Thanks for your kind words, Paulie. You can email me at physer6@yahoo.com. I prefer that form of communication the best.
Duncan, don’t ever give up the fight for equality. At the same time, it’s going to take straight people–myself included–who are disgusted at the fact that gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are discriminated against for the longest of times. We are not affected in any way, shape, or form whether or not the gay community is allowed to get married, so why shouldn’t they be able to get married? I, for one, am appalled that people still have the mentality that the majority should get to rule on the rights of the minority.
It’s a bunch of bulls**t, and I’m waiting for my opportunity to help make things right. Godspeed, my friend.
I don’t know why I feel compelled to comment on this post of yours. Since you already are familiar with what i found out. I have been mystified by these people who are either anti-gay or anti-gay marriage & sometimes it’s hard to discern which or both. They obfuscate. They don’t want to look prejudiced. I am a straight female, a senior art director by profession, & spent my “professional student” days for my BFA looking at humanity through antiquity to the present (oh yes, and looking at a lot of churches also 😉 I can’t see how these people who fail to realize that we stand on the shoulder’s of giants, how can they justify this fight against their fellow man, will we never be truly civilized. And why are they are so blind to the needs of others. Okay so the meat of it, I don’t go for the in-your-face stylings of many who fight to keep marriage away from gays, I’ve avoided any pointless agression from pointy-headed people; so I just didn’t quite understand what their problem was. But then I did have an opportunity to have a deeper argument of the “civil” variety about gay marriage, a dialogue. He’s a programmer, Greek Orthodox, just fyi – and speaking of civil, i just couldn’t get past his objections against gay marriage. So I prodded, and basically, yes his/their -or many of them don’t care if gay people have a civil union. But they do feel “marraige” is their sole right of “Holy Matrimony” and that is what offends them while their sanctimony offends me. I must be lame, but i did not understand how much the difference mattered to them before. So I realized it was not just semantics as you write so well in your post. I may understand such blind reasoning. But when mankind has seen and done it all for thousands of years – I still don’t understand these people’s resistance. It saddens me for the gay people who want the right for a real marriage and are refused it by nitwits. It hurts me, too, that for as long as our kind has lived, I come from a species with so many nitwits. Best to you Duncan. I had long time therapy (abusive marriage) – I would tell anyone a qualified therapist who is well-trained and not going to fuck your head up worse, it is one of the best things you can do for insight into yourself. So freeing to get past yourself – not like a “fix” – I think you were very very brave to “look into the abyss” and even braver still, to do it in front of so many – it helps others understand the therapeutic process. So thank you for doing that, and…i’m so so so sorry about your dog. I had a pet I lost 5 months ago, and sometimes it seems the loss seemed greater even after …sometimes now at times. It’s getting a bit better, but that grief doesn’t just go away so quickly, the grief returns, but rather than still living in grief I feel it return and I get better – people who have been robbed of childhoods often don’t feel that grief will ever leave, they expect to live in it, never given coping skills. So dear Duncan all my deepest condolences. And remember, for all your noble pretensions, (at one time) – what you have done to show others, helps others and how amazing you are for doing that for yourself, and that for all the strength you gave to facing your personal abyss, you have now enobled yourself as few have the right to claim.
It’s too difficult for me to believe that religious people are merely held up on the semantics issue, it just makes no sense. Language is fluid and changeable, and words have multiple definitions with the primary definition often changing faster than a single generation cycles. As if there are people who think the specific phonic character of the string of letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e is inextricably linked with the concept of divinely-sanctioned, heterosexual marriage, yet are perfectly fine with accepting that bad can mean good, wicked can mean sick, dope, or mad, and cougar can mean inapproprate lady.
If these phonies really did care about equal rights then we would already have equal rights. Republicans would have already sponsored and enacted a constitutional amendment that guaranteed equal marriage rights with some stupid, arbitrary phrasing that stipulates that if the union is between two men or two women, it could NEVER be referred to as marriage on a legal document. Schmarriage? Sure, but NOT marriage.
They’re irrational bigots, case closed.
I haven’t read the other responses, but I wanted to respond, regardless.
When I heard the NY Senate’s vote, I was absolutely heartbroken. I am a 32 year old mother of and 11 year old boy and an 8 year old boy. I am happily married to my soulmate for the last 12.5 years. Some might wonder how the ban on homosexual marriage would even affect me, but I think it does, since I believe in my heart that 2 people that love each other and are committed to each other should have the right to be joined in marriage. I live in Canada where it is legal to do so… but so much of our media here in Canada is centered around the US, that it shocks me that this is still illegal for our southern neighbours.
To give the reason of Christianity forbidding it is just a giant load of bullcrap. Since when did the US start bringing the Church back into the State? All this time, they try to separate it… but as soon as a controversial topic arises that makes white-haired gun-toting cronies uncomfortable, they try to play the Christian card.
Well, I’m a Christian, too. And with that, I am a firm believer in “live and let live, love and let love”. It is of no concern to me who marries who, and what they do in their relationships. It’s not hurting me, it’s not hurting you. As a Christian, I am not allowed to judge… only God can do that. And I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. There’s many a study that shows actual biological reasons for homosexuality. Heck, for a layman’s understanding, just search for John Barrowman’s “The Making of Me” on YouTube.
Anyways, I remain heartbroken for the thousands of loving couples who continue to be forbidden the sanctity of marriage, and I can only hope that their wait is short…. c’mon America… “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.