I’m taking a cue from several of my blogging cohorts and taking today as an early weekend due to the Labor Day holiday on Monday, to relax for some much-needed tension relief. As a result I won’t be waxing poetic in any great length on my opinions on various topics today, though I will be cropping up Monday with a new comic as usual. Before I go, though, I did want to leave you with this interesting little tidbit:
BEIJING -Homosexual acts were punishable by death under Genghis Khan’s rule, according to researchers who spent more than a year compiling the legendary Mongolian conqueror’s code of laws, the official Xinhua News Agency said Thursday.
Article 48 of the code said men who “committed sodomy shall be put to death,” according to experts at a research institute in the Chinese region of Inner Mongolia.
Soooo…that an example you really want to follow, President Bush? Somehow I’m thinkin’ Genghis Khan ain’t exactly a favorable comparison. He may be a legend, but he stepped over a lot of bodies to get there.
The sad thing is, we can’t even look at this as ancient history; even today many countries impose a death penalty for homosexuality, and I personally know a few of my “fellow” Americans who would like to see that instituted here. Lovely, don’t you think?
You’ve probably heard of SSDD - “same sh*t, different day”. Stephen King beat the phrase to death in his novel Dreamcatcher (which I’m rereading right now; it’s one of my favorites). I’d say a few centuries of SSDD - or SSEE, same sh*t, different era - is more than enough. It’s time to stop punishing people for their sexuality…but how many centuries do you think that will take?
I’m outta here; see you Monday. Have a good weekend, all.
Looks like bad toothpaste isn’t the only worrisome thing coming out of China. There’s been a lot of focus on the nation lately, as Beijing gears up for the Olympics under scrutiny of human rights committees and companies are forced to recall Chinese-manufactured products left and right due to unsafe materials used in production. Now a Chinese city has drawn attention on the gay life front, as Shanghai seeks to restrict the activities of same-sex couples.
(Shanghai, China) The city government of Shanghai is reportedly preparing new regulations barring landlords from renting rooms to same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples
The official government newspaper The Beijing News reports that the Shanghai officials only want rentals to go to families and single people. The paper did not say whether individual gays would be denied housing.
The paper reported that the government wants to prevent people from having live-in partners.
The purpose of the new regulation is unclear whether it is an attempt to avoid overcrowding in units in the densely populated financial center or if it is a new attempt to enforce what the government sees as morals. [...] LGBT activists say they are monitoring the situation.
China has a checkered history in dealing with sexual minorities.
Although homosexuality is not illegal police regularly close gay establishments and harass people suspected of being gay.
If you ask me, this seems to be a conservative bid to preserve traditional marriage and prevent unmarried sex - an effort that bears a disturbing similarity to the “sanctity of marriage” campaigns in the U.S., albeit with a slightly different focus. I’m not surprised to see something like this coming out of China, where policing of individual activity is so strictly monitored. Hell, what’s a little housing regulation compared to barring Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission? (Yes, you read that correctly.)
What I want to know is how this is going to affect workers and students. There are many reasons for members of the same sex to rent an apartment together without sexuality being involved; it’s a common theme in just about any country for lower-income workers and students to share rented dwellings for the sake of saving money. This isn’t going to affect just gays and unmarried couples. It’s going to affect a large portion of the poorer section of Shanghai, and force them into a rather unpleasant situation in which they’re unable to obtain affordable housing.
Whether it’s morality or an attempt to limit overcrowding, the regulations still don’t seem to be thought through well enough, and don’t take enough factors into account. It’s a bad idea, and it’s going to hurt more than it’s going to help.
Every once in a while I get those complicated questions that don’t really have a right or wrong answer, and where I can’t really offer any concrete advice from experience or even from common sense. All I can do is say what I think, let the other person take what they can from that, and hope it helps.
Today’s letter is something like that. I’ve rewritten it to paraphrase, both for the sake of conciseness and for the privacy of the young man who wrote in, whose name has been changed. At first it seemed fairly simple, but over the course of several e-mail exchanges, it turned out not to be so simple after all.
Adri,
I’ve never thought I might be gay. I’ve been attracted to women my entire life, but a while ago was in a relationship with a girl who just wasn’t doing it for me. Over the course of the relationship I started doubting myself, and looking at men in a completely different way. I find some men really attractive, but I’m not aroused by them. I’ve tried fantasizing and it doesn’t work. Sometimes I have dreams, though, and the dreams can leave me aroused at times.
Now I’m in a relationship with another girl that I’m very attracted to, but sometimes I’m really anxious about my sexuality, to the point where it affects my performance with her. I’m wondering if I should experiment with another guy to find out, but I’m afraid I won’t be able to perform because I’m so confused and don’t know if I’m really sexually attracted. Do you think I’m gay and I’ve just been repressing it a lot?
Thanks,
Jim
I’m going to start off by stating that honestly, I don’t think anyone is 100% gay or 100% straight - not even me.
Now, the most important thing: regardless of what you think your sexuality might be, Jim…if you’re really happy with this girl, then please, please do not run around experimenting with other guys. If you take nothing else away from this, please keep that in mind. That kind of infidelity could ruin your relationship, and if you really care about her that much and you’re attracted to her, then don’t try testing out the greenness of the other side’s grass unless you suddenly find yourself single again.
Honestly, I don’t think you’re gay or even really all that bisexual, or repressing anything. You may be a 95/5 like me, only on the other end of the spectrum - roughly 95% into women and 5% into men, while I’m 95% men and 5% women. Check out the Kinsey Scale for a more in-depth analysis of the varying ranges of sexuality; if I had to peg you concretely, I’d say you’re definitely a 1 on the scale.
It’s quite possible to appreciate members of the same sex without being sexually attracted to them; there’s nothing wrong with recognizing that someone is attractive and even enjoying their attractiveness. Hell, it could even be chalked up to artistic appreciation, with nothing sexual involved. If the conscious fantasies aren’t working to do anything for you, then I doubt engaging in sexual acts with other men will do much for you, either, unless you close your eyes and try not to pay much attention to it.
I think that may be why your dreams are having an effect on you; you know as well as I do that sometimes when our other brain rears its ugly head, it doesn’t care who or what is stimulating it as long as there is stimulation, and your dreams are providing some kind of stimulation. Your subconscious is most likely dredging those dreams up from your anxiety and projecting them; the mind has a nasty habit of doing that. Even when we won’t consciously dwell on something, as long as it’s causing us stress our subconscious will find a way to thrust it to the forefront…like when we’re asleep and defenseless.
When you start getting anxious enough for it to affect your current relationship, think about this: would you really be happy dating a man? From the impression you’ve given me, I don’t think you would. It would be a distinctly unsatisfying relationship, and you probably wouldn’t get what you need, or be able to commit yourself wholly to it due to your discomfort with the idea of intimacy despite your curiosity about it. If you’re just looking to fool around, ask yourself: is it worth losing someone who means as much to you as your current girlfriend does? Do you really think you’re going to get so much satisfaction out of experimenting that it’ll be worth the possibility of losing her?
I’m already 99% sure that you won’t and you’d probably end up regretting it, but you don’t have to believe me. I just hope you don’t end up learning from a rather bad experience. If you absolutely have to try something, and just can’t get it out of your head…just try kissing a guy. A willing one, of course. Your girlfriend may be able to forgive a kiss.
Anything else? That’s just digging your own grave.
Don’t screw a good thing for the sake of a nebulous “what if”.
I can’t say “choice or chance” without thinking of that old show, Space: Above and Beyond. I remember when I was a teenager, I thought the graphics were amazing…while now I think the effects are hokey, the script dated, the costuming horrible, and yet I’m still addicted. Maybe it’s my old high school crush on Joel de la Fuente, the actor behind the character Paul Wang - but what I’m remembering right now is the AIs, and their mantra: chance or choice, choice or chance.
That mantra has been stuck in my head since yesterday’s comic regarding research into the existence of a gay gene. The topic really captures me, possibly because of my avid interest in science and science fiction, and possibly because it raises so many questions about who I am - who we all are. It’s at once comforting and disturbing to know that something that can affect you as powerfully as your sexuality can be so wholly beyond your own control.
It’s comforting because it would prove without a doubt that while we may be mutations of the status quo (and mutations aren’t always a bad thing; successful mutations aid evolution, while failed ones die out), we are not abominations; we are not signs of any kind of sin, or of any moral deficit in the eyes of whatever god you choose to follow. We’re a natural result of biology experimenting with variations on the basic template of mankind in an attempt to improve the species. I can’t say if we’re a positive or negative change, but if biology determines sexuality and homosexuality has remained prevalent among both humans and animals, then we must serve some purpose in the natural order of things. I’m fine with that. I don’t mind being part of one big evolved method of population control, really.
But I’m a stubborn creature, and an independent one, and just contrary enough to be bothered by the fact that although I’m quite content being gay, I had no choice in the matter. It would frighten the hell out of me knowing that others had a choice in my sexuality, as could become possible with emerging gene therapy. However, I don’t think I’d mind so much if I had that choice - if I could make it a choice, rather than chance. I think I might even choose to be gay, for personal reasons that I’d rather not share here.
And yet that makes me wonder - out of the gay population of the world, how much of it is chance and how much is choice? It’s hard for me to think that sexuality is wholly biological when one considers aspects of social conditioning; take the classic example of Greek culture, where intimacy among male friends was considered commonplace and was as much of a socialized trait as the modern male’s fear that even a casual touch will cause others to perceive him as gay. I can’t help but think that part of our sexuality is influenced by genetic factors…but part of it may have to do with how we’re socialized, and there may be men and women who identify as gay who don’t share this common “gay gene” that researchers are searching for. At some point they made a choice, whether conscious or not, that affected their entire sexual identity…and wholly as a result of influencing factors in their environment.
Maybe there is no gay gene. Maybe that’s how it works for all of us; something in our developmental years triggers a portion of our brain, and that chance happening causes us to make a subconscious choice - maybe even psychology as a result of biological chemistry. I don’t know. I know that even if science doesn’t ever manage to identify a biological cause for homosexuality, or isolates it to something wholly psychological, I’ll be content either way. Knowing the why won’t do much to change the who. Genetic, psychological, whatever…I’m gay, I’m not ashamed of that fact, and I’m wholly comfortable with who I am…
No, we’re not taking a trip back to kindergarten. But l-o-o-p-h-o-l-e spells loophole, and I smell a loophole in the investigation into Representative Mark Foley’s online activities with teenage boys.
(West Palm Beach, Florida) Florida’s top police agency said Wednesday its investigation into former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley’s lurid Internet communications with teenage boys has been hindered because neither Foley nor the House will let investigators examine his congressional computers.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement says it hopes to conclude its investigation next week. Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned from Congress on Sept. 29 after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill.
“We have requested to review federally owned computers that Mr. Foley used during his time as a representative, but the U.S. House of Representatives … cited case law restrictions that prohibited them from releasing those computers,” said Heather Smith, an FDLE spokeswoman.
Smith said that the House claims the computers are considered congressional work papers, and that only Foley can release them for review.
So basically…Foley is in possession of evidence that could incriminate him, and the House of Representativess say that the police can’t use that evidence, or even look at that evidence, unless Foley gives them permission. Now, would you give someone permission to probe through your illicit activities, looking for something they can use to convict you?
This is just an illustration of something that really bothers me about the procedures of criminal justice in this country. Politicians can always find a way to worm out of a conviction, and even find a way to make it legal. Cite national security, brandish a few documents, highlight some obscure legalese, and suddenly everything’s classified, closed-file, sorry, you can’t look at that. Not so much that it’s sensitive information, but it just might get someone in trouble.
Possibly because they deserve to be in trouble. I can’t help but think back to Vice President Cheney having the nerve to say that his office isn’t subject to the system of checks and balances.
Funny how those elected to make and uphold the laws seem to think they don’t have to abide by them.
On an off-topic closing note for the weekend, I’m just about to go send off my first query letter submitting my novel to a prospective agent (as soon as I can get over my jitters and actually push the send button on the e-mail). Wish me luck, folks.
I feel like I’ve woken up in some surrealist dream. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is apparently the sexy new darling of the gay community, due to his rippling abdominals and…and…and some freak twist of reality that makes me feel like I woke up in the twilight zone. I’m sorry, but when I think “gay sex icon” I don’t think of Putin - but apparently I’m in a small minority.
When he flexes Russia’s diplomatic and military muscle, President Vladimir Putin always makes headlines.
But few could have predicted the squall of gossip and speculation that would follow after Putin stripped off his shirt for the cameras while on holiday with Prince Albert II of Monaco in the Siberian mountains last week.
The resulting images of the presidential abs, prominently enshrined on the presidential Web site, inspired admiration, criticism, and some racing pulses among his admirers.
The Russian media still can’t get enough.
I suppose I just don’t understand the huge fuss. There are tons of men with nice bodies in the world, and just because Putin is a prominent national figure (well, y’know, being president of Russia, he’d better be pretty prominent) is no reason to start squealing over him like he’s a movie star.
The article does go on to speculate the political implications of stripping down in front of reporters to show off, saying that it may be a bid to appeal to the public and gain popularity and that it may indicate that Putin has other plans beyond his stated intention to step down. I…suppose being attractive is good for politics? Although it would be fairly shallow to reorient one’s political leanings based on a well-cut washboard stomach.
Then again, the sad thing is that if that was Putin’s intent, it probably worked.
In the meantime, Russia’s gay community is indulging in wild speculations that just by taking his shirt off, Putin is pleading for wider acceptance of homosexuality in Russia.
…I’m really not seeing how they got from point A to point B there, but ooookay.
No, really - I’d like to see any edition of a thesaurus that gives justification for the Pentagon linking gay advocacy groups with terrorism. “Gay” and “terrorist” aren’t synonymous, or anywhere close. I was steaming when I first found out about the Pentagon database tracking anti-war and gay groups for possible terrorist activity, and while I’m glad that they’re shutting down that database, reading about it again roused a remnant of that ire.
(Washington) The Pentagon said Tuesday that it will shut down an anti-terror database that was found to be spying on gay and anti-war groups.
A Pentagon spokesperson said that the database will be closed on September 17 but that much of the information it contained will be sent to the FBI where it will be placed on a database known as Guardian.
The Threat and Local Observation Notices surveillance program, known as TALON, was launched in 2003 track and monitor domestic terror threats.
But it came under intense scrutiny after news reports revealed officials were collecting data on demonstrators and protestors, including those within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
The reports said that the Pentagon had spied on New York University law school’s LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw and gay groups at the State University of New York at Albany, William Patterson College in New Jersey, and University of California at Berkeley and at Santa Cruz.
Pardon me for being a bit derisive here, but frankly the only reason a person’s sexuality should constitute a threat to national security is when you treat it in this fashion - rousing the anger of those scrutinized until they become critical enough of their governing bodies to foment dissent. Basically, it’s creating a problem by anticipating it, and it’s entirely self-defeating. Create a climate of oppression, and you also set the stage for eventual rebellion.
While I have extreme problems imagining any gay groups organizing terrorist efforts (not terror efforts, that drives me bloody nuts!) in protest of government surveillance based on sexuality, it illustrates my point: sexuality should not be of any interest to the United States government. If they don’t spy on people for being straight, why spy on people for being gay? Considering that the majority of terrorist efforts are concentrated in groups following a faith that strictly condemns homosexuality, you’d think heterosexuals would be more likely suspects and of a great deal more interest. Even saying that leaves me sputtering, though. Seriously, we’ve gone from racial profiling to sexual profiling?
What I want to know is why the information is being sent to the FBI and placed in this ‘Guardian’ database. That doesn’t sound like the government is ceasing its spying, but just shifting the responsibility for it. I’m rather mistrustful of their intentions, and of what they intend to do with the data. Granted, they did admit that the data was collected improperly and it no longer has any analytical value, but if that’s the case…
You may recall the suit against eHarmony claiming discrimination against gays, whose rejection from the site was implicit in the inability to choose “male seeking male” or “female seeking female” or specify an orientation and whose pleas to customer service were denied. Chemistry.com has capitalized on that with a clever series of “Rejected” ads, claiming that they welcome those rejected by eHarmony with open arms:
Chemistry.com’s tagline is “come as you are”, implying open acceptance not only of gays, but of anyone not suitable for eHarmony’s strict guidelines of what makes a good match. I first ran across the ads while glancing at No Style’s listing on OnlineComics.net, but on browsing Chemistry.com’s website found a full series of the simple but effective ads, appealing to all walks of life. It’s a fairly bold stab at eHarmony, to openly criticize their practices through advertising - and one that I’m sure other competitors wish they had thought of first. Chemistry.com looks to gain a significant market share from the gay dating community and others unsuited to sites like eHarmony, if the ad campaign succeeds. It certainly caught my attention, so they’ve done at least one thing right.
Gay? Lesbian? Rejected by others? Unhappy with yourself? Chemistry.com’s ad campaign proposes to offer safe haven to people who don’t fit the safe definition of happy, shiny singles looking for romance, and its home page touts novel views of marriage and dating in a modern culture. I do notice that the profile options on their site don’t allow one to choose TS/TV/TG as a gender option, but it does give you the option to choose “Male seeking Male” or “Female seeking Female”. No option for both, though. No love for the bisexuals or the trans community. Isn’t that always the case?
It’s a step in the right direction, and gets a few brownie points from my particular corner of gay life even if it’s about what I’ve come to expect from a dating site not specifically targeted towards the gay community. With the exception of fetish sites like Alt.com that cater to anyone’s desire for anything, Chemistry.com’s options are typical of mainstream dating sites that don’t specifically exclude same-sex pairings. The only difference I’ve seen is that other communities leave the option there and then seem to look the other way if users choose to exercise it, while Chemistry.com openly flaunts their availability to the gay and lesbian community.
So is Chemistry.com really doing something new? Not in the area of services offered, no - but they have taken advantage of an opportune situation to contrive an ad campaign perfectly suited for the moment.
Sometimes it’s not what you do, but when and how you do it that makes the difference.
Oh, man, this week is ending on a hilarious note. Two things you do not want to do if you want to keep your six-figure job:
1. Post MySpace pictures of yourself fellating a hot dog,
2. Get in drunken, rowdy brawls in gay bars (or any bar, really) over $10 and pitch such a fit that the authorities have to be called.
August 17, 2007 — An assistant corrections commissioner - who loves refrigerator magnets and “kissing with my eyes open” - was busted for punching out the bartender at a gay watering hole in Chelsea yesterday, officials said.
Marc Carpentier, a financial-management bigwig at the city Department of Correction, was charged with assault, criminal mischief and resisting arrest. [...] The 41-year-old official also was indefinitely suspended from his $140,000- a-year job, authorities said.
Carpentier’s drunken bender began late Wednesday when he was tossed out of another Chelsea gay bar, sources said.
Several minutes after heading to The View, Carpentier got into a beef with a bartender when he paid for a $5 beer and the server handed over five $1 bills in change, cops said.
Carpentier claimed he’d paid with a $20 bill.
The server continued to insist it was a $10 bill, but offered to give Carpentier another $10 if his cash register showed a discrepancy at night’s end. Carpentier then allegedly punched the 29-year-old bartender.
Other employees at the bar rushed over and tried to drag the drunken official on to the street. But as he got to the front glass door, Carpentier kicked it in and shattered it, prompting bar managers to call 911, law-enforcement sources said.
Man, I have better sense than to do that, and I’m a writer - people known for being notorious lushes. That’s just class, right there. Thrown out of two bars, beating people up and destroying property over $10. Thank you, Carpentier, for being such a stellar example of good public behavior!
Seriously, though, I have to wonder just how bad the guy’s day was that he needed to drink that much and got thrown out of two bars. Then again, if I knew…I’d probably feel like an arse for snickering at him. Well, I am an arse, but still. You get the idea.
Anyway, I’m out of here. I’ll see you kids Monday with a new comic.
Hey, everyone. Sorry I’m posting so late today; I spent this morning battening down the hatches in anticipation of a tropical storm that’s currently deluging Houston with rain and that may result in flooding. Bottled water and non-perishables all the way; I grew up in New Orleans, so this stuff is pretty old hat to me.
Lately I’ve been seeing many issues in gay news that leave me straddling the fence, sometimes tipping towards one side, sometimes towards the other, never quite falling off to either side. I just can’t get so rabidly up in arms that every time something happens in which gays get the short end of the stick, I can’t see the other side of the situation. The same has happened in the case of the church that canceled a gay veteran’s memorial service:
A nondenominational Christian megachurch near Dallas at the last minute withdrew permission to host a memorial service for an openly gay Navy veteran of the Persian Gulf War. Reactions have been numerous and largely negative.
Members of the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas offered to host an August 9 memorial service for Cecil Howard Sinclair, who died at the age of 46 of complications associated with heart surgery. He had served in the Gulf War and was in a long-term relationship with another veteran, Paul Wagner. Sinclair was not a member of the church, but his brother worked there in a nonreligious capacity.
That offer was withdrawn the day before the service. The Reverend Gary Simons defended the decision, telling the Associated Press that no one knew that Sinclair was gay when the offer was made. He said the church believes that homosexuality is a sin and that hosting the service would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle.
Do you see where I’m a little split here? On one hand we have people actively discriminating against homosexuals, which to me is, of course, wrong. I could go on and on about how it’s bigoted, hateful, close-minded, dehumanizing, but we all know how I feel about the subject at this point. I couldn’t live with myself if I felt that it was wrong to be who I am, and I don’t.
But on the other hand, we have a church exercising their freedom of belief - their right to practice their faith as they see fit as long as it isn’t actively harming other people. Just as they can’t force others to believe homosexuality is wrong, we can’t force them to believe that it’s right, as long as they aren’t advocating harm. While denying someone the right to host a memorial service at their church is insulting, it isn’t really actively harmful.
My gut tells me to lean one way; my head tells me to lean the other, and I end up sighing and shaking my head somewhere in between and wishing we lived in a world where such issues weren’t even a problem.
So I’d like to know: what do you think? What are your feelings on this issue, and do you think there’s a clear case of right and wrong?
You may recall that a while back we talked about rumors of a gay couple joining the Desperate Housewives cast, and that I was more interested in Nathan Fillion than in the upcoming entrance of DH into the realm of the pink triangle. Well, for those of you with a more vested interest in these things, it’s been confirmed that Kevin Rahm (Judging Amy) and Tuc Watkins (One Life to Live) will be playing the desperate duo joining the desperate wives.
Allow me, dear readers, a moment to abandon my principles. Allow me to step down from my soapbox on which I preach about substance, rhetoric, philosophy, politics, all things beyond the physical. Allow me, in fact, to be entirely and wonderfully shallow. And once you’ve given me that leeway, take a look at just why:
What I’m going to say next will probably get me skinned and crucified as a racist, even though I’m not: I’m not normally into white guys. It’s not a hard and fast rule; your average white guy just doesn’t appeal to me because they tend not to be my type (and everyone has a type; you might as well admit it before you point fingers at me), but I’ve made exceptions to that rule both for personality and for appearance.
Rahm (left) and Watkins (right, the one without the upper body attachments, thanks) are definitely exceptions to that rule.
I have to wonder just how much of their relationship will be portrayed. I’d be amusingly interested to see a bedroom scene a la Bree’s BDSM hijinks; voyeurism aside, I am clinically interested to see how the producers will portray the sexuality involved in a gay relationship - if they even have the balls (no pun intended) to touch on that in prime time TV. Mainstream America does tend to protest such things, you know, and television broadcasters do have to play it safe with their ratings.
I also wonder what kind of on-screen dynamic the two will have, and how well they’ll act the part. It always heightens the character relationships when there’s a natural chemistry between the actors, and that can be a bit more difficult to find when same-sex relationships are portrayed by one or more straight actors (though really, I don’t know much about these two - anyone know anything about their off-screen orientation?).
The more press this gets, the more curious I become. Considering the odd humor of DH, the introduction of a gay couple provides many opportunities to explore serious issues laced with a few good laughs.
Sweet honkin’ jeebus, that title is cheesy, isn’t it? Oi. Anyway, on to business.
First: If you’ve been watching the LiveJournal kerfluffle, you may want to know that LJ/Six Apart has finally posted a comprehensible clarification of their policy regarding certain types of art. They’ve also instituted a two-strikes program for violators of that policy, rather than immediate and permanent suspension, and hint that they are in discussion with ponderosa121 and elaboration regarding the previous suspensions.
Second: Do you remember when we briefly touched (in comic form) upon the trials of Reverend Bradley Schmeling? It looks like Schmeling has emerged victorious:
ATLANTA — With hugs and cheers Sunday, members of Atlanta’s oldest Lutheran church celebrated the pastor at the center of a battle over the treatment of gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
The support for the Rev. Bradley Schmeling at St. John’s Lutheran Church came a day after the national assembly of the ELCA in Chicago urged bishops to refrain from defrocking gay and lesbian ministers who violate a celibacy rule. The assembly’s action fell short of permitting ordained gays churchwide.
Schmeling called the assembly’s vote a “crack in the dam” and told the more than 100 people gathered in the St. John’s sanctuary that the congregation had “given its gift” to the ELCA.
“The hard work, the struggle, has really finally made a difference for years to come,” he said.
That, right there, is enough to lift my usual dour morning mood and make me smile. Might not be enough to make me a man of faith, but trust me, making me smile before noon and before half a pot of coffee is a much more difficult task.
There are some who might say that it’s not enough - that it’s not true, open acceptance, but simply a policy of agreeing to look the other way. True, the measures taken aren’t perfect…but for their purpose, they’re adequate, and they’re a step in the right direction. Schmeling says they’re a crack in the dam; I prefer to use the adage “a foot in the door”, because now that gay rights has a foot in the door of the Lutheran church, soon that door might open to admit us fully. It’ll take hard work, it’ll take a little prying, but that precedent is set.
Really, that’s what advocacy and gay rights are all about: baby steps. We like to make a lot of noise and cry out for radical change, but too often when we leap far forward, we’re shoved even farther back. It’s those baby steps that get us further down the road; they may seem small at the time, but each step is another inch forward and more firm ground gained - and it really starts to add up.
We may not be walking tall with the big boys yet, but we’re getting there. This victory for Schmeling is just another sign of that.
I really shouldn’t be surprised at anything that Fred Phelps does anymore. The man is sick, bigoted, at least marginally insane, and has a very poor grasp on reality. He’s already shown that he has little to no respect for the dead, after his plans to picket the VA Tech funerals and his insistence on the reasoning behind the shootings - but I can’t help but be disgusted that he’s at it again. Now he and his followers are planning to picket the funerals of those who died in the Minnesota 35W bridge collapse.
Taken from a press release from Phelps’ website, godhatesfags.com:
Thank God for Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
WBC to picket memorial service for the dead, in religious protest and warning: “God is not mocked.” Gal. 6:7. God hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates Minneapolis and Minnesota - Land of the Sodomite Damned.
WBC will also picket the funerals of those whom a sovereign God abruptly snatched from the Bridge in Minneapolis and cast into Hell…
Annoyance at gratuitous caps aside - how cracked do you have to be? I really wish that Phelps would do something worth arresting him for - arresting him, and locking him away for good. It’s very unlike me to wish harm on other people, but I’m allowed to wish that he bring harm on himself, aren’t I? No? [sighs] Okay, okay. Likely anything he did worth being jailed for would end up harming someone else, anyway.
Just…can’t we find some way to remove this man from society? He’s a blight, a polluted and poisoned version of the sidewalk prophet with his bell and pasteboard sign claiming that the sky is falling. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I don’t understand how anyone can think being so hateful is in any way doing the work of any god, unless your god is one sick son of a ****. From what I’ve heard from other Christians, that ain’t the way your god rolls, yo. Someone needs to clue Phelps into the peace and love thing.
And someone needs to tell Phelps that he is slime, pure and simple, for continuing to disrespect the dead and the families of the dead during already trying times.
Tune in later in the weekend for my thoughts on the LOGO presidential candidate debate. I’m too brain-burned for intelligent political discourse today.
We’ve talked about ex-gay/conversion therapy here before, as something that people do as a personal choice. I don’t agree with it, I don’t like it, but I can’t argue with someone’s right to follow that path if they really think it will make them happier with who they are. What I can argue with, however, is the recruitment for ex-gay therapy in public schools.
Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX) is celebrating after settling a lawsuit with an Arlington, Va., school district. The group will be allowed to distribute fliers to middle school students with the message that change is possible for people who are dissatisfied with living homosexually.
The Arlington County Schools had refused to allow PFOX to send home or post the fliers, even though other groups were allowed that privilege, including gay organizations. That’s when the Christian Legal Society (CLS) and Alliance Defense Fund stepped in, prompting the school district to settle.
Timothy Tracey with CLS said PFOX now can get important information into the hands of students.
“I think this is a definite victory for the First Amendment,” he said. “It’s Arlington County Schools recognizing its obligation to the First Amendment to treat community groups evenhandedly.”
As with every issue, there are two angles to consider for this story. If groups like PFLAG or a school’s GSA are allowed to hand out fliers in public schools, groups like PFOX should be allowed to as well, right? The question is whether or not handing out those fliers is causing potential harm to the students.
I, personally, think that telling already-confused teenagers that their sexuality is unhealthy but that it can be “cured” is beyond harmful. It’s wrong, it’s disgusting, and it leaves me aching for the children who are told such things at an impressionable age and come to believe it, damaging their self-confidence and their growth into healthy adults. Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong, however, could say the same about the advocacy of a school’s gay-straight alliance or fliers distributed by PFLAG, and claim that the organizations are corrupting their children into homosexuality. It’s hard to view this case objectively, when the validity of it is based wholly on standing to one side or the other of a subjective morality debate. Trying to enforce equality for all only clouds the waters further.
Despite my obvious leanings, being gay myself and quite firmly believing there’s nothing wrong with it, I try to look at it by breaking it down into two simple statements of intent:
PFLAG, GSAs, etc: if you’re gay, it’s all right; if you’re straight, it’s all right as well. We offer you support in accepting who you are at a young age so that you can grow up confident and healthy in your sexuality. If you’re uncomfortable with it, that’s all right. Most teens, gay or straight, start off uncomfortable with their sexuality. It just takes time.
PFOX: If you’re gay, it’s wrong. That uncomfortable feeling is perfectly natural, because deep inside you already know that you’re doing something wrong. It’s okay. We can help you to correct that so you feel more comfortable with yourself and who you are, and so you can live your life in the way that you feel should be right.
I don’t know about you, but I know which one of those I’d pick as more damaging to young, impressionable minds.
[sigh] And yet for me to say that I don’t think that PFOX should be allowed to distribute its materials would be hypocritical, and in denial of my belief in equality. I argue often for fair treatment of homosexuals based on my firm belief that we are deserving of the same human rights as anyone else, because we are all created equal under the eyes of whatever deity or mathematical concept or whatever you happen to believe in. However, equal rights doesn’t just mean fair treatment for me and what I believe in; it means fair treatment for everyone, including people whose stances I absolutely abhor. As long as they use only words and don’t actually force anyone into conversion therapy, they have the right. It pains me to admit that, to the point where I’m grinding my teeth trying to force the words out, but fair is fair.
But I’m still allowed to say that I don’t like it.
One can only trust that the parents and friends of these children will be enough to counteract the propaganda spread by groups like PFOX, and that in the end, no matter what happens, nothing harmful comes of it.
In the post, LiveJournal staff address certain questions specifically, but leave others unanswered despite telling users that they are “misinformed” without explaining how - while at the same time asking users to elucidate how they can improve their services. The staff also address the behavior of the staff member previously found mocking users in a community meant for ironic satire as, and I quote, “bad judgment”.
Although LiveJournal takes large steps in clarifying its stance, most users appear of the mindset “too little, too late”; the delayed response time of Six Apart/Livejournal has done little to help its image among its customer base, or the perception of the company’s ideals of customer service. The deluge of comments to the post in LiveJournal’s lj_biz community has already begun, and is expected to continue until users are satisfied with their understanding of LiveJournal’s Terms of Service. The natives are beyond restless: the natives are angry, and demanding recognition.
LiveJournal has also not addressed how they defined ‘artistic merit’ in the case of ponderosa121. What they have, however, made clear is their stance on ‘illegal and harmful content’:
I. Content which violates LiveJournal’s policy against illegal and harmful content is:
a. Content that intrinsically violates existing United States or California law; in other words, where merely possessing, displaying or transmitting the content is a crime. This includes child pornography and threats against the President and successors to the Presidency.
b. Content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.
c. Content that solicits the commission of, seeks customers for, or provides instructions for illegal activities that would cause immediate and lasting physical or economic harm to others.
They then move on to explain how they apply this to content of a fictional nature:
* How do these policies apply to images of minors who are not real?
To ensure that we are compliant with child pornography laws, we have decided to treat any content which contains a graphic visual depiction of a minor (anyone under the age of 18, as defined by Federal and California state law) engaged in sexually explicit conduct as a violation of our policy regarding illegal content (see this link for definitions of graphic, visual depiction, and sexually explicit conduct). We feel this approach creates the clearest guidelines possible for users to follow and for the Abuse Prevention Team to enforce, and minimizes the risk of an incorrect evaluation of material. In short, we want to eliminate child porn from being hosted on LiveJournal.
That still leaves room for ambiguity in ponderosa121’s case, where the specific piece that caused her suspension left the age of the youngest character in question due to the style - not to mention LiveJournal’s own statement in response to the previously mentioned support ticket that it was deemed obscene not because of the ages, but because it lacked in artistic merit.
What the post does make abundantly clear, however, is one thing: anyone who violates these terms, for any reason and at any time, “regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.” Fair or unfair, right or wrong, that’s the way it is. Make of it what you will.
Will LiveJournal’s community members be satisfied with the response? That remains to be seen.
Update 12:35 a.m. CST 08-08-07: They sure as hell aren’t satisfied with this line of commentary. I feel an Inigo Montoya moment coming on here. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
genghis khan, mongolian empire, sodomy laws, death penalty
