A while back, I was perusing the blog: Boy Culture, a fun little blog that covers various aspects of gay culture from "Madonna, pop culture, politics, (and) sex...not necessarily in that order." On August, 25 they posted a video that some cute guys vacationing on Fire Island made of themselves lip-syncing to the Miley Cyrus song "Party in the U.S.A." It was fun and silly and feel-good, much like the song itself, which I had never heard until then. It made me smile (and, according to the hits on youtube, it made upwards of 345,866 other people smile, too).
But like the masochistic schmuck I am, I had to go the extra mile and read the comments section of the Boy Culture posting. Trust me, in this day and age of a virtual world, people will and do say the most cruel and hateful things, mainly because it's all generally anonymous. People say things online that they would never say to someone's face.
As I said, Boy Culture is a gay blog and most of the readership is gay. So, needless to say, I was pretty shocked that the first comment was: "Great. More fem gay men showing America we are not masculine men. Do any of these guys even have a penis?"
Ouch! It is just ugly to watch people turn on their own. Granted the subsequent comments chastised the original commenter for his homophobic comments (yes, homosexuals can be homophobic) and went on to comment how fun and silly and cute the guys were (though they chastised them for their taste in music).
But the damage had been done. What struck me so forcefully, besides the hateful homophobia in the remark, is that we, as a culture and a society, are still drinking the stereotypical-laced Kool-Aid that men are supposed to be masculine and women are supposed to be feminine, and those that step out of those stereotypes are fairgame for insults, ridicule and violence.
It is this archaic stereotyping of gender roles that kept women in the kitchen for too many years, still keeps women from being paid and respected as much for doing the same job as a man, and that keeps scores of homosexuals hiding in their closets pretending to be who they aren't, engaging in false relationships with those of the opposite sex to fit in and escape this sort of vicious ridicule and worse.
Of course, we expect these kinds of statements and sentiments from the extreme right, but to come from within our own community, that's especially hard hitting and hurtful and scary. It's about acceptance, not of others but of oneself. That's the key to accepting others. On Rupaul's terrifically campy TV show Rupaul's Drag Race, she ends each episode with the question: If you can't love yourself, how the hell are you going to love anyone else?"
Ah, Ru, truer words have never been spoken.
It's time to get out there and start loving ourselves, no matter what society tells us. Be butch. Be effeminate. Be anything in between, as long as you be you.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
It's Not Hate
One of the main impetuses for this blog is my constant need to understand the actions of others. And not just their actions but also the psychological path to those actions. I'm one of those people who can't accept things merely for the sake of accepting them and moving on. I'm a notorious dweller, especially upon negative actions, becoming obsessed with understanding why people do the things they do. Even in my fiction, understanding people's actions is a major component of my stories.
All that said, I feel that I have come to an understanding of the anti-gay movement that has become so aggressive as of late. We in the gay community seem to have forgotten that the homophobia expressed by the anti-gay movement isn't about their hate of homosexuals but their fear (phobia) of the homosexual lifestyle and all its perceived implications if that lifestyle were to be accepted by mainstream society.
Their fear isn't a fear of their own homosexual feelings (the old adage: "me thinks she/he doth protest too much" is used often when a homophobe rears their ugly head. Mainly when that homophobe is male.). I believe their fear is mired in the idea of society coming unbound. It's the fear of possibilities.
So many times, I've wanted to ask one of these opponents: "What does my love have to do with yours? How does my desire to be married to my partner effect your marriage?" I personally have never seen the correlation, until now. It dawned on me that my love, my sexual desires, and my refusal to deny them in the name of God and societal pressure effects the traditional existence by presenting alternate options. I represent the freedom to be human, not a robotic follower of God, or, probably more accurate, a robotic follower of the patriarchal system of religion and society which seeks to "control" people and their actions to more closely resemble an archaic and more understandable way of life.
Options are scary. Even mundane everyday options such as what outfit to wear and what to make for dinner can be daunting on occasion. So when the presented options seem to disturb our patterned way of life, well then, options become downright evil. I actually understand the concept. No one wants their lives to become untethered from their understanding, and the narrower that understanding the easier it is to become untethered. I get it. Hell, there have been many times in my life when I wished I didn't have these options set in front of me, but that was my fear of walking against the usual flow of traffic. Going all Sandy Dennis and walking up the down staircase and all. Most of us don't want to be that person who disrupts, which underlies the push for equality, the push to get an understanding of homosexuality and homosexuals out into the mainstream so that being homosexual isn't a disruption of life, or even a option, it just is.
Fear is the true disruptor of the anti-gay movement participants' lives. Even if the option to be a homosexual isn't one that they feel in themselves, the idea of the option existing still opens windows and door heretofore sealed shut to them by religion and/or society. Maybe, if the option to be homosexual is out there, then other options exist too: the option to not always have sex in the missionary position; the option to not get married at all despite society's constant pressure to do so; the option to have sex outside the marriage and it not effect the marriage negatively; the option that my child will live a life unlike my own; and myriad other options. The idea of homosexuality brings with it so many other options that aren't even related to it: hence the fear of it in general.
Homosexuality is a gateway option and that gateway swinging wide open is apparently cause for much fear. I say: step outside the gate and see for yourself that there is nothing to fear in having options. Step outside and realize that we are not robots or sheep (as it is, the Lord is not your shepherd, it's the men who wrote the Bible in the name of the Lord who are shepherding you and their flocks in the same field, walking you around in circles inside the fence that they, not the Lord, constructed for you). We are individuals who can face our fears head-on and survive them, mainly because the fear not faced, the fear unknown and not understood merely makes that fear seem larger than it really is. Most fears, when faced, turn out to not be fears at all.
All that said, I feel that I have come to an understanding of the anti-gay movement that has become so aggressive as of late. We in the gay community seem to have forgotten that the homophobia expressed by the anti-gay movement isn't about their hate of homosexuals but their fear (phobia) of the homosexual lifestyle and all its perceived implications if that lifestyle were to be accepted by mainstream society.
Their fear isn't a fear of their own homosexual feelings (the old adage: "me thinks she/he doth protest too much" is used often when a homophobe rears their ugly head. Mainly when that homophobe is male.). I believe their fear is mired in the idea of society coming unbound. It's the fear of possibilities.
So many times, I've wanted to ask one of these opponents: "What does my love have to do with yours? How does my desire to be married to my partner effect your marriage?" I personally have never seen the correlation, until now. It dawned on me that my love, my sexual desires, and my refusal to deny them in the name of God and societal pressure effects the traditional existence by presenting alternate options. I represent the freedom to be human, not a robotic follower of God, or, probably more accurate, a robotic follower of the patriarchal system of religion and society which seeks to "control" people and their actions to more closely resemble an archaic and more understandable way of life.
Options are scary. Even mundane everyday options such as what outfit to wear and what to make for dinner can be daunting on occasion. So when the presented options seem to disturb our patterned way of life, well then, options become downright evil. I actually understand the concept. No one wants their lives to become untethered from their understanding, and the narrower that understanding the easier it is to become untethered. I get it. Hell, there have been many times in my life when I wished I didn't have these options set in front of me, but that was my fear of walking against the usual flow of traffic. Going all Sandy Dennis and walking up the down staircase and all. Most of us don't want to be that person who disrupts, which underlies the push for equality, the push to get an understanding of homosexuality and homosexuals out into the mainstream so that being homosexual isn't a disruption of life, or even a option, it just is.
Fear is the true disruptor of the anti-gay movement participants' lives. Even if the option to be a homosexual isn't one that they feel in themselves, the idea of the option existing still opens windows and door heretofore sealed shut to them by religion and/or society. Maybe, if the option to be homosexual is out there, then other options exist too: the option to not always have sex in the missionary position; the option to not get married at all despite society's constant pressure to do so; the option to have sex outside the marriage and it not effect the marriage negatively; the option that my child will live a life unlike my own; and myriad other options. The idea of homosexuality brings with it so many other options that aren't even related to it: hence the fear of it in general.
Homosexuality is a gateway option and that gateway swinging wide open is apparently cause for much fear. I say: step outside the gate and see for yourself that there is nothing to fear in having options. Step outside and realize that we are not robots or sheep (as it is, the Lord is not your shepherd, it's the men who wrote the Bible in the name of the Lord who are shepherding you and their flocks in the same field, walking you around in circles inside the fence that they, not the Lord, constructed for you). We are individuals who can face our fears head-on and survive them, mainly because the fear not faced, the fear unknown and not understood merely makes that fear seem larger than it really is. Most fears, when faced, turn out to not be fears at all.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Straw that Broke This Pervert's Back
I read a couple of gay-centric, somewhat political blogs (Towleroad and Joe.My.God being my two favorites and well worth the time to read) to keep abreast of politics, entertainment, and religion in regards to the gay community. Many of the reports are items you'll never see via the mainstream media, less left-leaning than the right knows or would like to admit. There is a rise in anti-gay hate crimes. There are websites, churches, and seemingly whole religions that seem to have been created solely to spew anti-gay rhetoric and to destroy our community and our people. Ex-gay ministries are still thriving, desperately trying to "convert" homosexuals to heterosexuality. It's all very frustrating when you sit on your couch or in your cubicle and read all this bigotry and hatred, especially when it's masked by the words and face of God and/or Jesus.
But as disgusting as it can be (World Net Daily can be especially crazed when it comes to anything that steps out of the "norm" of their bible. Right now it's "birther" central over there. And a quick perusal of their forums will scare the bejeebus out of you rather than into you!) I make sure to read through a goodly portion of what's out there in order to "know thy enemy." While I've been mentally writing rebuttals to some of these items, it wasn't until recently that I felt the true motivation to put those rebuttals online in the form of this blog.
The straw that broke this pervert's back was when I stumbled across a commentary by John C. Wright. In his article, More Diversity and More Perversity in the Future!, which discussed GLAAD's (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) recent "report cards," handed out to the various television networks grading their portrayals of diversity within their programs (which they call the Network Responsibility Index). Apparently, the SiFi Channel (or SyFy, as it now wants to be called) received a rather poor grade, an F to be exact, because its shows and programming sorely lacked gay characters or representations. Much to Mr. Wright's chagrin, SyFy has agreed to add more diversity to its programs in the future.
John C. Wright (from his commentary): "The head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects. They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life. But they will imply the lie. They will play along. It's only polite! It's so tolerant!"
Mr. Wright is a bit perturbed, which in turn perturbed the shit out of me, as did it perturb a multitude of commenters that read his post (the post and the comments have been deleted by Mr. Wright because too many Internet "trolls" clogged up the heated, yet stimulating, debate that the post generated, which is a shame because the comments were more interesting, delving and telling than the post itself). While, I afford Mr. Wright his opinions on the subject, I take umbrage with his delivery, as well as with the flawed logic, or lack thereof, of his argument.
Without rehashing the entire post (I encourage you to read it in its entirety before continuing), I'll let you know that he goes on, in a rather snarky manner, presumably attempting to be humorous, to equate homosexuality with pedastry, bestiality, and necrophilia (his pro-commenters also tossed in a healthy dose of incest, as well). Apparently, like marijuana is a gateway drug, homosexuality is a gateway sex act. Not sure how that happens, since I've personally never been attracted to a sheep or a child, but to Mr. Wright, and his ilk, it's all up for grabs once you've dabbled in same-sex sex. Well, I'm going to let his presentation and hyperbole stand aside for the purposes of this post and focus on a couple of words he used to shore up his opinion.
The first word that caught my eye was: natural. Within the context of Mr. Wright's post: "...just as if this abomination (homosexuality) is normal and natural and worthy of no comment." I'm also going to disregard the ever-popular "abomination," because anyone who uses such a dramatic word can not be reasoned with (yet, here I go trying). Now, what I see from this statement is that Mr. Wright is mixing biology with religion. He uses the word "natural" in regards to what he believes is "natural" within his religion. But the word 'natural' is derived from the word 'nature,' which is not a religious construct but a physical construct. In nature, homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 species of animals, refuting Mr. Wright's claims of homosexual sex being unnatural (in the comments section, he stated this much more firmly). While homosexual sex may not be "natural" within the context of a Biblical world, it certainly is natural within our physical world. There is no disputing that. Biology trumps Religion in the fact that biology is tangible, it exists, it can and has been documented, where as religion is a theoretical construct of the mind and the imagination. I ask: which is more natural?
Mr. Wright tosses a lot of other "negative" words around in his post: vice, perversion, moral(ity), values, malfunction (one of my favorites), all to condemn homosexuality as something unnatural and abnormal; but from what stand-point? All these words, within the context of his post, are rather vague, theoretical words. Morality: who's morality? Is there a set morality for the world? No, there is not. Question 10 people about their idea of morality and you'll get 10 different answers. Same with values. Perversion: according to Merriam Websters is "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right." Again, more vaguery. What is good? What is true? What is considered morally right for ALL of us? These are straw words when used in arguments, and just about the only kind of words anyone coming from a religious standpoint can use because there is no concrete on which to stand in the middle of religion.
Is homosexuality the norm? No, of course it's not. Studies have homosexuals making up anywhere from 4-10% of the population, not the majority by a long shot. But does that make it abnormal? No, because homosexuals have existed since recorded history. If it was abnormal then nature would have eliminated it hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. It would have died out via evolution (and no arguments that HIV/AIDS tried to do that since it has been documented to have existed in simians long before making the leap to humans). And if you're a creationist, then God, being all powerful, would have eliminated it (supposedly he tried back in Sodom and Gomorrah but even that didn't quash it--though it led to Lot impregnating both his daughters, talk about abnormal morality!). And this history of homosexuality via art and literature and numerous other documentations lends itself to refute the entire generation of Mr. Wright's post: "why should homosexuals be presented in science fiction in the first place?" Because it's always been a part of the landscape, Mr. Wright, and it always will be, no matter how loudly you beat your bibles and shove your gods at us. It hasn't worked thus far, what makes you think it's going to work by the year 2073?
There is just so much more in Mr. Wright's posting that could be picked apart: "persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions," and believing in beings that no one can see is not a psychological malfunction?; "no rational argument to defend the Leftist position," though one could argue that the belief in a higher being is beyond irrational, bordering on psychotic, and then to base one's entire argument upon that irrational belief would be truly irrational, and might warrant a prescription for Lithium; "the lack of self control in sexual matters, where self control is paramount," I'm not even sure what this is about: self-control is paramount in regards to sexual matters? I guess anything outside of the missionary position is considered perverted.
All this said, the fact of the matter is that the religious right (of which Mr. Wright is a member because he subscribes to their rhetoric just as surely as I subscribe to the liberal left's rhetoric, though I think it's interesting to note that Mr. Wright is a self-proclaimed former atheist but has now been directed by a god to walk the righteous path. Prone to extremes much, Mr. Wright), is fighting a battle in the name of the god that supposedly made me as I am. They seem to believe that I am in the wrong for acknowledging, accepting and living within my sexual orientation, just as they live in their sexual orientation everyday. They seem to believe that it is my duty as a child of god to fight these desires and not succumb to the vice of perversion that is homosexuality. They seem to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They don't seem to believe, or even entertain the possibly that I might be here to help them. What if their god created me as a test of their love and goodwill and acceptance of all that he created, and they are failing that test miserably? They, the religious zealots, need to step outside the confines of their churches (created by men) and step outside of their dogmas (created by men) and look into their hearts (created by god) and see the world that he created for what it is and for what it possesses.
They need to retake the test but study more this time.
Jeffrey
PS: After the deluge of comments after his initial posting, Mr. Wright, however contritely, did extend an olive branch to the many people offended by his post, which I commend whole-heartily. While he does have to make his digressions from this offering to call out the Left as a "nation of whiners," state that we are entirely too politically correct these days (which I might have to agree with), and that he is offering said olive branch merely because God has told him too, the overall offering is welcomed and appreciated.
Also, I want to explain that I am not targeting Mr. Wright for any other reason except for the fact that his posting was the latest that I have seen in a long stream of like postings and opinions. The religious right, the zealots, are becoming more aggressive in their need create us all in their images (not gods) and I can no longer sit idly by. I need to speak out for myself. Mr. Wright just happened to be the first one I took aim at. No offense to him personally, just his kind.
JR
But as disgusting as it can be (World Net Daily can be especially crazed when it comes to anything that steps out of the "norm" of their bible. Right now it's "birther" central over there. And a quick perusal of their forums will scare the bejeebus out of you rather than into you!) I make sure to read through a goodly portion of what's out there in order to "know thy enemy." While I've been mentally writing rebuttals to some of these items, it wasn't until recently that I felt the true motivation to put those rebuttals online in the form of this blog.
The straw that broke this pervert's back was when I stumbled across a commentary by John C. Wright. In his article, More Diversity and More Perversity in the Future!, which discussed GLAAD's (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) recent "report cards," handed out to the various television networks grading their portrayals of diversity within their programs (which they call the Network Responsibility Index). Apparently, the SiFi Channel (or SyFy, as it now wants to be called) received a rather poor grade, an F to be exact, because its shows and programming sorely lacked gay characters or representations. Much to Mr. Wright's chagrin, SyFy has agreed to add more diversity to its programs in the future.
John C. Wright (from his commentary): "The head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects. They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life. But they will imply the lie. They will play along. It's only polite! It's so tolerant!"
Mr. Wright is a bit perturbed, which in turn perturbed the shit out of me, as did it perturb a multitude of commenters that read his post (the post and the comments have been deleted by Mr. Wright because too many Internet "trolls" clogged up the heated, yet stimulating, debate that the post generated, which is a shame because the comments were more interesting, delving and telling than the post itself). While, I afford Mr. Wright his opinions on the subject, I take umbrage with his delivery, as well as with the flawed logic, or lack thereof, of his argument.
Without rehashing the entire post (I encourage you to read it in its entirety before continuing), I'll let you know that he goes on, in a rather snarky manner, presumably attempting to be humorous, to equate homosexuality with pedastry, bestiality, and necrophilia (his pro-commenters also tossed in a healthy dose of incest, as well). Apparently, like marijuana is a gateway drug, homosexuality is a gateway sex act. Not sure how that happens, since I've personally never been attracted to a sheep or a child, but to Mr. Wright, and his ilk, it's all up for grabs once you've dabbled in same-sex sex. Well, I'm going to let his presentation and hyperbole stand aside for the purposes of this post and focus on a couple of words he used to shore up his opinion.
The first word that caught my eye was: natural. Within the context of Mr. Wright's post: "...just as if this abomination (homosexuality) is normal and natural and worthy of no comment." I'm also going to disregard the ever-popular "abomination," because anyone who uses such a dramatic word can not be reasoned with (yet, here I go trying). Now, what I see from this statement is that Mr. Wright is mixing biology with religion. He uses the word "natural" in regards to what he believes is "natural" within his religion. But the word 'natural' is derived from the word 'nature,' which is not a religious construct but a physical construct. In nature, homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 species of animals, refuting Mr. Wright's claims of homosexual sex being unnatural (in the comments section, he stated this much more firmly). While homosexual sex may not be "natural" within the context of a Biblical world, it certainly is natural within our physical world. There is no disputing that. Biology trumps Religion in the fact that biology is tangible, it exists, it can and has been documented, where as religion is a theoretical construct of the mind and the imagination. I ask: which is more natural?
Mr. Wright tosses a lot of other "negative" words around in his post: vice, perversion, moral(ity), values, malfunction (one of my favorites), all to condemn homosexuality as something unnatural and abnormal; but from what stand-point? All these words, within the context of his post, are rather vague, theoretical words. Morality: who's morality? Is there a set morality for the world? No, there is not. Question 10 people about their idea of morality and you'll get 10 different answers. Same with values. Perversion: according to Merriam Websters is "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right." Again, more vaguery. What is good? What is true? What is considered morally right for ALL of us? These are straw words when used in arguments, and just about the only kind of words anyone coming from a religious standpoint can use because there is no concrete on which to stand in the middle of religion.
Is homosexuality the norm? No, of course it's not. Studies have homosexuals making up anywhere from 4-10% of the population, not the majority by a long shot. But does that make it abnormal? No, because homosexuals have existed since recorded history. If it was abnormal then nature would have eliminated it hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. It would have died out via evolution (and no arguments that HIV/AIDS tried to do that since it has been documented to have existed in simians long before making the leap to humans). And if you're a creationist, then God, being all powerful, would have eliminated it (supposedly he tried back in Sodom and Gomorrah but even that didn't quash it--though it led to Lot impregnating both his daughters, talk about abnormal morality!). And this history of homosexuality via art and literature and numerous other documentations lends itself to refute the entire generation of Mr. Wright's post: "why should homosexuals be presented in science fiction in the first place?" Because it's always been a part of the landscape, Mr. Wright, and it always will be, no matter how loudly you beat your bibles and shove your gods at us. It hasn't worked thus far, what makes you think it's going to work by the year 2073?
There is just so much more in Mr. Wright's posting that could be picked apart: "persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions," and believing in beings that no one can see is not a psychological malfunction?; "no rational argument to defend the Leftist position," though one could argue that the belief in a higher being is beyond irrational, bordering on psychotic, and then to base one's entire argument upon that irrational belief would be truly irrational, and might warrant a prescription for Lithium; "the lack of self control in sexual matters, where self control is paramount," I'm not even sure what this is about: self-control is paramount in regards to sexual matters? I guess anything outside of the missionary position is considered perverted.
All this said, the fact of the matter is that the religious right (of which Mr. Wright is a member because he subscribes to their rhetoric just as surely as I subscribe to the liberal left's rhetoric, though I think it's interesting to note that Mr. Wright is a self-proclaimed former atheist but has now been directed by a god to walk the righteous path. Prone to extremes much, Mr. Wright), is fighting a battle in the name of the god that supposedly made me as I am. They seem to believe that I am in the wrong for acknowledging, accepting and living within my sexual orientation, just as they live in their sexual orientation everyday. They seem to believe that it is my duty as a child of god to fight these desires and not succumb to the vice of perversion that is homosexuality. They seem to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They don't seem to believe, or even entertain the possibly that I might be here to help them. What if their god created me as a test of their love and goodwill and acceptance of all that he created, and they are failing that test miserably? They, the religious zealots, need to step outside the confines of their churches (created by men) and step outside of their dogmas (created by men) and look into their hearts (created by god) and see the world that he created for what it is and for what it possesses.
They need to retake the test but study more this time.
Jeffrey
PS: After the deluge of comments after his initial posting, Mr. Wright, however contritely, did extend an olive branch to the many people offended by his post, which I commend whole-heartily. While he does have to make his digressions from this offering to call out the Left as a "nation of whiners," state that we are entirely too politically correct these days (which I might have to agree with), and that he is offering said olive branch merely because God has told him too, the overall offering is welcomed and appreciated.
Also, I want to explain that I am not targeting Mr. Wright for any other reason except for the fact that his posting was the latest that I have seen in a long stream of like postings and opinions. The religious right, the zealots, are becoming more aggressive in their need create us all in their images (not gods) and I can no longer sit idly by. I need to speak out for myself. Mr. Wright just happened to be the first one I took aim at. No offense to him personally, just his kind.
JR
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Anti-Religion?
Before I go too much further with this blog, I want to address the fact that religion, and maybe my perceived dislike of it, will come up in quite a few posts. I will state for the record that I am not anti-religion, but I will also add a few caveats to that declaration.
I understand the need for religion. I understand how belief in an all-powerful god can bring comfort to many. I understand how the rituals of religion tap into the human need for order and repetition and ceremony to create a secure existence. I understand all this and more, I just don't find the need within myself to adhere to these ideals. So, while I am not anti-religion for some, I am anti-religion for myself.
Do I believe in God? While I'm not an atheist, I personally don't believe an any god I've encountered so far. My most formal acquaintance has been with the god of Catholicism, the god as father of Christ. But, in addition, I've read up on other religions (Judaism, Kabbalah, Buddhism, the Quaker religion) seeking understanding of the world and my place within it, as well as understanding of what I innately know within myself. What I have come to discover is that each religion's god can't exist outside that religion. The god is formed by the religion. The god acts within the parameters of the beliefs of the religion: almost as if the religion created the god and not the other way around. How else to explain different religions that all work off, essentially, the same book and supposedly the same god, yet the gods all appear to have different agendas for us humans.
Religion is about parameters, for the god and the follower. And I understand this, as well. Humans need, desire, and crave boundaries, as I've stated many times. Without boundaries, we can easily go off the rails of what has been deemed acceptable by society (and what is socially acceptable depends on the society in which one lives). And a world without a god is an unbound world. The god is the ultimate parent (which could explain its creation: adults, no longer guided or hemmed in by their parental guardians create an ultimate being as a substitute to trick their minds into curbing their desires). Many of us need the idea of constantly being watched in order to keep us on the straight and narrow, to keep us safe from self-harm. I believe this aspect of religion is good and needed, but again, for some.
I put more trust in myself. I am my own god, which may sound extremely blasphemous to some but if one doesn't believe in an all-powerful god, then one is not being blasphemous when one states that he or she is a god. I believe that we are all gods, born of the same universal energy. Some have told me: "Well, that's belief in god right there. That's what god is: power and energy." Yes, but the energy I believe in doesn't filter down in some patriarchal hierarchy. We are all equal in energy, even the energy from whence we come. That energy within us is our "soul." I air-quote the word 'soul' because the word connotes a religious belief to many. I believe when our bodies die, our energy re-enters the universe, to re-infuse the world, maybe into another body, maybe not, but it doesn't dissipate or rise to a heaven or sink into a hell.
Am I sure of any of this? As sure as you are of your god. It's all just theory until proven right or wrong. No one knows for sure if gods exist, though passion and belief can be powerful emotions, so powerful they feel tangible, which makes god seem tangible, but, in truth, no one knows. The Bible is just a book written by men with their own agendas: to control the masses, to lay down a belief that tried to make sense of the world and, ultimately, of their own existence.
But: If there is no god, then what the hell is this? What are we doing here? Why do we exist? A belief in a god answers these questions, however vaguely (and with so many stipulations that one wonders if god is good or evil, or just some crazed, bored, ancient energy toying with us on a daily basis.). My idea of universal energy answers none of these questions, but I don't need it to. I'm fine without knowing the purpose of this world or any others that might exist. They, and we, exist and that is that. And that is enough for me. I can sleep at night and not dream of heaven because I believe that "heaven" exists within all of us, because all of us are gods (though not the all-powerful ones of the storybooks. None of us have dominion over the others, a vital misconception of godliness.)
And that might be the crux of my anti-religious stance: "None of us have dominion over the others!" Each individual religion believes that they are the one that is right. They have figured it all out and everyone else is wrong. We win and they lose. Religion, and the belief in gods, creates a belief that this is all some kind of eternal war with winners and losers, rights and wrongs, uses and thems. Religion pits one against the other, when we should all be one. Yes, I'm speaking of a Utopia, the most idyllic of dreams. But I believe Utopia, along with godliness, is within all of us, too. We merely need to tap into it. Believe in ourselves as gods, capable of existing without parental supervision and achieve the ultimate existence.
Religion fascinates me, and always has, which is another reason it will come up over and over again in this blog. While I believe I understand the need for it, its repercussions are endless and fascinating, something I truly want to understand and explain.
Whatever your beliefs, I hope we can have lively, though respectful, debates in the upcoming posts.
Jeffrey
I understand the need for religion. I understand how belief in an all-powerful god can bring comfort to many. I understand how the rituals of religion tap into the human need for order and repetition and ceremony to create a secure existence. I understand all this and more, I just don't find the need within myself to adhere to these ideals. So, while I am not anti-religion for some, I am anti-religion for myself.
Do I believe in God? While I'm not an atheist, I personally don't believe an any god I've encountered so far. My most formal acquaintance has been with the god of Catholicism, the god as father of Christ. But, in addition, I've read up on other religions (Judaism, Kabbalah, Buddhism, the Quaker religion) seeking understanding of the world and my place within it, as well as understanding of what I innately know within myself. What I have come to discover is that each religion's god can't exist outside that religion. The god is formed by the religion. The god acts within the parameters of the beliefs of the religion: almost as if the religion created the god and not the other way around. How else to explain different religions that all work off, essentially, the same book and supposedly the same god, yet the gods all appear to have different agendas for us humans.
Religion is about parameters, for the god and the follower. And I understand this, as well. Humans need, desire, and crave boundaries, as I've stated many times. Without boundaries, we can easily go off the rails of what has been deemed acceptable by society (and what is socially acceptable depends on the society in which one lives). And a world without a god is an unbound world. The god is the ultimate parent (which could explain its creation: adults, no longer guided or hemmed in by their parental guardians create an ultimate being as a substitute to trick their minds into curbing their desires). Many of us need the idea of constantly being watched in order to keep us on the straight and narrow, to keep us safe from self-harm. I believe this aspect of religion is good and needed, but again, for some.
I put more trust in myself. I am my own god, which may sound extremely blasphemous to some but if one doesn't believe in an all-powerful god, then one is not being blasphemous when one states that he or she is a god. I believe that we are all gods, born of the same universal energy. Some have told me: "Well, that's belief in god right there. That's what god is: power and energy." Yes, but the energy I believe in doesn't filter down in some patriarchal hierarchy. We are all equal in energy, even the energy from whence we come. That energy within us is our "soul." I air-quote the word 'soul' because the word connotes a religious belief to many. I believe when our bodies die, our energy re-enters the universe, to re-infuse the world, maybe into another body, maybe not, but it doesn't dissipate or rise to a heaven or sink into a hell.
Am I sure of any of this? As sure as you are of your god. It's all just theory until proven right or wrong. No one knows for sure if gods exist, though passion and belief can be powerful emotions, so powerful they feel tangible, which makes god seem tangible, but, in truth, no one knows. The Bible is just a book written by men with their own agendas: to control the masses, to lay down a belief that tried to make sense of the world and, ultimately, of their own existence.
But: If there is no god, then what the hell is this? What are we doing here? Why do we exist? A belief in a god answers these questions, however vaguely (and with so many stipulations that one wonders if god is good or evil, or just some crazed, bored, ancient energy toying with us on a daily basis.). My idea of universal energy answers none of these questions, but I don't need it to. I'm fine without knowing the purpose of this world or any others that might exist. They, and we, exist and that is that. And that is enough for me. I can sleep at night and not dream of heaven because I believe that "heaven" exists within all of us, because all of us are gods (though not the all-powerful ones of the storybooks. None of us have dominion over the others, a vital misconception of godliness.)
And that might be the crux of my anti-religious stance: "None of us have dominion over the others!" Each individual religion believes that they are the one that is right. They have figured it all out and everyone else is wrong. We win and they lose. Religion, and the belief in gods, creates a belief that this is all some kind of eternal war with winners and losers, rights and wrongs, uses and thems. Religion pits one against the other, when we should all be one. Yes, I'm speaking of a Utopia, the most idyllic of dreams. But I believe Utopia, along with godliness, is within all of us, too. We merely need to tap into it. Believe in ourselves as gods, capable of existing without parental supervision and achieve the ultimate existence.
Religion fascinates me, and always has, which is another reason it will come up over and over again in this blog. While I believe I understand the need for it, its repercussions are endless and fascinating, something I truly want to understand and explain.
Whatever your beliefs, I hope we can have lively, though respectful, debates in the upcoming posts.
Jeffrey
The Homosexual Agenda
What has brought me back to this blog in which I voice my thoughts on the goings-on in the world in regards to politics, civil rights, and such, has been the rise of organized religion as political entities, whether they claim to be or not. While most religions advocate for a particular way of living one's life, most times their views are contained within the walls of their institutions. But as of late, especially gaining extreme motion during the Prop 8 campaign, more religions, religious leaders and their followers have taken it upon themselves to join in political debates and try to steer political issues to mirror their own agendas.
Homosexuals have been accused for years by the religious-right of "having an agenda." Well, I say: Of course, we do! Every person has his or her agenda. Is ours an organized agenda? No, unfortunately it is not. One of the major failings of the homosexual movement is our inability to form a cohesive community. The main reason for that lies in the fact that we are mostly joined together because of our sexual orientation: not the most sturdy of glues, if you ask me, especially in a rather puritanical society such as America. What most religious-minded folks can't conceive is that homosexuals are not as sex-centric as they think we are. Sure, in our teens and twenties, we might be pretty sexual, but who isn't? And also contrary to belief, we have other interests besides sex. Hell, some of us don't even have interest in that. We have lives that we have to live, work that needs to be done in order for us to pay our bills, families that need to be attended to, friends with which to gather (and, no, not to have sex with. We can sustain platonic relationships.). We exist just as heterosexuals exist. So our "agenda" is about living day-to-day for the most part. It's that simple.
As a community, though, our agenda is equal civil rights, which is all too often labeled by the opposing factions as: "special rights." Granted, they may look as if they are "special rights" given that laws and amendments have to be written up, submitted to legislative bodies, and voted on so that we are included, but that's only because our inherent constitutional rights have been voted out in the past. Before 1970, only Illinois had repealed their anti-sodomy laws (fancy term for anti-homosexual laws, though many heterosexuals practice sodomy: oral sex anyone?). It wasn't until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, that the sodomy laws in all 50 states were invalidated (including for heterosexual sex so you kids go on an try anal sex without fear of prosecution). With sodomy laws on the books in all 50 states, homosexual discrimination was, for all intents and purposes, legal. A homosexual could be fired for his or her job with no recourse for appeal, and many were (see the Lavender Scare for proof) . Evicted for the same reason. Jailed for being in a gay bar. Beaten and mistreated, not only by other citizens but also law enforcement, and they often were, again without recourse.
it wasn't until after the Stonewall Riots, that homosexuals started banding together to change their lives (not yours, theirs). It was high time that we received our due rights as American citizens, all that was granted to us via the constitution: "certain unalienable rights."
Ah, but there in lies the sticky wicket, no? From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." They had to bring "God" into it in the form of "their Creator."
Creator=God? Possibly. Supposedly. I understand that our forefathers were religious men. They often spoke of God in their speeches and in their personal lives, but I also know that they made a pointed effort to make sure, when referring to "God", that it was an universal God: not a Christian God, or Muslim, or Protestant, etc. He was universal, much like the God in the Serenity Prayer at your local AA meeting: A Higher Being, a Creator, to which one prays or believes.
But this doesn't have to be a sticky situation. I, as well as all homosexuals and heterosexuals and asexuals, bisexuals, and so on, were created in the same way. Simple as that. Be it God or evolution (which ever turns out to be the correct answer), we all came about life the same way. So, we all have the same unalienable rights afforded to us via our creation.
Well, it seems simple to me. Being on the outside always helps to see situations much more clearly. So many religious-minded people live in bubbles. That's the beauty and the detriment of religions: your entire existence is contained within this fabricated realm so you don't have to think for yourself, which can be a beautiful thing. It's literally all spelled out for you. But, you also don't understand life outside that bubble. And there in lies the detriment of living a solely religious existence. You live in fear of the outside world. You've been taught to fear that which doesn't not "fit" into your bubble. You're taught to strike out before they, the outsiders, can burst your bubble. But I'm here to tell you: we're don't want to burst your bubbles. We understand your bubbles more than you think we do. We are trying to create our own bubbles in which we can live security and harmony. That might actually be the truest definition of the so-called "homosexual agenda."
Everyone thinks that our opposing factions have different goals for our lives, but the truth is our goals are the same, it's our roads to those goals that look different. In this world, there is plenty of space for us all to live and walk our own roads without having to crash into each other. We can all attain our individual goals without having fear of being run off our rails. These days, too much time is spent trying to thwart others from their goals (religion trying to derail homosexuals, homosexuals trying to derail religion), that, at this rate, none of us will "win."
It all comes down to: live and let live. It's about keeping your eyes on your own paper. It's about cleaning up your own backyard. It's about you not trying to make everyone live their lives according to your beliefs: and I state this to homosexuals as well as anyone. Take care of your own agenda because its hard enough hoeing your own row without feeling that you have to attend to everyone elses too.
Jeffrey
Homosexuals have been accused for years by the religious-right of "having an agenda." Well, I say: Of course, we do! Every person has his or her agenda. Is ours an organized agenda? No, unfortunately it is not. One of the major failings of the homosexual movement is our inability to form a cohesive community. The main reason for that lies in the fact that we are mostly joined together because of our sexual orientation: not the most sturdy of glues, if you ask me, especially in a rather puritanical society such as America. What most religious-minded folks can't conceive is that homosexuals are not as sex-centric as they think we are. Sure, in our teens and twenties, we might be pretty sexual, but who isn't? And also contrary to belief, we have other interests besides sex. Hell, some of us don't even have interest in that. We have lives that we have to live, work that needs to be done in order for us to pay our bills, families that need to be attended to, friends with which to gather (and, no, not to have sex with. We can sustain platonic relationships.). We exist just as heterosexuals exist. So our "agenda" is about living day-to-day for the most part. It's that simple.
As a community, though, our agenda is equal civil rights, which is all too often labeled by the opposing factions as: "special rights." Granted, they may look as if they are "special rights" given that laws and amendments have to be written up, submitted to legislative bodies, and voted on so that we are included, but that's only because our inherent constitutional rights have been voted out in the past. Before 1970, only Illinois had repealed their anti-sodomy laws (fancy term for anti-homosexual laws, though many heterosexuals practice sodomy: oral sex anyone?). It wasn't until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, that the sodomy laws in all 50 states were invalidated (including for heterosexual sex so you kids go on an try anal sex without fear of prosecution). With sodomy laws on the books in all 50 states, homosexual discrimination was, for all intents and purposes, legal. A homosexual could be fired for his or her job with no recourse for appeal, and many were (see the Lavender Scare for proof) . Evicted for the same reason. Jailed for being in a gay bar. Beaten and mistreated, not only by other citizens but also law enforcement, and they often were, again without recourse.
it wasn't until after the Stonewall Riots, that homosexuals started banding together to change their lives (not yours, theirs). It was high time that we received our due rights as American citizens, all that was granted to us via the constitution: "certain unalienable rights."
Ah, but there in lies the sticky wicket, no? From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." They had to bring "God" into it in the form of "their Creator."
Creator=God? Possibly. Supposedly. I understand that our forefathers were religious men. They often spoke of God in their speeches and in their personal lives, but I also know that they made a pointed effort to make sure, when referring to "God", that it was an universal God: not a Christian God, or Muslim, or Protestant, etc. He was universal, much like the God in the Serenity Prayer at your local AA meeting: A Higher Being, a Creator, to which one prays or believes.
But this doesn't have to be a sticky situation. I, as well as all homosexuals and heterosexuals and asexuals, bisexuals, and so on, were created in the same way. Simple as that. Be it God or evolution (which ever turns out to be the correct answer), we all came about life the same way. So, we all have the same unalienable rights afforded to us via our creation.
Well, it seems simple to me. Being on the outside always helps to see situations much more clearly. So many religious-minded people live in bubbles. That's the beauty and the detriment of religions: your entire existence is contained within this fabricated realm so you don't have to think for yourself, which can be a beautiful thing. It's literally all spelled out for you. But, you also don't understand life outside that bubble. And there in lies the detriment of living a solely religious existence. You live in fear of the outside world. You've been taught to fear that which doesn't not "fit" into your bubble. You're taught to strike out before they, the outsiders, can burst your bubble. But I'm here to tell you: we're don't want to burst your bubbles. We understand your bubbles more than you think we do. We are trying to create our own bubbles in which we can live security and harmony. That might actually be the truest definition of the so-called "homosexual agenda."
Everyone thinks that our opposing factions have different goals for our lives, but the truth is our goals are the same, it's our roads to those goals that look different. In this world, there is plenty of space for us all to live and walk our own roads without having to crash into each other. We can all attain our individual goals without having fear of being run off our rails. These days, too much time is spent trying to thwart others from their goals (religion trying to derail homosexuals, homosexuals trying to derail religion), that, at this rate, none of us will "win."
It all comes down to: live and let live. It's about keeping your eyes on your own paper. It's about cleaning up your own backyard. It's about you not trying to make everyone live their lives according to your beliefs: and I state this to homosexuals as well as anyone. Take care of your own agenda because its hard enough hoeing your own row without feeling that you have to attend to everyone elses too.
Jeffrey
Re-Activation
As evident from the one and only post thus far, I started this blog (originally under another title: The View from a Gay) to voice my opinions concerning the world in which we live, from a homosexual's perspective. I began with eager intentions to review, rebut, and remark on the political goings-on in the United States, as well as the world at large. But, as any person with a wavering ego, trepidation soon set in, asking me: "Who are you to speak for the homosexuals in this world?" At the time, I couldn't answer that question without sounding pompous and full of myself (as well as shit), so I chickened out and let the blog, my views and my voice, lay dormant: until now.
Why have I waked at this moment in time? Well, I think many of us have finally. What with the fevered pitch of politics and religion today (gay marriage, DADT, DOMA, Obama, racism, escalating hate-crimes, ENDA, etc.), I have found it unbearable on the sidelines. While I may not have the solutions to all these issues, silence certainly doesn't help. That old slogan from the AIDS era (as if that era has ended): Silence=Death, still holds all too true, even in our, supposedly, advanced society.
To speak one's truth is to live. So, I reawaken to life today, with my voice raised high and proud and eager, once again, to join the fray in hopes of shedding some light upon the dark and ugly aspects of our country with the goal of making the world a better place to live for all of us.
Jeffrey
Why have I waked at this moment in time? Well, I think many of us have finally. What with the fevered pitch of politics and religion today (gay marriage, DADT, DOMA, Obama, racism, escalating hate-crimes, ENDA, etc.), I have found it unbearable on the sidelines. While I may not have the solutions to all these issues, silence certainly doesn't help. That old slogan from the AIDS era (as if that era has ended): Silence=Death, still holds all too true, even in our, supposedly, advanced society.
To speak one's truth is to live. So, I reawaken to life today, with my voice raised high and proud and eager, once again, to join the fray in hopes of shedding some light upon the dark and ugly aspects of our country with the goal of making the world a better place to live for all of us.
Jeffrey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)