Archive for March, 2008

When all is said and done, it is not important who or how you love, but it is important that you love.

Read Full Post »

Centuries ago, in less enlightened times, it was sometimes generally agreed that phenomena like crops failing , weather or other natural disturbances, were caused by the existence of an unwelcome group or minority, or people who were deemed evil. These may have been witches, Jews, gypsies, or so many other groups or minorities – but today we live in more enlightened times… or do we?

According to a recent news article, a religious politician claims earthquakes are god’s response to the granting a modicum of decency to a minority.

Before you stop laughing read this article… that may explain Leviticus…

But seriously, issues surrounding same-sex couples, or homosexuality in general, often attract negative responses from social and or religious conservative people. They warn of dire consequences of granting basic rights they enjoy to gay and lesbian people. The ‘lightning rod’ issue for them is that of same sex marriage.

These responses come by word and deed.

By word, suggesting that granting same sex couples legal recognition and rights equaling those of opposite sex couples risks dangers ranging from the destruction of the institution of marriage, through the breakdown in society, to being a threat to the continuation of the species. These words come on top of the abuse and insults heaped upon GLBTI people on a daily basis. Today, being referred to as gay is often seen as an insult.

By deed, beyond the legal, financial, social inequities in treatment between opposite and same sex; it is same sex attracted people who are expected to change, to act, pretend or even to become heterosexual, thereby to behave diametrically opposite to thier innate nature. Many religious groups subscribe to the idea that ones sexuality (especially if that one is homosexual) is a conscious choice, and can, through a form of ‘therapy’ be made to ‘choose’ heterosexuality, or at least choose not to follow their own feelings (the so called ex-gay movement). Science is more and more of the opinion, and proving such, that ones sexuality and sense of self is innate (or hard-wired into a person’s brain before birth), and is therefore not conscious choice. But some religious people, out of some misguided idea that they are doing god’s work, believe that through aversion therapies that may include electro-convulsive-therapy (shock treatment) they can make gay people straight. It is a failed and unsupported line of therapy, especially by an overwhelming number of professional care associations.

I find it somewhat ironic that something that actually is a conscious choice, and prides itself on conversion is religion. Imagine the outcry if some Catholic groups applied such ‘therapies’ on protestants to convert them, or on Jews to become Christian…. opps, I almost forget the Inquisitions…

I wonder if (assuming there is a god in the Judeo-Christian sense) instead of expecting and demanding people of difference (in this case, homosexuals) to correspond to a lifestyle that is not innate to themselves (heterosexuality), calling it god’s challenge to homosexuals; that the challenge that god is actually setting, is really that of tolerance and acceptance of difference in others by the ‘normal‘ people.

Jesus Christ is reported to have said ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, for this is the law and the prophets.’

People should be free to believe what they want to believe; but when that belief leads one to act or speak against another, then that belief has become oppression to another.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to choose what you believe and the right to practice that belief… it is not the right to oppress others as a result of that belief.

Read Full Post »

A question to ponder

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it…

can a logger claim it as salvage?

Read Full Post »


It was once suggested to me that the term Agender equates to one not having a gender. It is already accepted there are those who are BIgender, so this person’s recognition of Agender may be an extension of BIgender; BUT if those two terms are accepted as I just defined, the logical conclusion will be there the has to be a HETEROgender and a HOMOgender. How these last two concepts are defined is anyone’s guess, as the HETEROgendered person would be attracted to some kind of opposite, and the HOMOgendered person would be attracted to its equal – but that may just be my being able to turn a phrase – which brings me to the next point of my response to this interesting insight – the ability to TURN a phrase.

It is sometimes said that a person can turn a phrase.. I feel this is a feat that requires less a skill but more luck, or the perception to recognise phrases that are open to being turned. This requires a kind of aural gaydar.

My point begins with the concept that phrases possess their own textuality. That is to say that a HETEROTEXUAL phrase requires an opposite to define its meaning. For example (perhaps a crudely constructed one) the term masculine is in effect defined as the opposite of feminine – neither term can be defined without reference to the other. The relationship (or attraction) defines the phrase’s textuality – in effect, a HETEROTEXUAL phrase is attracted to the opposite text.

A HOMOTEXUAL phrase is of course a singularity. It does not require an opposite to define its meaning. For example the word wall (to my knowledge) does not have an opposite to define its meaning. Floor is not an opposite of wall, neither is ceiling, for a ceiling without a wall is a floor – again no oppositional relationship or attraction.

A BITEXTUAL phrase’s meaning is subject to context. It may sometimes be seen in an oppositional relationship, but may (in another setting) be recognised as having its own meaning and destiny.

An ATEXTUAL phrase (like this theory) is one without any meaning whatsoever.

Read Full Post »