Equality Now!

Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:45:35 GMT

Some how I ran across this conservative paranoia piece about same-sex marriage and its effect on children. It asks: "Do we want children to 'dream' of a future where they might marry someone of the same sex?" Well, I don't think we should be encouraging children to dream of getting married, period. Children should be children, and they should dream of skies that rain gumdrops, of endless summer days with no bedtimes, of circuses, puppies and mile-long waterslides, of fairies and flying carpets and fantastical universes, not of marriages, nor of careers, owning cars or homes, or any of the responsibilities of adult life, at least not before the age of 10! Children should not be read fairy tales in which people "get married and live happily ever after", as though that were the point or the greatest possible accomplishment of a human life. But what I don't want is for our children, those of them who are attracted to people of the same sex, to have to dream of a future in which they will be allowed to marry someone they love—I want them to find it hard to believe that there was ever a time when people weren't allowed to do so!! Just like most children today would find it hard to believe that not so long ago one was forbidden to marry someone with a different skin color! Already many of today's children can't imagine why gays and lebsian are not allowed to be married like everyone else!

Funny quote of the day...

Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:32:43 GMT

"People who are opposed to gay sex should be for gay marriages. Everybody knows that once you get married the sex goes way down." (I don't know who said this orginally.)

Amish in the City? (or Reality TV is Truly Terrible Trash Television!)

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:02:11 GMT

Hollywood Amish

As spiritual cousins to the Amish, Mennonites feel a particular distaste at the prospect of an Amish-based "reality" TV show proposed to air this summer on UPN.

After plans for Amish in the City emerged in late January, we thought such a preposterous concept would soon vanish on the shifting tides of taste. Unfortunately, we misjudged the network's determination to make Amish in the City its latest prism of comedic distortion, this one directed at an already misunderstood, and often exploited, faith group.

The premise of the show calls for a group of Amish young people to move in with city-dwelling Gen Y'ers, with the resulting disjunction generating millions of dollars in laughs for UPN. The expectation, apparently, is that the Amish youths will "freak out," as network honcho Les Moonves said, when they see the debauchery available in the combustion-driven world.

Whether this will make "interesting television," as Moonves also asserted, we leave to the masses already gorged on The Osbournes and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

But that such a show is an insult to the Amish, or even to Christians in general, stands without a doubt. [I'm not sure how such a show would be an insult to garden-variety Christians more so than to anyone else, but OK...] In fact, a lot of "reality" TV is insulting - to the people involved and even to the viewers who bask like radishes in its headache-inducing glow. It is also an insult to those whose insurrection scuttled CBS's proposed New Beverly Hillbillies series, which was just Amish in the City with a cee-ment pond.

[As someone who pays very little attention to 99% of anything having to do with TV, I hadn't heard about the protest that arose from this proposed show, but the group that ran a newspaper ad against it made some excellent points. A lot of things confuse me in life, but there's one thing I'm pretty sure about: we don't have much chance of evolving beyond our current human condition if our most popular forms of humor stay confinded to those that ridicule and degrade the different and the disempowered. I'm a big fan of political/social satire that highlights foolishness and faulty thinking on the part of the famous and powerful, but capitalizing on ignorance and prejudice to make fun of people like the Amish and the rural poor is a very different thing—and a very tasteless, unenlightened one a that!]

We encourage anyone who opposes such programming to complain not only to UPN, but to its sponsors. If UPN can't see the emptiness of such a show, perhaps a threat to their advertising coffers will prove more enlightening. And if this fails, just boycott the show, or take a lesson from the Amish themselves and throw your TV on the brush pile behind the barn.

After all, an unwatched show is almost like no show at all.

I did not know until I was educated by a Judging Amy episode (besides Gilmore Girls, my favorite currently-airing shows are CBS dramas, although I don't get to see them that often) about the fact that Amish young people who are coming of age are encouraged to spend a year in the "real world" before deciding of their own free will whether or not to join the church themselves and live out their lives in the Amish way. That in and of itself is pretty darn enlightened and speaks profoundly to the wisdom of the Amish culture.

Even an editorial on the CBS website speaks out against the UPN show idea! (Not that CBS itself would have any right to decry stupid reality shows, but I guess this guy is allowed to have his own opinion, which is reassuring!)

This guy, who does have a name, which is Lloyd Garver, has another great opinion piece on the political distraction value of the anti-same-sex-marriage hysteria of Bush and his right-wing friends. He starts out on a comic note: "When I first heard the term 'same-sex marriages,' I was against them. I figured just because a couple is married, why should sex always have to be the same? All right, I didn't really think that about same-sex marriages, but I also didn't think they would become such a big deal. I guess my fingers slipped when I was taking the pulse of America, because boy, was I wrong."

He goes on to ask some of the questions I myself have asked: "In the past two weeks, thousands of gay couples were married in San Francisco. Is your respect for marriage smaller than it was two weeks ago? Is your marriage less important to you now? Do you love your spouse any less than you did before the 'Valentine's Day weddings?' If your marriage is affected by the marriages of some strangers, don't blame the bride and groom. Blame your marriage." Indeed. "What about all those celebrity weddings — like Britney Spears' — that seem to make a mockery of marriage? Should we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding flighty famous folks from tying the knot? What about that cousin of yours who married that guy that everybody knew would treat her horribly and eventually leave her? Should there be a constitutional amendment to prohibit that kind of unfortunate marriage?" How about a law requiring pre-marital counseling? Maybe even one requiring pre-divorce counseling! Sounds much more reasonable to me that a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-family, anti-marriage Constitutional amendment!

And here's the most important question: "If you're against gay marriages for legal, ethical, or emotional reasons, you're certainly entitled to these feelings. But do you believe it's such an important issue that things like national security, the economy, and foreign policy should be pushed aside so time and money can be spent on passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit them?"

Garver's article isn't just about SSM but more generally about the way hysteria over "threats to our nation" caused by "sexal immorality" serves to keep us from focusing on important issues. Another recent example is the whole Janet Jackson breast silliness. Garver writes: "Faster than you could say 'Lewinsky,' Congressional committees were formed to investigate 'Nipplegate' and other offensive fare being foisted on us by machines with an 'off' button. But how long did it take for a committee to be formed to investigate why we received such poor intelligence on Iraq before sending over American soldiers to risk their lives?" And perhaps more importantly: what real power does this commission have, and will we actually know the outcome of its investigation any time in the next decade? I keep asking: where's the moral outrage in this country over real threats and atrocities like the Dubya regime's new "pre-emptive" war policy and its incarceration of hundreds of people, including children, in an illegal prison in Cuba?! As George Carlin said, our priorities are seriously screwed up. Really, truly warped.

Operation Fruit Salad

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:41:36 GMT

President George W. Bush is said to be 'troubled' by the rash of gay marriages currently taking place in San Francisco, California. As a result he made a declaration today that the 'City of Love', as it came to be known in the sixties, is now a part of his 'Axis of Evil'. ...

Vice President Dick Cheney also stated "I firmly believe that the streets of San Francisco are paved with many natural resources and we will be able to arrange mutually beneficial trade agreements with them. I also look forward to sampling their fruits, of which I have heard the city has many different varieties. I love fruits of all kinds."

Gus and Elmer Are My Heros

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:02:03 GMT

My heartfelt congratulations, gentlemen! Perhaps you'd like an adopted granddaughter? :o)

Thank the Goddess for Canada. Canadians rock. I spent almost two weeks in Canada last summer, so I'm not just saying this based on their politics: they are truly great folks. (And their politics rock!!)

Tears of Sadness at SF City Hall (and here) :'(

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:00:05 GMT

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) — Tears of sorrow flowed at San Francisco City Hall Thursday as word spread that the state's top court had ended, at least for now, the city's month-old policy of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Ross Ladouceur, left, weeps after learning he and his partner, Stuart Sanders, arrived too late to be wed Thursday.

It just breaks my heart. Fucking conservatives. It makes me want to hate the world. I probably just need sleep. I just want to give this man the biggest hug in the world! We have to keep up hope though. At least no one is being killed or beaten up. Images of the Civil Rights Movement come to mind. The bigotry and fear of change on the part of the conservative forces is the same, even if the struggle is less physically violent. We shall overcome. I hope. It just breaks my heart. They are so handsome in their tuxedos with their beautiful purple wedding garlands. It's hard to remind myself that most of the anti-gay forces are well-meaning at heart and believe that what they're doing is right. Logically I know that they are motivated by fear, ignorance, misconception, and irrational belief, not by a desire to be cruel and ugly, but when I think of them I see un-human beasts filled with hate and bigotry spitting in the faces of loving couples.

And yet they know they're on the losing end of this battle in the long run (well, in the earthly, pre-apocolyptic long run anyway). (Gods, I wish for the Rapture more than they do: please someone take them all away! Let them all go to their happy heaven! Let them believe what they want! Why do they have to be here? Why do the rest of us have to suffer their idiocy? Sigh.) They know that time is not in their favor; they can feel it; it's what's motivating them to push so hard right now. I must have faith that the time will come when their pious belief in their future "Godly paradise" will be all they will have to cling to, because human rationality and fairness will win out over backwards religiosity and illogical moralism, and the freedom to marry will be a reality instead of a tenuous dream. Let all people of compassion and reason keep up the struggle to hasten the coming of that happy day! So mote it be. (And "So Vote It Be!")

On Marriage, Culture Wars, and the Human Race

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:22:33 GMT

As human beings, we are more than the means to reproduce our species: both basic common sense and deeper philosophical inquiry affirm that marriage is, has been, can be, and should be about so very much more than procreation! The traditional Christian God (the one worshipped by the RR) is a violent, chauvinistic, moralistic, vengeful, selfish, angry lout, and the ideas of marriage they promote are patriarchal, narrow-minded, anti-feminist, uncreative, and ultimately STUPID and BORING!

Instead marriage should be about relationship, committment, love, and family, in the deepest and most inclusive sense of those terms—about building a life together—about creating, declaring, and upholding a bond that is at once personal, intimate, communal, civil, legal, and social—a consentual and intentional covenant between equal human individuals that establishes them as a nurturing, nourishing family unit. It is a union of persons, not genders, and thus, obviously, the gender configuration of the persons involved is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy and/or sanctity of the union.

To value marriage is to affirm its validity and insist upon its accessibility for all who desire it. To champion marriage is to fight against the imposition of irrational limitations upon it by ill-informed, misguided, anxiety-driven "traditionalists". To uphold the dignity of marriage is to reject attempts to essentialize it, to caricaturize it as no more than—as I once said—a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (which sounds to me more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!). To defend marriage is to protect it from the absurd illogic that would deny it to those who seek it, all the while pressuring it upon others who do not. To proclaim marriage as a basic human and civil right of all who mindfully choose it is to raise it to the most enlightened standard of human potential.

Indeed it is not the loving same-sex couples who are a threat to the "meaning" of marriage, but in fact it is the fearful, backward, small-minded forces of the RR that pose a threat to the growth and development of the human race.

"Brother-making" ceremonies in the Middle Ages

Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:14:10 GMT

From the book: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment by William N. Eskridge, Jr.

(The Case for Same-Sex Marriage begins with an historical overview of same-sex unions, which shows that only in the modern West have gays and lesbians been denied full acceptance. Eskridge believes that until same-sex marriages receive the civil and legal benefits of heterosexual marriages America is erecting unnecessary barriers to social cohesion. Without full access to the institutions of civic life, gays and lesbians cannot be full participants in the American experience. As Eskridge points out the legitimacy of same-sex marriage would have profound implications for gay behavior, by reinforcing stability and commitment. In the end, Eskridge believes that the acceptance of same-sex marriage would help to civilize both gays and straights.)

In the early Middle Ages the Church developed institutions, memorialized in liturgies included in its formal collections, that combined the Church's spiritual commitment to companionate relationships with its members' desire to bond with people of the same sex. The existence of Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox rituals of "brother-making" or "enfraternization" has been known in the academic literature for decades and was brought to my attention by the Reverend Alexei Michalenko.' Ceremonies creating these brotherhoods were performed for same-sex couples (often male missionary pairs) from the fifth century onward. According to Church archives, these early liturgies were typically structured as follows:

The couple stand in front of the lectern, on which are placed the Gospel and a cross. The older of the brothers stands to the right.
The ceremony starts off with prayers and litanies celebrating earlier examples of same-sex couples or friends in the early Church. Sergius and Bacchus were the most frequency invoked precedent.
The couple is girded with a single belt, signifying their union as one, and they place their hands on the Gospel and receive lit candles.
The priest reads from one of Paul's episodes (1 Cor 12:27 £) and the Gospel (John 17:1016), which are followed by more prayers.
The assembled are led in the Lord's Prayer, followed by Holy Communion, the Eucharist, for the couple. The priest leads the couple, who are holding hands, around the lectern while the assembled sing a hymn.
The couple exchange a kiss, and the service concludes with the singing of Psalm 132:1 ("Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one").

Significantly, this early brotherhood liturgy was acted out in formal terms very similar to the liturgy later developed by the Church for the purpose of performing different-sex marriages.

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:00:54 GMT

Or, More Proof that Dubya and Right-Wingers are Full of Shit

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Arlington, Virginia The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

The Awful, Terrifying Gay Agenda!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:42:47 GMT

A really cute little animation. :)

Wedding Church And State (From TomPaine.com)

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 04:37:22 GMT

Susan Jacoby's forthcoming Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism will be published in April by Metropolitan Books. The author is also director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York.

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus, the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

Today's Religious Right is completely out of touch with the thinking of our esteemed "Founding Fathers" and with the nature of our Constitution, which "was written and ratified by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians equally fearful of entanglements between religion and government... the men of faith who helped frame the Constitution were confident enough of the strength of their religion that they did not feel obliged to enlist the aid of government to promote their personal beliefs." [Apparently today's evangelical Christians are less confident in the strength of their religion to hold its own without the benefit of unconstitutional government support!]

My comments: The RR always likes to believe that the Founding Fathers were a group of pious traditional Christians, which is so much bull-dookey: they included Deists, Unitarians, and other "unorthodox" types. Most importantly they were not interested in creating a theocracy: far from it! They were products of the Enlightenment, and they were champions of the separation of Church and State.

Bush is un-American! Patriot Act is un-American!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 03:47:42 GMT

Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

"President Bush's endorsement of this mean-spirited amendment shows that he is neither compassionate nor concerned with the rights of all Americans," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. They serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt. Amending the constitution to deny them the same rights we all take for granted just isn't very American."

Learn More about the Proposed Amendment

Some good news from the ACLU: "In response to a public outcry, the Justice Department has decided to quash a series of grand jury subpoenas issued to anti-war protestors in Des Moines, Iowa. However, the ACLU still has serious concerns about why the subpoenas were issued in the first place and the broad scope of the Justice Department's inquiry."

The Constitution Deserves Better

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 03:24:40 GMT

[Pasadena Star]
U.S. Constitution shouldn't be used to forbid the future
Sunday, February 29, 2004, By Tom Teepen

Public opinion, which, when you think about it, has made a striking accommodation with homosexuality in a relatively few years, already is drifting toward accepting same-sex marriage, or something like it in every way but name.

The point of the amendment Bush calls for is not only to block gay marriage now but also to freeze the matter in place and prevent any shift later, to forbid the future to second-guess the present. The social conservatives who are pushing this amendment are doing so precisely because they see the issue going the other way in the long run.

The Constitution deserves better than to be used as hired muscle for the status quo.

My comments: There's another opinion piece in this Pasadena paper that I think also merits reading, and I think it forces one to consider that it's not necessarily in our best interests (as supporters of the freedom to marry) to "go for broke" at all costs. If civil unions are the best we can do at this time, I think there worth going for, because they're a hell of a lot better than nothing! I think we have to be practical. I think some people are afraid that if we settle for civil unions, same-sex couples will never get true marriages, but I think it's more likely to be that once people get more used to the idea, once hundreds of thousands of couples have civil unions, once a new generation of live-and-let-live minded people comes into more political power, I think it will be easy to say: why shouldn't they have marriage like everyone else?!, and make that change then. If we can get marriages, then all the better, but I don't think we should reject civil unions out of hand.

This second opinion piece is written by a moderate sort of person calling for all of the rhetoric to simmer down and people to calm down and think about this issue for a bit, and I can see her point. While it seems only common sense to us "enlightened" types that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex ones, it's a lot for many "old-fashioned" types to swallow! And of course the religious right wants to push the issue because they're losing ground every decade and are pretty much right in thinking that it's now or never to enshrine their anti-gay ideology in federal and/or state law. Anyway, it's a funny piece, that uses humor to cushion the issue a bit, and I think it's pretty clever, albeit ultimately too moderate for my taste! The writer is Kathleen Parker, an Orlando Sentinel columnist:

Excuse me, but is calming down an option here? Could we all just take a deep breath and freeze-frame until, say, 2005? After the presidential election? Inarguably, we have more pressing concerns and, contrary to the spirit of the moment, we're not on a deadline to act drastically. A Pawley's Island hammock and a round of umbrella drinks for tout le monde!

As we sip, we might ponder how we got here so suddenly. [Of course there's really nothing sudden about it: people have been fighting for same-sex marriage rights of years, but it may understandably seem that way to many "average" Americans who have never bothered to give the issue any thought...] One minute we were enjoying "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," watching a gaggle of giggly fashion boys transform frumpy straight men into metrosexuals. Next thing we knew, San Francisco's City Hall looked like a Moonie wedding chapel. With a twist.

I'm half-expecting the Fab Five to swish into the House and Senate chambers for a new reality segment: "Queer Eye for the Straight Marriage."

You may have noticed that arguments favoring homosexual marriage are offered in the spirit of "we can do it better." Gays will show the silly heteros how it's done. [Of course this isn't really anyone's main serious argument...] It's heterosexual marriage, after all not loving, committed homosexual relationships that has ruined the institution.

Divorce is rampant. Domestic violence is a plague. And then there's Britney.

The spin-off might go something like this:

"OK, listen up. Lose the pleats. Lose the male-female thing. Lose the 2,000-year tradition."

In our new "gay good, straight bad" world, heteros are made to feel kooky for not immediately embracing gay marriage, which most people in fly-over America just heard about for the first time about six months ago.

The irony is that gays want so badly what they seem to find so flawed. The institution of marriage is a mess, but gays won't be happy until they're part of it. Marriage is suddenly the new fixer-upper.

My comments: Of course it's all sort of caricature of the situation that fails to recognize the practical seriousness of the situation for couples who simply want to enter into the same civil relationship their peers are allowed, in order to have such necessities as health care coverage and hospital visitation, child custody, and inheritance rights. But I still think she makes some points worth taking into consideration. I think especially it highlights the need for education, for making sure that Joe and Jane American have easy access to explanations as to why this is important, why it's much more than a Hollywood spectacle like Britney's absurd "marriage", how it affects the lives of their neighbors, fellow parents, co-workers, etc., how, contrary to r.r. rhetoric, it isn't any kind of "threat" to their marriages and isn't going to make "everyone turn gay"!

An open letter to President Bush

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:46:49 GMT

The author of this letter, the Rev. Meg Riley, is the director of the Faith in Action office (of the Unitarian Universalist Association) in Washington D.C.

An Open Letter to President Bush

February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President,

This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being.

Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knowsonly that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss.

Sincerely,

The Rev. Meg A. Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, DC

My comments: What can I say, really? It takes my breath away. The most amazing thing, though, is that there is no chance of it affecting in the least the imbecile we call President, even if he should read it, because I don't think he even has the ability to imagine the perspective of someone very different from himself. It's a stage of human development he's never achieved, and probably won't in this lifetime. But perhaps it could affect some other people, perhaps some people unsure of where they stand in this "debate".

It has to become about real people. Human beings, with lives, jobs, families, just like everyone else. It's too easy when it's just about ideas, traditions, doctrines, theories, politics...too easy for people to say, "yeah, this is what I believe, and I have a right to believe it", without having to consider the very real human beings and relationships and families that stand in limbo at the heart of this issue. The children and parents, the loved ones, the communities, the loving couples, they are all this issue is about. Everything else is rhetoric.

Dubya will never understand that, because he's really nothing more than a spoiled child wearing Daddy's boots and playing emperor. Nothing in his life has given him the ablity see beyond himself and his sense of the world...

But the evolution of the human race depends upon the ability of people to open their minds to uncomfortable ideas, and it's happened a million times before, with a million things most of us now take for granted, and I have to have faith that it will happen again. And it already is happening with today's young people, so it's only a matter of time. And that's what the religious conservatives know, in their hearts, and because they fear change and growth and forward movement, they want to do whatever they can to stop it, but they can't—I have to have faith that we as a human race are better than that, smarter than that, more fair, more compassionate, more able to change and grow towards greater love and greater harmony, embracing all aspects of our humanity... I have to believe that we are capable of so much more than those who believe we are "fallen" could ever imagine...

I have to believe that we are moving toward the creation of a world where all are valued, all are honored, all are encouraged to reach their full potential... I have to believe that there is more Gandhi and MLK Jr., Dorothy Day, Mother Jones, and Cesar Chavez, Del and Phyllis, Gavin Newsom, and Meg Riley, more people like Pastor Michael, this woman, and these two (people who make an effort to reach out, to seek understanding, to bridge divides) in us as a human race than there is Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Jesse Helms, Dr. Laura, the Pope, Dick Cheney, Arnold Schwarzenneger, or George W. Bush... I have to believe that we are more, ever so much more than the least imaginative among us... I have to believe all of this to go on every day. To get up and to make an effort. And I have to love the human race in spite of all of its failings, because it is in humanity that I put my faith, in our inherent wisdom and goodness, in our ability to grow and create and achieve understanding...

For the day that is coming when all will be well on this lovely blue-green paradise we call Earth will not be heralded by apocalyptic horsemen and orchestrated by a God on a throne who accepts only some and rejects others. No, it will be heralded by loving words and loving thoughts and loving deeds, by increased cooperation and decreased division, by increased understanding and decreased fear, by the laughter of children and the wisdom of sages. And it will be orchestrated by a million tiny voices calling in unison for peace and freedom and justice for all. I have seen the Promised Land in my mind, in my heart, in my dreams, and I am not alone, so I will have faith in the potential of the human race, and I will work for justice and empowerment and unity, and the Spirit of Love will guide us, somehow, and we will find our way. So mote it be.

Goodnight. :)

A Conservative Christian case for defending same-sex marriage as a civil right

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:51:16 GMT

Or Wow! I found a calm, rational, pro-civil rights conservative Christian!

This person's basic argument is that if conservative Christians want civil rights protections to protect their rights to their beliefs and practices, then they must support civil rights for all, even those with whom they strongly disagree. I went to this person's main site, Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality, and the Bible, and found that it's a woman who has made it a personal mission to learn and think about homosexuality. She's married, a mother, and a "conservative Bible-believing Christian". While she does believe that "homosexual acts" are sinful, she does not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. She seems to be a kind, compassionate, intelligent, thoughful, genuine person. Wow, how refreshing. Following is a great excerpt from one of her other essays:

If I only had a dollar for every time I have felt embarrassed by other Christians, or at least by those who have tried to pass themselves off as such.

I remember one night watching the news coverage of the murder of Matthew Shepard. Matthew Shepard, I'm sure you recall, was the gay college student who was lured out of a campus bar by two other men pretending also to be gay, then was robbed, pistol-whipped and tied to a crude fence in the middle of a lonely field in Laramie, Wyoming. By the time he was found 18 hours later, bleeding and still tied to the fence, it was too late to save him. He died in a coma five days later.

The tragedy was immediately seized upon as an opportunity for people to vent their opinions about hate-crimes and homosexuality. And as I watched that night on television how the aftermath of Shepard's death was quickly degenerating into an ugly shouting match between "Christian fundamentalists" and "gay activists," the television news camera panned a frenzied crowd and focused on one man picketing with a sign: GOD HATES FAGS!

At that moment my husband turned to me and said, "Why do we have to call ourselves Christians? Isn't there some other label we can use, to distinguish ourselves from people like that?"

Now this wouldn't be surprising coming from a liberal Christian, but this is a conservative Christian! Her essays are well-written, thoughtful, and very human. The only "bad" thing about her site is that there isn't more on it! I guess she's gotten busy with other things, because she hasn't added to it since 2002. But what's there is quite valuable.

Politicians debate San Francisco's same-sex weddings as couples celebrate

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:25:06 GMT

[The San Diego Union-Tribune]
Politicians debate San Francisco's same-sex weddings as couples celebrate
2/23/04 By Kim Curtis

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants the state to step in and stop the marriages, said in an interview on NBC on Sunday that Newsom's action could cause other local officials to flout the law.

"In San Francisco, it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that," Schwarzenegger said. [What an idiot!]

"We have to stay within the law," he said. "There's a state law that says specific things, and if you want to challenge those laws then you can go to the court."

Newsom, who appeared on CNN's "Late Edition," says the city is mounting precisely that kind of legal challenge. San Francisco has sued the state, saying the gay marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The mayor also fired back at Schwarzenegger, saying there was no basis for comparing laws on gay marriage to gun control.

"It's not about AK-47s," Newsom said. "It's not about these other hypotheticals. It's about human beings. It's about human dignity. It's about advancing and affirming marriage in a unique bond and relationship. It's about, I think, holding truth, faith and allegiance to the Constitution. I feel very strongly this is consistent." ...

At the mass wedding reception Sunday, some couples said the same-sex marriages were strengthening their families.

"This is a great thing for us," said Laura Bauer, who married her partner of eight years last Monday and attended the reception with their 5-year-old daughter. "With everyone talking about family, now we can give our daughter a family and no one should take that away from us."

The guests of honor at the event were Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, who have been together 51 years and are longtime leaders in the city's lesbian community. Martin and Lyon married on Feb. 12 in the first ceremony after Newsom's decision.

"We're going to be out there as a movement and as a vast, large, noisy movement," Lyon said at Sunday's celebration. "This issue has mobilized us, magnetized us and energized us."

The couple first rose to prominence in 1955 when they founded the Daughters of Bilitis, which became one of the nation's first lesbian groups. Named after book of lesbian erotic poetry first published in Paris in 1894, the group enabled lesbians to socialize outside the bar scene and to mobilize in defense of gay rights.

Soon after Martin and Lyon began publishing their newsletter, "The Ladder," Daughters of Bilitis chapters began popping up across the country, and in 1960 the couple hosted the organization's first national convention in San Francisco.

Later they founded a women's health clinic in the city, and in 1995 they were appointed as delegates to the White House Conference on Aging.

My comments: I just hope the fight really does stay big and loud here in California. I hope we take to the streets to protest any setbacks! There are millions of us who support same-sex marriage, and we need to keep making this a prominent issue until it no longer needs to be an issue! Yay for Phyllis and Del; yay for Gavin Newsom; yay for the triumph of love over narrow-mindedness!

I love my church!!

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:00:03 GMT

Statements by Bill Sinkford, President of the UUA

February 4, 2004: "I enthusiastically applaud today's opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. As they did in the Goodridge decision, the court once again has resoundingly affirmed the right to equal protection and due process for all Massachusetts citizens as guaranteed under the state's constitution. Unitarian Universalists are delighted by the Court's refusal to create 'a second-class of citizens by status discrimination.' As we learned through our country's bitter history of racial discrimination, separate but equal does not work. As the large banner on the side of our Beacon Hill headquarters building proclaims, Unitarian Universalists believe that civil marriage is a civil right."

February 19, 2004: "On behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Association, I am delighted to extend congratulations and blessings to the same-sex couples who have been married recently in San Francisco. I applaud the courage of the mayor and citizens of San Francisco in taking this bold step forward for civil rights. It is my fervent hope that the events in San Francisco and the recent rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts mark the dawn of new day of justice and equal rights for all citizens. The Rev. John Marsh and the Rev. Margot Campbell Gross, co-ministers at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, have officiated at several of the marriage ceremonies for Unitarian Universalists in San Francisco, and I am grateful for their efforts. For decades, Unitarian Universalist ministers have performed religious services of union for same-sex couples, and it is a joy to realize that civil marriage is now an option for our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. I realize that these recent events are just the beginning of a long struggle for equal rights, but I assure you that Unitarian Universalism is committed to this work. Unitarian Universalists know that civil marriage is a civil right."

One of the categories I've been meaning to make is a Unitarian Universalist one, and I came across the material for its inaugral post, so I had to make it! I love my church. I love the UUA. I love Bill Sinkford. I think he's cute (for an old guy!) ;), but that's not why I love him: I love him 'cause he's very cool.

Also, a couple of weeks ago the UUA headquarters hosted a day of activities for the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. Leaders from the Episcopal, Jewish, UCC/Congregational, and UU churches attended a prayer breakfast in the morning followed by a press conference. They had a training on lobbying techniques before walking next door to the Massachusetts State House to inform their elected officials of their support for same-sex marriage and their opposition to a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage.

I'm so glad to have been to GA last year and to the UUA headquarters, because now I can picture all of them there, and I know how the State House is right next door (there's a statue of Ann Hutchinson, but you can't get close to it, because the whole place is surrounded by a black wrought iron fence). All of this is up on a hill, Beacon Hill, overlooking the lovely gardens below. Boston is a lovely city. :) And it's filled with fascinating history. And the UUA is there—what could be better than that?! ;)

Validation!

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:11:57 GMT

I tend to assert a lot of things based on what I think mixed with bits of knowledge gleaned here and there. Maybe everyone does that, I don't know, but I definitely do! Thanks mostly to my intelligence (as I'm really not the most widely informed or well-read person!), it generally works out pretty well, but nevertheless, it's always nice to have my assertions validated by those more learned and credentialed than myself! First I was reading the bonobo book description, and there was exactly what I'd been saying to Steve about procreation not being the only "natural" function of sex, and then I did a Google search on the words "sex" and "procreation", just curious to see what was out on the Web on the subject, and I came across a page on legal commentary site (FindLaw's Writ), with an article by a law professor, Joanna Grossman, "Are Bans on Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional? New Jersey Says Yes, But Massachusetts, In a Landmark Decision, Says No", and lo and behold, the MA supreme court said just what I've been saying:

Like the New Jersey case, the Massachusetts case began with seven couples in committed relationships, four of whom have children, trying to enter into a civil marriage in their home state.

The trial court ruled against the couples, claiming that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts' marriage laws, is procreation. The court concluded that the state thus could rationally distinguish between couples that are "theoretically . . . capable" of procreation and less likely to rely on "inherently more cumbersome" non-coital reproductive methods and other ones.

The problems with this ruling, of course, are legion: What about opposite-sex couples in which the woman is over childbearing age, or that are infertile? Could the state also "rationally" tell them they cannot marry? Certainly, it cannot. Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court later noted in its opinion: under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry," and infertility is not a ground for divorce.

Why should the state care if a couple relies on easy or cumbersome reproductive methods? And why should reproduction for, say, a lesbian couple, be less likely at all? A couple made up of two women, both of whom might be fertile, has double the chances of procreating.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court was wiser. It interpreted the state's marriage law to mean the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others"--invoking the interpretive principle that a statute of dubious constitutionality should be construed in such a way that it is constitutional.

Does this mean I'm qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? hehe ;) But really, though, it's only perfectly obvious! The only people to whom it's not perfectly obvious are those who are blinded by an irrational fear of same-sex marriage and its "dangerous" consequences!

Speaking of which, I surfed on "FindLaw" to an AP news article describing how the California judges are basically following the simple logic that says that same-sex marriages are a "threat" to no one!

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said. ...

Chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

I also learned from this article that, "On Friday morning, Newsom officiated at the wedding of Carole Migden, who leads the state's Board of Equalization, and her partner of 19 years, criminal defense attorney Cris Arguedas." For the benefit of those who think gays and lesbians are somehow a threat to children, I would like to point out that both Migden and also Sheila Kuehl, another prominent lesbian in California politics, in addition to advocating for women and for gays and lesbians, have been strong advocates for children's issues during their careers. Kuehl is particularly well-known as a children's issue advocate and has authored quite a number of bills to protect and benefit children.

Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:04:58 GMT

I mentioned this book in my recent "discussion" with Steve Skojec, but I was just reading its description on Amazon.com, and now I really want to read it myself! It is apparently a lovely book, so perhaps I will have to own it! It has received a bunch of 5-star ratings from Amazon reader/reviewers (I haven't seen that very often on Amazon. The Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice book also got such reviews, so I really want to read it too!) Anyway, I want to share its description here (I got this from Amazon; I assume it is from the book jacket) as others may be inspired to read it as well:

This remarkable primate with the curious name is challenging established views on human evolution. The bonobo, least known of the great apes, is a female-centered, egalitarian species that has been dubbed the "make-love-not-war" primate by specialists. In bonobo society, females form alliances to intimidate males, sexual behavior (in virtually every partner combination) replaces aggression and serves many social functions, and unrelated groups mingle instead of fighting. The species's most striking achievement is not tool use or warfare but sensitivity to others. In the first book to combine and compare data from captivity and the field, Frans de Waal, a world-renowned primatologist, and Frans Lanting, an internationally acclaimed wildlife photographer, present the most up-to-date perspective available on the bonobo. Focusing on social organization, de Waal compares the bonobo with its better-known relative, the chimpanzee. The bonobo's relatively nonviolent behavior and the tendency for females to dominate males confront the evolutionary models derived from observing the chimpanzee's male power politics, cooperative hunting, and intergroup warfare. Further, the bonobo's frequent, imaginative sexual contacts, along with its low reproduction rate, belie any notion that the sole natural purpose of sex is procreation. Humans share over 98 percent of their genetic material with the bonobo and the chimpanzee. Is it possible that the peaceable bonobo has retained traits of our common ancestor that we find hard to recognize in ourselves? Eight superb full-color photo essays offer a rare view of the bonobo in its native habitat in the rain forests of Zaire as well as in zoos and research facilities. Additional photographs and highlighted interviews with leading bonobo experts complement the text. This book points the way to viable alternatives to male-based models of human evolution and will add considerably to debates on the origin of our species. Anyone interested in primates, gender issues, evolutionary psychology, and exceptional wildlife photography will find a fascinating companion in Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape.

(Steve and everyone else, please note the sentence I have bolded!!)

Responses to an essay on nature and human sexuality (part 3)

Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:51:10 GMT

Steve: (Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring. The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself.)
Human beings, on the other hand, do know this. We are scientifically aware that the male and female sex organs are physically compatible. We know that normal attraction - I can use the term "normal" because it is an established fact that over 90% of the population is heterosexual - when manifested in (vaginal) sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads, naturally speaking, to conception and childbearing. The parameters for normal sexual acts - according to nature - exist within the order that underlies reproduction. Regardless of how one might feel, this is the unquestionable biological reason for sex.

Me: Heterosexual attraction sometimes leads to conception and childrearing (though very often it doesn't). In a more general sense, heterosexual attraction can lead to many things: physical intimacy (holding hands, kissing, touching, making out, oral sex, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, etc., etc.), having a quickie in the supply closet, having a one-night stand, having a torrid affair, dating, falling in love, establishing a longterm relationship, buying each other presents, moving in together, buying things together, buying wedding rings, getting married, having children together, raising children together, having a 50th anniversary... Homosexual attraction can also lead to all of these things as well... (well, everything except for obtaining a legal marriage license in the US, at least up until last Thursday in San Francisco!!)

Steve: As humans, however, we can sublimate sex.

Me: After looking up the word "sublimate"
[Some definitions from dictionary.com:
To modify the natural expression of (a primitive, instinctual impulse) in a socially acceptable manner.
To divert the energy associated with (an unacceptable impulse or drive) into a personally and socially acceptable activity.
To refine and exalt; to heighten; to elevate.
To direct energy or urges into useful activities.
To make more subtle or refined.]
I must disagree with the idea that sex needs to be sublimated in any way.

Steve: We can't change it's natural end - though many try

Me: If, according to you, its "natural end" is conception, pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing, then we certainly can change it, and millions of us do so every day! The Pope and yourself may think we're wrong, but that's your problem! Goddess willing, you'll never stop us any more than you've already tried to do!

Steve: but we can make sex something more than an animalistic pursuit of pleasure. It can be about love and respect and generosity and openness to life. We can consciously choose those things. Too often, we don't.

Me: I don't perceive any disconnect between an animalistic pursuit of pleasure and love, respect, etc. Sex is about many things. Sometimes it's about more of some of them than others. It's all good. :) (So long as it's consensual, a perfect segue into our very next topic!)

Steve: This is why there are pedophiles in the world. This is why people have sex with animals. This is why men rape women.

Me: Whoa! Stop the train! I'm jumping off partner!
Rape is not about sex: it's about power. Let me repeat that. Rape is not about sex: it's about power. Let me repeat that one last time. Rape is not about sex: it's about power. Forced sexual intercourse, whether it is forced on a woman, a man, a child, or a non-human animal, is not an act of sexual expression: it is an act of violence. True sexual pleasure (in sexual acts involving two or more people) is mutual. Forced activity involving sexual organs is not sex: it's violence. It is not a true seeking of pleasure in any kind of healthy or positive way: it's a pathology. Pleasure is a positive thing, a conscious thing, I dare say a spiritual thing. Violence is a negation of one's own worth and dignity and that of others. Sexual expression and connection are natural, healthy, and beneficial. Violence is pathological. Sexual violence and true sexual expression have nothing in common: indeed they are completely opposite. Rape has nothing to do with sexual expression: it is an act of violence that abuses sexual organs. It is not about sex, and it is not a form of sex: it is a heinous form of violence.

Steve: Though the pleasure that is associated with sex is a legitimate good,

Me: LOL Yeah, I'd say so!

Steve: when sex is reduced to primarily the pursuit of that pleasure, the "natural" result is a kind of slavery to desire.

Me: That's a load of horse shit. You have a totally distorted sense of what "pleasure" is and what it means. Let me repeat what I said above: pleasure is a positive thing, a conscious thing, I dare say a spiritual thing. Sex is all about pleasure. The reason we have sex is to experience pleasure. Solitary masturbation allows us to experience sexual pleasure all by ourselves, but most of us want more than that: we want to share the experience of sexual pleasure with another or others. Through the shared experience of sexual pleasure we connect with other people in an amazing way. Sexual connection is among the most intimate, the most immediate, the most tangible ways to make a deep connection with another person. Pleasure is what makes sex...sex! Pleasure, the giving and receiving of pleasure, the sharing of pleasure, is what makes the profound connection possible.

If we focused much more on pleasure, on the giving, receiving, and sharing of pleasure, on the intense sensations of our bodies and what they teach us about life and the Universe, on what it means to bring pleasure to another person...if we focused much more on pleasure, and much less on all kinds of other factors of sexual relationships, we would be ever so much better for it!

Steve: When pleasure is made to be the purpose of sex, rather than a natural means to promote procreation, pleasure becomes an end to be reached by whatever means necessary.

Me: Here comes procreation again! Procreation is such a tiny part of sex! It doesn't even merit mention! But let's take out that middle clause, so we have: "When pleasure is made to be the purpose of sex, pleasure becomes an end to be reached by whatever means necessary." Well, I don't know, but add the word consensual in there somewhere, and it works for me—whatever means necessary indeed! Bring it on baby! ;) LOL
Seriously, though, I totally disagree with the premise that sex needs to be about anything besides pleasure, because the connection it offers is subsumed in the pleasure it provides.

Steve: This changes the context of what sex is, and opens it to other, disturbing possibilities. The fact is, we know that the acts I mentioned above are unnatural, no matter how "natural" the urges and desires feel to those who act them out.

Me: OK, so now we're back to rape. As I already said, rape is not about sex, and rape is rape, whether it's a woman, a man, a child, or an animal that is being raped. Rape is forced, non-consensual sexual contact, and it's an act of violence. The desire to rape is a violent pathology, not some sort of sexual preference, if that is what you are attempting to imply! And I think that's about all I have to say about that...

Steve: Homosexuality serves no natural purpose, so to call it a "natural" orientation is a false use of the language.

Me: Homosexuality is obviously "natural", because it exists in nature. It has existed in all of humanity throughout all of human history, just as heterosexuality has, and it has only constituted some sort of "problem" when certain societies have decided to consider it problematic. Same-sex human relationships meet the same basic human needs that opposite-sex ones do. Why does homosexuality exist? I think the best answer is that nature loves diversity. The natural world is a testament to the glory of diversity! The non-human animal world contains even more sexual diversity than the human world, really. Animal sex is fascinating! But of course human sexuality (and arguably that of other highly intelligent creatures) has many added dimensions that are arguably not present in the mainly reproductive sexual activities of praying mantises and honey bees and robins, and part of human sexuality is homosexuality...

Steve: It is not procreative, and does nothing to promote the generation of children.

Me: I swear, it's like playing a broken record! Then I get to be a broken record too: sex is about so much more than procreation! If you need some reason for gay and lesbian people, perhaps they are here to help irresponsible heterosexuals and bisexuals care for the overabundance of children we produce! At any rate, the definition of a valid human relationship should certainly not be that it "promotes the generation of children". Plenty of human relationships, gay and straight, do not result in the birth of any children, but that hardly makes them less valid or useful or beautiful...

Steve: It is sexual activity that is concerned only with pleasure, and therefore disordered - as it is not ordered to the natural sexual purpose of procreation.

Me: So that's your bottom line: any sex that does not result in procreation is disordered. What's disordered is your thinking! You'd better get out there and get busy, because you've got a lot of sex to stop. But please start with the heterosexuals, because in terms of numbers, they're having a lot more non-procreative sex than homosexuals. (Good luck!) In the meantime, the rest of us will keep on enjoying ourselves with our "disordered" non-procreative, pleasure-oriented sex. ;P
Seriously though, your entire argument is flawed, because it fails to acknowledge that most sexual activity on this planet, whether heterosexual or homosexual, does not result in conception (and thank the Goddess for that, because we've got enough of an overpopulation problem as it is!!!!). Are your parents still alive and married? Do you think it's wrong for them to have sex? It's not procreative! We'd better round up all of the infertile people and send them to the convents and monastic orders—no sex for them! (Or maybe we should just kill them all, along with the gays and lesbians, since they serve no purpose and are just taking up space!) Ooops, I forgot to be serious again. But that's because there's really nothing more to say. You have no argument that makes any sense. Most of what we do is not strictly necessary for survival, and most of our sexual activity is not strictly necessary for procreation. But you don't really want to change most of that; you just want to single out gays and lesbians and attack them. That's not logic or reason: it's heterosexism, plain and simple. And that's all I have to say for now!

Human sexuality discussion...some comments

Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:49:44 GMT

Steve Skojec wrote some things on his blog. I replied in his comments section, but I'm reprinting my replies here.

If you want to define that which is morally right as that which is strictly biologically necessary, then you're going to have to tell a lot more people to quit having sex than just gays and lebians, including many legally and religiously married heterosexuals, and I don't think that's what you want to do. You're going to have to tell a lot of people to stop doing a lot of things, including both of us to stop typing at our computers, as that is definitely not biologically necessary for our survival!

So, it seems to me that you're not making any sense!

I don't agree that "reproduction is the primary function of sex" for human beings, especially if "sex" has any broad sort of meaning, but even if you turned it into "reproduction is the primary function of penile/vaginal intercourse", I still wouldn't agree, because I don't think that the majority of the time human beings have penile/vaginal intercourse they are actively trying to get the woman pregnant! I think that sexual activity and even penile/vaginal intercourse "accomplishes" much more for human beings than simply beginning pregnancy, which it only does occasionally anyway...

I think it makes plenty of sense to reduce sex to pleasure, as long as pleasure is understood in a broad sense as to encompass the way in which sexual intimacy allows people to connect to one another psychologically, emotionally and spiritually, as well as physically, through the process of sharing physical pleasure. I think it makes no sense whatsoever to reduce sex to reproduction, because reproduction is a very small part of what sex is for human beings (besides, though you likely think it morally wrong, being a conservative Catholic, the fact is that we no longer even need penile/vaginal intercourse to facilitate conception)(and soon enough we won't need to have a male sperm and a female egg; DNA from any two people will be able to be combined to make a new person)(or maybe three people, or who knows what!).

I don't think we need to get into specifc cultural and religious details (i.e. what the Vatican says, or what you think God wants, or what I think the Goddess wants, or whatever) in order to discuss human beings as much more than mere biological machines programmed to survive and propogate their species. If human psychological, emotional, social, etc. needs are valid reasons for human action, then we can discuss the validity and utility of human actions for those ends, do you not agree?

Anyway, I think for now I'm going to continue to work my way through your original essay...

Blessings, Madeline

Posted by Madeline Althoff at February 20, 2004 02:28 PM

OK, I have to say a bit more... It really doesn't make any sense to me what you're trying to do. If you're trying to argue that in a very strict sense of biological necessity (the bare minimum we need to do to survive and propogate our species) there is no need for human beings to engage in homosexual sex, well yeah, you're right, but what does that prove?! There is no need for human beings to do anything besides eat, drink, sleep, eliminate waste, not freeze to death, and possibly have penile/vaginal intercourse a few times in their lives (actually, most men would not necessarily need to participate at all--only the most "fit" would need to impregnate the women). Wow, that sounds fun, sign me up! ;P So I truly do not see where you think a strict biological argument is going to take you...

On another note, if you don't feel well right now, there's certainly no rush... Respond when you're feeling better!

Posted by Madeline Althoff at February 20, 2004 02:41 PM

On the definition of civil marriage

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:51:37 GMT

Let me first clarify that I am not talking about anyone's particular religious definition of marriage, which could be any number of things, but only about a reasonable definition of civil marriage.

I'm going to keep the focus on two people, although I will comment on the numbers issue at the end.

One could, theoretically, logically define civil marriage as a union between two persons for the sole purpose of procreation and child-rearing. However this would leave out many heterosexuals who are currently validly legally married, and they would probably object. Furthermore, it would not exclude gays and lesbians, unless it was specified that the procreation and child-rearing could only involve the biological offspring of both individuals (and this will be possible pretty soon anyway!), in which case even more heterosexual couples would be disqualified.

So, leaving out procreation and child-rearing, one can logically define marriage as:

A legal and social bond between any two persons (*) (regardless of their physiology, skin color, social background, genital configuration, etc.), existing on both private and public levels, reflecting an act of committment to a common life (establishing a common household/family unit), and imparting certain rights and responsibilities.

(*) Excluding, arguably logically, immediate biological relatives, for various complex reasons that I can't begin to fully explain.

Sure, one could word it in all kinds of other ways, but I think this is pretty good.

So, then, given this definition, it makes no logical sense to further define it as a union between two people, one male and one female, because such a union is entirely possible between two females or two males. Some people don't seem to think so, but I argue that this is only because they don't actually know any loving, committed same-sex couples, so it's simply ignorance on their part and no logical proof of anything.

The only thing that is not possible between two females or two males that is possible between one female and one male is penile/vaginal intercourse. (And all of this isn't even bringing into the equation intersex and transexual people!) Everything else is possible. It's possible for them to make a committment, to establish a household, to share rights and responsibilities, to be in love, to raise children, to care for one another, etc., etc. So then, unless we are going to define marriage as a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (sounds more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!), rather than a union of two people for the purpose of sharing life together, there is no logical or legally-valid explanation for gender discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses.

(QED, Amen, and Blessed Be!) ;)

Oh yeah, regarding numbers, two is logically arbitary, and I don't agree with it, but, as I've said, the vast majority of people do, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Ya do what'cha can, and if it's going to be two people, then at least it ought to be any two people, not certain people's definition of which kinds of two people, whether based on race, class, religion, gender, etc., etc.

Responses to an essay on nature and human sexuality (part 2)

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:25:34 GMT

Before I go on, I want to make a few more comments on the "biological necessity" argument that seems to be at least very implicit in Steve's argument... Most things humans do are not biologically necessary. Homosexual sex is not biologically necessary, however neither is most heterosexual sex. Marriage is not biologically necessary. It's certainly not biologically necessary to be married in order to procreate, so why do you think it's the right thing to do? Celibacy is arguably much more "unnatural" than homosexuality, and does nothing to propogate the species, and yet you have no problem with it... But anyway, let me continue, as I'm sure these things will come up again as I go on...

I'm going to backtrack just a bit to the beginning of the last paragraph:

Steve: Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring.

Me: You speak of the "reproductive urge", which is logically tied to the propogation of the species, and that's fine, but let me caution against conflating that with the "sexual urge" which is biologically based on hormones, psychologically based on the desire for pleasure, but also psychologically and socially and dare I say spiritually based on other human needs such as connection to others. I'm afraid that sentence doesn't make too much sense, but suffice it to say that for humans and other intelligent creatures, sex is about a lot more than reproduction.

Steve: The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself.

Me: I don't agree that there's only one purpose for human sexual behavior, so I really don't agree with any of this.

Steve: Animals aren't capable of knowing this.

Me: Arguably many less intelligent animals are not capable of intellectually "knowing" much of anything, but as for more intelligent animals, such as primates, bonobos, for example, are capable of, if not logically reasoning, at least instinctually "knowing" that sexuality has other good uses besides procreation, namely helping to maintain peace and social harmony. If you don't know about the bonobos, Steve, I highly encourage you to learn about them. If "God created them" then sure "He did so for a reason", and perhaps it is partly to give us an example of a healthy attitude towards sexuality!

Steve: They follow an impulse, and don't logically conclude that sex will lead to babies.

Me: Sex doesn't always lead to babies, not for humans or animals. Of course only heterosexual vaginal intercourse with ejaculation will lead to babies anyway, and much of sexual activity is other than that.

Steve: They want to satisfy a release of hormones in an act that gives them pleasure. (Animals view pleasure as the object of sexual activity - something that should make us realize that when we treat sex as only about pleasure, we too are being animalistic.)

Me: I don't know that there's anything wrong with being "animalistic". Animals don't do all sorts of horrible things that humans do. If humans were more "animalistic" and "natural", we wouldn't have rape, because animals (at least less intelligent ones, I'm not quite sure about apes) don't use sexual intercourse as an act of "unnatural" violence—males only mate with females when they are biologically "ready" for mating. Furthermore, I dare say that we would do well to focus a lot more on pleasure with regard to sex. It's so often not even a factor in deciding to have or not have sexual contact with another person. Instead, all sorts of other motivations drive us: power, control, duty, honor, self-image, politics, others' expectations, etc., etc. If people only engaged in sexual activity in order to give and receive pleasure, I think the world would be much better for it!

Steve: This means that when an animal exhibits homosexual, or inter-species sexual behavior, they are following a conditioned behavioral response that generates pleasure. (I have personally seen a large black labrador try to mate with a small (male) cat. Not only are the odds high that this would have been physically impossible, but it's also likely that it wasn't because of some strange inter-special homosexual relationship. The cat was clearly put out by the whole affair.) That does not mean that the sexual impulse in animals isn't there to facilitate reproduction. That's what the impulse is for.

Me: You really need to read Biological Exhuberance, Steve, because you seriously underestimate the extent of homosexuality in nature. We're not talking about a few stray cases of males humping other males. Same-sex pairs of animals actually establish "families" and even raise young together (just like with humans!). It's very fascinating. And even if other animals didn't have ongoing same-sex relationships, the fact is that humans do, and, as I will no doubt elaborate much on later, they're not primarily about sex: they're primarly about love, connection, committment, friendship, mutual support, etc., all of the same things heterosexual relationships are about.

And with that, a good night to all!

People have the most absurd ideas, based on no facts whatsoever!

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:40:21 GMT

As part of a brief explanation of her support for the FMA, a woman named Jeanne wrote:

"In all the centuries ahead of us, societies realized that the intact family of man/woman/offspring were important for preserving the integrity of the state."

So I replied:

I swear, you make the most absurd claims Jeanne. ...

In fact, a myriad of different family organization schemes have existed on this planet over the course of "all of the centuries ahead of us", and most of them have decidedly not centered on one man, one woman, and their offspring. You clearly need to do some reading in the field of anthropology, because you know not whereof you speak! The "nuclear family" is a very recent Western invention and hitherto was certainly not "necessary" for the functioning of many thousands of human societies over the wide span of human history.

At any rate, it is entirely your opinion and belief that a family unit based on a heterosexual couple is the proper building block of a society. Many others do not share your belief and do not care to build their personal lives according to your belief system. In a country based on the protection of individual liberties and equal rights of all before the law, you and those who share your views have no right whatsoever to deny equal treatment and benefits to one segment of society, most especially a productive, contributing, law-abiding segment of people who pay their taxes, serve on juries and PTAs, volunteer, make charitable contributions, sing in church choirs, and wish nothing more than to live in peace like everyone else!!

What can you do but roll your eyes?! (And fight like hell in the political arena, of course!)

Responses to an essay on nature and human sexuality (part 1)

Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:46:31 GMT

Well, I'm beginning a series of posts to respond to a nice long comment left by Steve Skojec. Enjoy!

Steve: The rational argument you are looking for is the argument from nature

Me: Aha, well that's interesting, because, as we all know, if we've looked into it at all, both same-sex sexual contact and (please pay particularly attention to this Steven) same-sex relationships are well documented in the natural world...
[For more information, please consult Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.
Amazon also recommends these related books:
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak
Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape by F. B. M. De Waal, et al
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell
Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation by Olivia Judson
The Construction of Homosexuality by David F. Greenberg
(Apparently the "Dr. Tatiana" book comes highly recommended—hugely educational and entertaining.)]

Steve: though rarely do people agree on what is "natural" and what is not.

Me: Indeed. But hopefully that won't stop us from attempting a discussion!

Steve: To use an objective measure I stopped by dictionary.com. The most appropriate definition in the context of this discussion was the third one listed for "nature":
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
And nature? Two possibilities there; I'll list them both:
The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
The processes and functions of the body.

So we see nature as something that adheres to order - there are "laws" of nature. We see that it involves biological processes. We see that for something to be natural, it is seen to follow a certain course. This means that any natural act would be something that is not only biologically proper to the acting being but also follows a course from beginning to end.

Me: Hmmm. OK. I'm not sure if you're arguing this or not, but I want to object to the idea that everything in nature happens "for a reason". It may or may not, but certainly we do not always know or understand the reasons for things. Anyway, I think I agree with this, more or less... I don't know quite what you mean when you say that a "natural act" "follows a course from beginning to end"... What "course" and who has determined this supposed course? We can observe nature and see what happens, but we don't always know why something happens, nor can we be sure we are properly interpreting cause and effect. There is always subjectivity involved. But anyway, let's continue.

Steve: Trees grow toward light because they need it to accomplish photosynthesis, not because they choose to. They are acting toward the natural end of generating food.

Me: Hmmm. OK. I won't be difficult. It would be hard to attribute volition to plants on a purely biological basis. On a spiritual plane I'm not sure everything doesn't have some kind of volition, but that's only speculation and certainly beyond the scope of this "rational" "biological" discussion.

Steve: Animals are more adaptive, and have learned behaviors, and though they act according to nature, they also follow impulses with a degree of volition that plants do not have. Human beings, on the other hand, have complete volition.

Me: I don't agree there. Humans do many things instinctually, using no conscious volition. We do not breathe because we will it so. We do not digest food because we will it so. Adrenaline does not course through our bloodstream in a "fight or flight" situation because we will it so. We are not attracted to certain people and not others because we will it so. Some people do not have a higher predisposition to alcohol abuse or breast cancer because they will it so. Intelligence, balding, metabolism, acne, even death itself, these are biological factors and processes that simply are givens to our existence. We can do what we can do to influence reality to meet our desires, but our ability to do so is virtually always limited.

Steve: Though they act in accordance with the laws of nature that govern them, they have control over their impulses. We can subject our impulses and control our nature according to our intellect and will.

Me: Again, it's all relative. To say that we have more control over our reactions to biological impulses than less complex biological creatures is almost certainly true. But our control is nowhere near absolute. Even when we think we are in control, biological and psychological factors are always influencing us in ways we cannot even begin to comprehend. Why am I tired or hungry or sick or horny or in pain or happy or amused or any number of things when my will would have it otherwise? How often do we will our behavior and how often do we simply follow instinct? I think the latter is much more common than most of us would perhaps like to believe. It's not to say we can't, necessarily, but very often we simply don't. And often that's not particuarly bad or good...it just is.

Steve: As nature goes, we are at the pinnacle, yet we do not have the ability to circumvent it.

Me: I'm not sure "we are at the pinnacle", whatever exactly that means, and I'm not sure what you mean by "we do not have the ability to circumvent it"... To circumvent what?

Steve: Many try to view the homosexual question in overly simplistic terms.

Me: Well, I think that would be more your side of the discussion than mine, but anyway...

Steve: They see certain homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom, and so try to justify analagous human behavior as "natural".

Me: I just want to clarify that I don't think whether or not something "natural", whatever that may mean, is a particularly important reason to do it or not, as a general rule. I only use evidence of homosexuality in the animal world in response to anti-gay claims that "homosexuality is unnatural". Arguably much of what humans do is "unnatural", but that doesn't in and of itself make it right or wrong.

Steve: This is a foolish course for two reasons. First, because what is "natural" for animals is not always "natural" for humans, and second, because animals act on ungoverned impulses that do not always follow a natural course. Monkeys throw feces. Dogs eat their own vomit. Some animals cannibalize their young. Does this mean that we should imitate this behavior?

Me: If you are being attacked and have some feces handy, perhaps you should throw it! Things like eating vomit and eating (generally dead) offspring have to do with issues of predators and prey, territory, etc. that we don't need to worry about because we live in houses, have cleaning supplies, garbage cans, etc., etc. If we have a stillborn baby or an infant that dies, we cremate or bury it (or if it's early enough in the pregnancy, perhaps it simply goes down the toilet). We have no need to eat it. Perhaps someone could have developed a cultural reason for eating dead infants...maybe someone did at some point, I don't really know...

Steve: In the question of nature, what is truly "natural" is an action that is ordered to the accomplishment of an end that is biologically necessary. This is an important distinction. "Natural" acts always serve biological self-preservation in some direct or indirect sense.

Me: Well, humans (and other animals also) do all sorts of things that aren't particularly tied to self-preservation, some of them arguably good things (like, I don't know, reading novels or baking cakes), so I'm not sure what your point is...

Steve: The most common natural act is eating.

Me: Hmmm. Think I'd have to go with sleeping, or breathing, or some sort of cellular process, but whatever...

Steve: We eat to nourish our bodies so that they can grow and we can continue to live. We are prompted to eat by a sensation, an urge, that tells us "you need food". As humans, we can ignore that urge (unlike animals)

Me: Animals are known to defy instinctual impulses for psychological reasons. If a dog's beloved human dies or goes away, it may starve itself to death out of sadness and loneliness.

Steve: though if we ignore it long enough, we will die. The natural end of eating is nourishment - a necessity for our own preservation.

Me: OK, though do let me point out that all sorts of rules and norms and customs and habits govern human eating patterns that have to do with culture and psychology rather than biology.

Steve: Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring.

Me: You are equating sexual activity with reproduction, and I strongly disagree with this equation, particularly with regard to humans, but even non-human animals, particularly primates and highly intelligent mammals, such as dolphins. Even with animals, sex is often as much a function of social processes as biological ones, in terms of who mates with whom and when. Social hierarchies in the animal world have grown out of biological dictates, but sometimes they have a logic of their own that is much more complicated than simply copulation = reproduction = propogation of species...

Now I'm sure we'll get into this later, but I want to say from the get-go that if human genital contact is only "allowed" in order to propogate the species, there are a hell of a lot of people on this planet who are going to have to stop a hell of a lot of sexual behavior(!), and this goes way beyond gays and lesbians. Human sexuality and sexual behavior has never been, nor will it ever be, nor indeed should it be primarily about reproduction or propogating the species (and you don't even argue that, at least not between a married man and a married woman). Genital stimulation, whether it involves one or more persons, is about pleasure. According to me it is beautiful and glorious. Sexual activity between two or more persons is also about connection. But anyway, I'm sure we'll get into all of this later.

Steve: The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself.

Me: On a biological level there is, of course, a certain truth to this, but I think it's of quite limited importance when speaking of human beings and more intelligent mammals. Let me put it this way: one of the purposes of heterosexual human coitus is reproduction; however, for much of humanity, much of the time, this purpose is of limited or no importance with regard to motivating or defining sexual activity; analagously, one of the purposes of eating food is not to starve to death; however, for much of humanity, much of the time, this purpose is of limited or no importance with regard to motivating or defining food production and consumption. If you simply didn't want to starve to death, you could avoid it by consuming a live mouse or pulling up some roots from the ground and gobbling them up, but that has absolutely no relation to the ways in which human beings routinely prepare and eat food. Analagously, if there is no heterosexual copulation (well, now we have ways around that, but anyway), and women don't get pregnant and give birth to babies (soon we'll have ways around that too), the human race will die out, but that has absolutely no relation to the ways in which human beings routinely engage in sexual activity.

OK, well, that's where I'm stopping today, but I look forward to the continuation of this process.