Pagani Americana

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

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:02:11 GMT

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.

Ode to the Goddess of Spring

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:25:48 GMT

You visit the earth and water it, making it abundantly fertile; your river is full of water; you provide the people with grain, for so you have prepared it. You water its furrows abundantly, settling its ridges, softening it with showers, and blessing its young sprouts. You adorn the year with your bounty; your paths drip with fruitful rain. The pastures of the wilderness overflow; the hills are robed with joy, the meadows clothed with flocks, the valleys decked with grain; they shout and sing together for joy.

AKA Psalm 65

P.S.—One place on the web I found this Psalm is on a really useful Mennonite site discussing environmental/health issues inside our homes and suggesting actions we can take to reduce the negative effects of indoor pollution on our health and wellbeing.

P.P.S.—I've never looked at them before, but the Mennonites seem to be interesting folks, who, from what I can tell, have a fair range of Christian theological perspectives, united by a committment to peace and social justice. I thought they were the ones that made women wear funny hats, but it seems that there are different branches of Mennonites, so maybe only some of them have the hat thing, I don't know... But the Mennonite Church USA, which seems to be the most prominent group, has a page of Mennonite responses to Gibson's Passion film and they are diverse and thoughtful...

About Madeline

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:38:25 GMT

I recently joined an online community called The WELL. I made a profile for it. It's rather nice...

Madeline is a radical, progressive, socialist, internationalist, ecofeminist, anti-racist, white, 27-year-old, student, francophone, writer, bisexual, polyamorous, Pagan, Unitarian Universalist who lives in San Jose, California.

She aspires to be a Witch in the Reclaiming tradition.

She advocates for personal liberty, communal responsibility, peace, economic justice, ecological sustainability, civil rights, sexpositivity, nudity, queer rights, women's rights, and international cooperation.

She believes in ultimate unity.

She values diversity, communication, self-expression, compassion, creativity, passion, play, laughter, pleasure, harmony, and the natural world.

She believes in education, integration, reform, reconciliation, restitution, rehabilitation, re-creation, transformation, re-visioning, and growth.

She decries marginalization, disempowerment, violence, punishment, division, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, zenophobia, and vindictiveness.

She loves animals, babies, music, drumming, crafts, earrings, chocolate, games, jigsaw puzzles, reading, writing, discussions, roller coasters, pizza, crossword puzzles, hiking, camping, singing, downhill skiing, guinea pigs, gardening, and the Internet.

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.

George Carlin on American the Less-than-Beautiful

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:38:18 GMT

...I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates. I think we've ruined this place. And I think it's largely because of businessmen... I go out there to show the rest of the Americans how badly they're doing. This country has been, for about 180 years now, badly mishandled. And it's been in the wrong hands. It's been in the hands of the business interests.

And a lot of the beauty of this country has been shattered by them. The physical beauty and the kind of institutional beauty that was originally built into this place - this experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism...

Q: Do you feel like this country has progressed any way, shape or form in the past 20 years?

A: Everybody's got more jet skis and Dustbusters now and sneakers with lights in them. They've got more cheese on their thing that they buy. They get double helpings. See, Americans measure all their progress in the wrong way. They measure by quantity and by gizmos and toys. And not by quality and by things that are important.

The most interesting thing to me is that the things that people would seem to have the most right to have - that is to say health, food, shelter and a job are the things that are last on the list. To me, that is fundamental. Those are the things humans most need to function, and we have placed them at the bottom of the list. So I think that says a lot about national character and priorities.

My comments: Amen, George. As I've always said, it's all about priorities, and ours are very much in the wrong places.

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."

Alliance of Pagan Voters

Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:04:19 GMT

Although many posts have been routed to this cateogry, it hasn't had an actual home page until today. And most of the posts don't have anything specifically to do with Paganism, but instead are on topics that may be of interests to Pagans. I was doing a bit of a Web search to see what links I could put on the page and came across this APV, apparently an organization in its infancy. I've joined its forum and mailing list, so I guess I'll see if it actually goes anywhere!

A Cinematic Masterpiece for the Rest of Us!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:48:17 GMT

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. —Niels Bohr

Everything you see has its roots in the unseen world. The forms may change, yet the essence remains the same. Every wonderful sight will vanish; every sweet word will fade, But do not be disheartened, The source they come from is eternal, growing, Branching out, giving new life and new joy. Why do you weep? The source is within you And this whole world is springing up from it. —Jelauddin Rumi

The truth dazzles gradually, or else the world would be blind. —Emily Dickinson

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

A full-spectrum approach to human consciousness and behavior means that men and women have available to them a spectrum of knowing—a spectrum that includes, at the very least, the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit. —Ken Wilber

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. —Galileo Galilei

Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. —Lewis Carroll

Do you remember how electrical currents and 'unseen waves' were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy. —Albert Einstein

You cannot see anything that you do not first contemplate as a reality. —Ramtha

The spirit down here in man and the spirit up there in the sun, in reality are only one spirit, and there is no other one. —The Upanishads

While the evangelical Christians revel in Gibson's gorefest (and in their twisted interpretation of the significance of the life and teachings of the executed Jewish radical Jesus of Nazareth), those of us interested in the present and the future of life on Earth and in increasing our understanding of the nature of the Universe and of humanity and of the human mind, as studied by physicists, doctors, and mystics (rather than as dictated in the writings of some patriarchal, anti-Goddess, war-obsessed, primitive, desert nomads!), a mind-altering film has just been released that I am excited about seeing—that is if it makes it to the Bay Area! I can only hope and assume that eventually it will!

As Radical as Einstein
As Blasphemous as Bruno
As Heretical as Galileo
"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus.
It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects.
A new art form
About a New Worldview
For a new audience
This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated—where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist—where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought.
Like the movies, The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, and Minority Report, this film shows you a greater reality behind the one we all accept as true, and you have the ability to create absolutely anything from your own thought.
But the difference between this film and those movies is—
This isn't science fiction.
It's stranger still—
It's real.
(Keep reading!)

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.

Spong on Gibson's Testament to Violence

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:42:01 GMT

I hate to be giving any attention whatsoever to this repulsive spectacle, but Spong's words are so intelligent and right-on that I can't help but repeat them!

Once again, Gibson is reading the gospels through the lens of medieval piety. In the early church, especially in the writings of Paul, the death of Jesus was likened to the believer's act of being baptized. The believer in baptism was united with Christ in his death so that he or she could live with Christ in his resurrection (see Romans 6:1-11 and Col. 2:12). But Gibson turns this into a sadomasochistic scene of pain inflicted and suffering endured. It is so long and violent that it qualifies this film for an "R" rating, "for adults only."

The earliest Christians knew that crucifixion was not unique to Jesus. Thousands of people had died this way at the hands of the Romans. To the Jews crucifixion was particularly associated with shame and embarrassment, since the Torah said that one who was hung upon a tree was "accursed" (Deut. 21:22, 23). The fetish about the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus was again a pious devotional technique that ultimately attributed a sacred meaning to suffering and made cruelty an attribute of God, both of which are strange, even unhealthy theological concepts. Yet Gibson has developed these ideas to a fine art. His interpretive work may engender a guilt-laden piety but we need to recognize that it is not biblically accurate.

This reminds me of a discussion I had yesterday with my grandmother. She's a very independent woman, not particularly religious, a feminist in her not terribly enlightened way. Anyway, I'm not sure why she mentioned it, but I said that I have no desire or intention to see it, and that it's supposed to be horribly violent. I went a little bit into how disturbing I find it that the Christian symbol is an instrument of torture, and had to explain to her (she's not the swiftest arrow at 74) in more detail after mentioning that there was a group of people who would wear little electric chairs around their necks to highlight the disturbingness of having an instrument of torture and execution as your religious symbol. It's just so horribly morbid! They really should have gone with something else: a dove, a fish, anything!

It really is such a disturbing, twisted, unhuman, inhumane, fucked-up theology! That not only would the Divine permit suffering It has the ability to stop at any time at Its whim, but that It would actually demand suffering. That the Divine, the Spirit of Creation of the Universe, the Earth, all of life, humanity, sunsets, rainbows, and newborn babies would seek to punish anyone. What is this obsession with punishment? I find the concept so bizarre and repulsive. I do not comprehend how people think anyone has the right to punish another human being (as with prisons, and even punishing children). Punishment is a sick and twisted concept. (To jump back to children, I am a firm believer in firm and structured parenting, a critic of children who are out of control, but I don't believe that physical violence or "punishment" have any proper role in the parent/child relationship. I certainly believe in "discipline" in the sense of order and routine and structure, but not in the sense of "punishment". Actions have consquences, and wrongs require apology and restitution, but punishment is a sadistic, unhealthy, unloving concept I strongly reject.)

The Deity I know and love and worship is One of Infinite Love. You can reject this Love, fail to see it, turn away from it, but you cannot escape it. The whole conservative Christian focus on "free will" (with regard to explaining sin, damnation, etc.) I find absurd. It completely ignores the way virtually every human being feels towards their children, essentially making human beings more loving and compassionate than their God. There is nothing, absolutely nothing a child can do to make a parent stop loving them. There is nothing that can cause an ultimate rejection. There is no time, no matter what they've done or how they've hurt you, that you wouldn't welcome them back into your arms with love. That's the nature of parenthood! But this Christian "Father" God is apparently a pretty shitty parent, because He's willing to abandon some (arguably most, according to many Christians' beliefs) of His children to eternal torment. Christians defend this saying that He has no choice because of His infinite goodness. What an utter load of bullshit! Your God is a sadist, a bigot/ethnocentrist (look at how He prefers one group over others in the OT), and a really horrible parent!

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!!)

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.

Nebulous "Threats" to our Nation's Future

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:41:49 GMT

Same-sex marriage rights seem to be the only thing on my mind right now, but it's not terribly surprising, since it's a major news issue at the moment...

For example, earlier today I was visiting with my mom and sister (we had met with my older sister and niece and had a wet weather "fieldtrip" to Ikea, my first time, quite a store), and we went into a Starbucks, so my mom could get some coffee, and I took a look at the local Palo Alto newspaper, and of course it's a font page story that a thousand people will have been married in San Francisco over this long weekend, with hundreds being turned away because City Hall is simply overwhelmed!! (I had to blink back tears again!)

People have come from other cities and other states, waited hours and hours in line, and are ready to camp out on the sidewalk, just to make a public declaration of a loving committment that others can do so easily any day of the week in any city in the country. It's just so absurdly ironic... People are lining up to uphold the marriage institution by joining it, and some fools want to "protect" it by turning them away! What are they so afraid of? As I've read a number of conservatives say, can gays possibly make any more of a mockery of marriage as a serious institution than straights already have?!

And yet here is a quote from a random conservative, writing to a US Senator, that sounds like so many other conservative claims, and yet makes no sense at all...

"The traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be preserved, for the sake of our nation's families and our nation's future."

My response: Or what??! Just what the hell is it you fear-mongerers think is going to happen if gays and lesbians get married? How is society going to be anything but better and more stable for it?! One thousand same-sex couples have been married in San Francisco this past weekend. Whether or not their marriage certificates eventually get voided by some court decision, for right now, they have marriage certificates, and they have had the same chance to make public their committment that straight people get every day of the year.

And has the world ended? Has California or San Francisco dropped off into the ocean? Has God smote Gavin Newsom? Have the city's children suddenly morphed into some crazed, depraved, heathens destined to carry out the destruction of the human race? Has everyone in San Francisco suddenly forsaken heterosexual sex and reproduction? (I think my sister and brother-in-law and niece who are redecorating and shopping and excitedly awaiting the birth of my new nephew Gordon would be shocked to hear that!) :P

It's all just so ridiculous! People predicted that interracial marriage, and the end of slavery, and women ordained as ministers, and the teaching of evolutionary biology, and women voting, and black people voting, and women working, and who knows what else(!) would bring about the end of human civilization, and yet here we are, driving SUVs, writing weblogs, drinking lattes, sending rovers to Mars, occupying other countries, and using way more than our fair share of the Earth's resources here today in the good ol' USA. It's amazing how life goes on despite every so-called threat to the foundations of human civilization...

500 Line Up to Marry in SF—200 Protest Outside Cardinal's House in Chicago

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:03:05 GMT

[Chicago Sun Times]
Gay-rights activists protest at cardinal's home
Hundreds flock to San Francisco to say 'I do'
By Abdon M. Pallasch on February 15, 2004

About 200 activists held a Valentine's Day protest outside Cardinal Francis George's Gold Coast home Saturday to demand equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

They chose George's residence instead of state or federal legislators' offices because they said George and the Archdiocese of Chicago had been among the main opponents of a gay-rights bill that narrowly lost in Springfield last year. ...

A group of 23 Chicago area priests wrote an "open letter" to the church hierarchy in December objecting to what they called "vile, toxic and abusive" language toward gays by church officials.

An archdiocese official told them to remove the letter from a parish Web site. They did not. But they included George's response: "Pastors have to mediate the tension between welcoming people and calling them to change, to repent and convert and live according to Christ's teaching transmitted by the church." [Hmmm, that's interesting, because CHRIST (aka Jesus of Nazareth), as we all know, never went on record as opposing gays and lesbians or same-sex marriage!]

Saturday's protest was one of many held around the country in part to oppose calls for a national amendment banning gay marriage. ...

[In SF] Gay and lesbian couples from across the country answered this city's Valentine's Day invitation to wed in an unprecedented spree of same-sex marriages that has challenged California law and sent conservative groups scrambling to court.

About 500 people lined up Saturday morning outside City Hall to secure marriage licenses -- and then take each other as "spouse for life" in brief vows that have given San Francisco's seat of government the feel of a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

"It's finally somebody saying, 'Yes, you can do this,'" said Peter Subers, 57, of Washington County, N.Y., as he stood in line with husband-to-be Rob Bauer, 63. Saturday was their 34th anniversary. ...

My comments: Praise the Goddess, the Lord, the Buddha, and Everyone Else! ;) Hip-Hip-Hooray for Gavin Newsom! He may not be Matt Gonzales, but he just can't be all bad (or even half bad)! I just can't help but think that come a few years and a few more open-minded generations, and the conservatives will never live down how they tried to stop committed couples—who lined up in droves at the first chance!!—from getting married. I do believe it will hurt their credibility in the end.

From the page of this article I clicked on an ad to what looks like a really good book: Gay Perspective: Things Our Homosexuality Tells Us About the Nature of God and the Universe ... "Our position as exiles and outcasts from conventional religion offers us the possibility for understanding what religion really is from an outsider's perspective, for seeing the truths hidden within the myths and for seeing the lies religion confuses and manipulates people with. Our queer sexuality can be a clue to profound mystical and spiritual truth and the basis of a truly virtuous and contributing life." Not the first time I've seen these sorts of ideas...a really neat guy spoke at UCD once who had a website about queer spirituality...I should try to find him, see if he's still out there...similar ideas. Of course in many indigenous groups queers of various sorts held honored spiritual leadership roles (heh, they still do, in the Catholic church, they're just in the closet!). :P

Anyway, this book reminds me that I want to get some links on the "Equality Now!" page to gay sprituality and religion. It's actually in looking for these kinds of links that I got to the Catholic sites that I've visited lately. I'm not quite sure how it happened, but it did. Must have been fate. ;)

Blogging with Catholics...

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:19:15 GMT

I'm not sure how I got into this, but I guess I'm just a sucker for debate, although I must admit that I'm still waiting to see something worthy of debating, but I've ended up in some discussions with conservative Catholics on this guy Chris Burgwald's blog, Veritas, which if nothing else is a very pretty blog to look at (I really like the stained glass pattern!), but also Chris seems to be a nice, level-headed guy, so we'll see what happens. It's given me plenty to write about (as though I really needed any more!).

I started out commenting over there because Chris was lamenting the end of a discussion with a liberal pro-gay Catholic, and I felt like I understood where she was coming from and why she felt she couldn't continue the discussion any longer, and then later I opined that the two of them couldn't really communicate, because they have two fundamentally different views of the fundamental nature of their religion (law vs. love), to which Chris replied that he wasn't making arguments based on religion, only on reason. I find this pretty hard to believe! So I said:

"Reason" cannot take one to an anti-gay stance; all evidence indicates that homosexual behavior and same-sex relationships are "natural" (biologically), "normal" and "well-adjusted" (psychologically), and, sociologically speaking, perfectly compatible with harmonious social life (in other words, millions of gay and lesbian individuals and couples are living peacefully and productively on this planet, the same as heterosexual ones); there is nothing "reasonable" about affording rights to opposite-sex couples and denying them to same-sex ones. It's exactly what the MA supreme court said.

So I asked him to either make or point me to where he has already made an anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage argument "based on reason with no appeal to religious doctrine, God's plan, traditional values, divine law, Leviticus, Adam and Eve, etc., etc." I continued: "I'm excited at the possibility--it would certainly be a first in my experience!!"

So, we'll see...

Anti-Vatican is not necessarily Anti-Catholic

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:33:40 GMT

Being against the Pope and the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchical institution and its assorted very bad policies and doctrines does not mean one fails to have respect for people who are Catholics. There are many good ideas in Catholicism, such as defending the poor and advocating for peace. And there are some very cool Catholics out there, like, for instance, many Catholic nuns. Two examples: The Sisters of St. Joseph of La Grange: Ministry of the Arts (they make the most incredibly gorgeous artwork—buy some!), and the National Association of American Nuns (a 33-year-old peace and justice group representing about 1,800 women religious), which doesn't seem to have a website, but one can find some of its statements around on the web:
On women in the priesthood
On sexual abuse of women in the Church
Some excerpts from a statement of outrage after two Catholic leaders were officially silenced and banned from working with gays and lesbians (although they never contradicted the Church's official teachings on "homogenital acts", they were just a little too loving and compassionate towards gays and lesbians as human beings, I guess *rollseyes*):

Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you shut the door against the loving relationships of lesbian and gay people and shelter the homosexual priests and bishops in your closets.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you devour the human rights of the Church's ministers by using secret and authoritarian procedures of examination.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you refuse to listen to the voices of dissent to your repressive measures.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you abuse your authority through a resurgence of the inquisition by probing into the conscience of another.

Another couple of cool Catholic reform movements: The Quixote Center and Call to Action.

Anyway, the reason this came up is that after somehow (not quite sure how) finding my way to a couple of Catholic blogs I encountered some commentaries on Margaret Cho who, in addition to her comedy segment on Republicans for the Moveon.org affaire, had previously done a piece against the Vatican's stance on sex and birth control, and so I had to respond to their calling her an anti-Catholic bigot:

~~~~~

1. Opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican does not make one "anti-Catholic". Many American Catholics, some very active and devout, disagree, sometimes very strongly, with the Vatican on quite a number of issues. This hardly makes them "anti-Catholic".

2. Neither does opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican mean that one holds a negative opinion of all persons who identify as Catholic. The above argument applies here, obviously. As does the fact that I vehemently oppose many policies and positions of the Vatican, yet nevertheless, my best friend is a practicing Catholic, one who agrees with the Pope on more issues than many American Catholics, and that doesn't stop me from loving her dearly. She has beliefs with which I disagree; I have beliefs with which she disagrees; on some levels we each think the other is misguided; yet we manage to be very good friends.

3. Even strongly opposing the Pope himself and the very nature of the Catholic hierarchical system, even despising the Pope and thinking him a foolish, pompous, dangerous and deluded individual, even telling him to F off (I wholeheartedly agree with everything Cho said and think she is a fabulous comedian), does not make one "anti-Catholic", if that is taken to mean that one hates or would discriminate against or seek to harm any or all persons who happen, by circumstance or deliberate choice, to be Catholic.

(No more so, I might add, than opposing the Bush administration makes one "anti-American" or opposing the Israeli government/army makes one an "anti-Semite".)

If y'all cannot see that, I think there's something lacking in your logical process. The Pope may think that he and his views define Catholicism, but many Catholics, in the US and around the world, disagree, and I wish them much luck in transforming the Catholic church into a more humane, fair, equal, rational, accountable institution.

~~~~~

I also made another comment on Margaret Cho, with regard to the fact that some conservatives (religious and otherwise) don't seem to be able to make a mental differentiation between a comedy act and a serious statement of personal belief...

~~~~~

Does it occur to any of you that Margaret Cho does not necessarily go around speaking like that in her everyday life? The language that you find so "offensive" is part of her comedy routine. She is in fact a perfectly intelligent woman who is perfectly capable of speaking and carry on conversations without using "profanity".

As with various sorts of performing artists, comedians take on personas, adopt styles of being and speaking, often ones that are extreme in some way, that are used in their comedy routines. And while a comedian's stage persona likely incorporates some parts of who they are as a person, it is nevertheless a limited way of being, one that is used while performing, and it can in no way be conflated with their whole personality or character. Reading a transcript of one or two of Margaret Cho's comedy routines does not put you a position to judge who she is as a human being.

Now I realize that some of you here on this Catholic blog may believe that using "profanity" at any time, for any reason, even in a comedy routine, is wrong, and thus constitutes a negative mark on a person's character, and (though I personally think it's silly, meaningless moralism), I respect your right to believe that way, but you still ought to be able to make some sort of distinction between the way a person is while performing on a stage as part of their professional work and the overall character of that person.

~~~~~

Speaking of Margaret's intelligence and her character, here are a few sentences from her comments on SF's same-sex marriages on her blog:
"I am of the opinion that this only enforces and grounds the idea of family values. By allowing and legitimizing different types of families, we make them relevant, attainable and honorable, therefore strengthening the moral fabric of the nation and making the ideal American family available to all who wish to be a part of one. We will never have a shortage of parents, like we do now. We will have a surplus of love and caring, which we do not have now."

[IOW: KISS MY ASS YOU "FAMILY VALUES" HYPOCRITE FOOLS! FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILIES! (MY words, not Margaret's!)]

What We Need Is Here

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:14:16 GMT

What We Need Is Here

Geese appear high over us,
pass, and the sky closes. Abandon,
as in love or sleep, holds
them to their way, clear
in the ancient faith: what we need
is here. And we pray, not
for new earth or heaven, but to be
quiet in heart, and in eye,
clear. What we need is here.

~ Wendell Berry ~

Lesbian couple, together 51 years, married today in SF :)

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:55:35 GMT

[SFGate]
S.F. defies law, marries gays
LEGAL BATTLE LOOMS: City Hall ceremonies spur constitutional showdown, injunction threat
February 13, 2004
By Rachel Gordon

In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.

A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could. [It's just so absurd when you think of it, the religious right, the supposed champions of committed relationships and the social stability they provide, doing everything they can to keep people from getting married. What a farce...]

"A barrier to true justice has been removed," said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians. ...

Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act. By early Thursday, employees in the county clerk's office, in consultation with city and civil rights lawyers, had changed marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral, replacing the words "bride" and "groom" with "first applicant" and "second applicant."

At 11:06 a.m., two icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, took their wedding vows, kissed and embraced, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States. ...

My comments: Hooray for Del and Phyllis! (It's a rare newspaper article that brings tears of joy to one's eyes!)

Stupid fucking moron conservatives! How can they be so fucking blind? When will they simply open their eyes to the beauty of love in its myriad forms and stop trying to draw lines in the sand and boxes around people? ...I guess the answer's probably "blowin' in the wind", but at least, on this one bright February day there was a little beauty and celebration in a City Hall rotunda... Blessed Be.

(Here's a little more of the sweet story...)

Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life" in place of "husband" and "wife".

Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.

"I asked Del, and she said OK," Lyon said. "We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible. Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.'" [Awwww! It's just so sweet! I can just see them, these 80-year-old ladies, lesbian rights pioneers, 51 years of love and companionship... And indeed a lot has changed in the world since they first got together...but there's still a long way to go!]

About 20 people witnessed the ceremony. Many of them were moved to tears as the couple were wed, using borrowed rings.

According to another article by the Rocky Mountain Telegram, "Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done. 'Why shouldn't we' be able to marry? Lyon asked." Indeed.

Also:

On the same day that San Francisco entered uncharted territory, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend the state Family Code to define a marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.

I hadn't heard about this, but I guess it was first announced a few weeks ago...

Leno to counter Bush on gay marriage: Bill would recognize licenses, boost benefits by Rona Marech, on Jan. 24:

The bill Leno plans to introduce in the Assembly next month would prohibit the denial of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in California. The bill would expand on AB205 -- the domestic partners bill that takes effect in 2005 -- most significantly, by allowing gay couples to file joint tax returns, claim an exemption from property reassessment upon the death of a partner, and travel across state lines without jeopardizing their marriage rights.

In addition, the bill would confer a range of federal rights on gay couples, from immigration rights for foreign-born partners of American citizens to the right to Social Security benefits.

"It was disgraceful for the president of the United States to pander to his radical right-wing supporters out of his own concerns for re-election," said Leno, D-San Francisco. "This puts me and my community in the position of taking one of two actions: Either continually playing defense or taking proactive steps. Rather than playing defense and explaining why we don't need a constitutional amendment, this (legislation) moves forward in a positive fashion."

Leno's bill does not conflict with Proposition 22 -- the initiative California voters passed in 2000 -- which prevents California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples married outside the state, Leno said.

Leno -- who proved his ability to get controversial civil rights legislation through the Legislature with a series of bills including AB205 and a transgender rights bill -- plans to have 20 co-authors lined up by the time he introduces the gay marriage bill on Feb. 12. "We'll take it from there step by step," he said. ...

Intolerance and hatred in America...

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:54:18 GMT

People really disturb me sometimes. Truly. Something is terribly dreadfully wrong with our society...how can these people think and write like this?

Right-wing bigots hurl vicious insults at comedian Margaret Cho (who "dared" to criticize Republicans in comedy routine!)

I think that I should print this entire page and keep it handy for the next time anyone tries to tell me that intolerance and hatred based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are not alive and well in this country.

Who are these people? How do they come to be so hateful and bigoted? It defies my comprehension...

Pages of comments on this issue by more right-wingers can be read on The Free Republic's site. I truly do not understand how all of these people can be so utterly lacking in any sort of critical thinking skills. They see absolutely no problem in reducing the situation to "Left Attacked Right, Right Attacked Left Back"...as though details were completely irrelavent.

The fact that "Left Attacked Right" consisted of a professional commedian using a comedy routine as a platform to make political commentary and criticize a political agenda, while "Right Attacked Left" consisted of hundreds of individuals sending horrifically racist, misogynous, cruel, bigoted e-mails personally attacking the comedian and her very right to exist and to live in her own country—this profound discrepancy apparently causes them no concern. It seems to be completely beyond them that these two attacks are not fundamentally equivalent. So essentially, if someone challenges Republican/Right politics or criticizes a Republican president, it is perfectly acceptable to respond by calling that person a "fat, ugly chink whore".

How does one even begin to communicate with such people? If it's not simply obvious, how could one possibly get them to see that attacking a president and his administration on matters of public policy, whether by serious discourse or even outrageous comedy, is a perfectly legitimate course of action in a democratic society, whereas attacking a person on the basis of her sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or physical features is inhumane, unproductive, and just plain wrong?

Fortunately Margaret Cho seems to be a very together person who is able to see through these vicious attacks and advocate for respect and equality for all people (even though she may kick the shit out of some of them rhetorically in her comedy routines!).

From an interview with Margaret on BuzzFlash:

Certain folks don't really see me as being an American, because of the "foreignness" that they project upon me. In their eyes, I'm an immigrant, when in reality, we are all immigrants — unless you are a Native American. There is no such thing as an American really — we're all truly immigrants.

I think when people try to dismiss you because of your sexuality or heritage or whatever it's just a reaction from a segment of the right wing. It's just the really, really stupid people who can't understand or get their mind around the fact that there are people of other races, other ethnic backgrounds, other gender identifications, other sexualities, other forms of living that's just unacceptable. In my worldview, and in my mind and in my work, I try to express that we are all Americans and that we can have completely different ideals and morals, but still co-exist peacefully as a country. But we have to allow brothers and sisters to do what they would want to do and don't try to control other people's lives. ...

I really don't have a choice about being political or outspoken. I have my own definition of community and it means that people should talk about issues that are meaningful and incendiary, which I specialize in. If it wasn't irreverent, I would be betraying my own personality. My race gives me away every time. I have to speak about race. If I don't, it's weird. I have to talk about my own experience in this country being a minority, because if I don't, then what would I talk about? I don't look at it as being any particular responsibility or burden, but it's kind of funny to talk about. I just enjoy working. I enjoy writing. I enjoy being political because it is hopefully opening people's minds to alternative views of how we can live in the world.

Sexlines (Where to draw them?)

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:55:24 GMT

I've created a new category that I'm thinking might be one that's going to "take off" on its own, meaning it would have posts not be routed to my main blog at all... I think it will need it's own domain. (I've already got plans for several of those on other topics.) I'm kind of excited, because I realized that it's an important topic, one I sure would like to discuss...

It's name? Sexlines. OK? So what does that mean? Well, here's the short description:

Where to draw the lines? What's right and wrong when it comes to sex (including porn, sexuality, images, depictions, thoughts, fantasies, actions, etc.) and age? How young is to young to have sex? To be sexual? To be sexualized?

I had this realization, due to a few sites and ideas I encountered today, that I really don't know where to draw the line on sex, sexuality, sexualization, and sexualized representations and age. I mean really... I think nobody really does, even though some may claim to. People have a whole lot of different ideas. Governments, institutions, religions, parents, teens, adults, young people, old people, authorities, leaders, families, men, women, cultures, countries, philosophies...all have different ideas about various aspects of this issue. I think that most are very subjective. What should we take as our guide? Gut feeling? A rational argument? A philisophical argument? A legal argument? A moral argument? A practical argument? I could make all kinds of varieties of any of these and so could anyone else! It's so complex and so confusing—and so important not to get wrong...

I think it's important to talk about...to think about...to dialogue about...to question...to wrestle with...

Everyone should have a say: pre-teens, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults, older adults, parents, men, women, religious leaders, ethics scholars, psychologists, doctors, social workers, those who have been abused, those who have been repressed, those who think all sorts of different things...

Because it really occurs to me that I just don't know where the lines should be drawn... How young is too young, and what is it too young for, and who is it too young with, and how old is too old, and how old is it too old, with whom, and how young are they? What is the difference between looking, fanticizing, and acting? How well do groups and individuals create and enforce distinctions between looking, fantcizing, and acting?

Part of what brought this up for me are two examples of images of girls/young women, some of whom I don't know the true ages of (and partly that's part of the point), images that came from different sources...

The various parts of me are conflicted: the radical sexual liberal, the feminist, freedom rights of children advocate, the protection of children advocate...

Wow.

Who has a right to make these decisions? Different people want different things, and yet as a society we have to make decisions for other people, because sometimes two people don't want the same things from one another, and sometimes even if they both claim to want them, we must decide that they don't get to do them... (If this doesn't make sense, a blatant example: even if a 10-year-old might claim to really want to have some sort of sexual relations with a 40-year-old, many of us would believe that we must, because the 10-year-old is not truly capable of making that decision for himself or herself, deny her or him the right to make that decision and deem that activity unacceptable)...

But here come the tough questions...

What about a 10-year-old and another 10-year-old? Two 11-year-olds?
12 & 12? 13 & 13? 14 & 14? 15 & 15? 16 & 16? 17 & 17? 12 & 13? 11 & 13? 12 & 14? 12 & 15? 14 & 16?
14 & 17? 17 & 19? 15 & 17? 15 & 18? 15 & 19? 15 & 20? 14 & 20? 15 & 25? 17 & 45? 16 & 45?

Now mind you, I haven't even gotten to what, exactly, these people in question are doing: Holding hands? Fantasizing about one another? Looking at clothed, sexualized pictures of one another? Looking at partially-clothed sexualized pictures? Looking at nude pictures? Looking at graphically sexual pictures? Kissing? French kissing? Making out? Heavy petting? Oral sex? Intercourse?

If I am a 40-year-old man, and I get off looking at pictures of "girls", is that wrong? Am I depraved? Am I sexually dysfunctional? Am I a criminal? These "girls", what if they are 9? 10? 12? 13? 15? 17? 19? 20? What if they are actually 16 or 17 or 18, but they look 13 or 14 or 15? What if I am a 30-year-old man? A 20-year-old man? What if I'm a woman? What if these are boys rather than girls? (Clearly, no argument will have any sway with me made purely on the basis of an anti-same-sex bias, but other than that, it's all fair game!)

Who decides these things? What kind of different answers do we get when we ask pre-teens, teens, boys, girls, men, women?

How different is your viewpoint if you're involved vs. if you're not? What if you're the 12-year-old? The 40-year-old? A parent? A friend? A survivor of sexual abuse? A medical professional?

When is too young to get married? When is too young to have children?

Where does culture fit into all of this anyway? What if in X culture it is completely acceptable for 40-year-old men to marry 14-year-old girls? 16-year-old girls? 12-year-old girls? What about 20-year-old men and 15-year-old girls? What if it were older women and younger men/boys (this has in fact been found in a relatively small number of anthropologically-studied societies)? Where do sexism and patriarchy come in? Where does personal choice come in? How do we decide if it's really a totally free personal choice or a coerced choice? Is there ever such a thing as a totally free personal choice?! Can something be right in one cultural context and wrong in another? Who gets to decide?

I will never accept culture as an excuse, that is to say, culture can never justify a human rights violation. Denying women equal rights, mutilating their genitalia, or making them wear something or not wear something, or do something or not do something—and trying to use culture or tradition as an excuse or justification will never fly with me. But exactly where do we draw the line? If everyone in society does something, is it less damaging to an individual than in a society where most people don't do it? Would it be more damaging for them not to do it?

This topic could easily expand to other areas of human activity, but I'd like to keep it more or less focused on sexuality, with some overlap into more general body issues, as well as such things as marriage and childbirth.

I wish us luck—we're going to need it!

Death Row Roll Call

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:04:53 GMT

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." —Gandhi

In 2003, two death row inmates were exonerated and released after being incarcerated for more than a quarter century. In the case of others, release was granted just weeks before their scheduled execution. Altogether, since 1973, one hundred death row inmates have been cleared and released from prison. And, since 1993, an average of five inmates have been released annually.

Execution of the innocent is just one of many reasons to help end capital punishment in the US today.

I love Ed Babinski

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:55:14 GMT

Well, not personally, since I've never met the guy, but he's just cool and smart and makes me laugh.

He's written a ton of stuff and has a ton of web pages. Maybe I'll be like him some day. Probably not as funny. He's got a page on Homosexuals, Sex and Religion. It's got some funny stuff. This is a hoot and a half:

The Religious Right dislikes both abortions and homosexuality.
But who has fewer abortions than gays?
—George Carlin (comedian)

Or get this:

If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in queer to work.
"Hello, can't work today. Still queer."
—Robin Tyler

Concerning the Pope's claim that homosexuality is "unnatural". Perhaps the Pope is suggesting that it lies beyond the scope of "normal" human behavior. If so, this has uncomfortable implications for an association of old men who wear dresses, hear voices and practice ritual cannibalism. Self-enforced celibacy is all but unknown among other animal species. If any sexual behavior is out of tune with the natural world, it is surely that of the priesthood.
—George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 13, 2000

And it just goes on and on! You've gotta read this whole page—ROTFDyingHysterically!

Please oh please oh PLEASE keep the government out of my bedroom!!

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:09:15 GMT

Unwed teenage mothers... (or, It's not a toy; it's a child!)

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:52:35 GMT

To return to the anti-adoption issue for a moment, here is a statistic from an article from Carol's own website:
"Children growing up in a single-parent home face a double-negative effect in their lives: living both in poverty and with only one parent. Poor children are more likely to be too short and too thin for their age. Also, they develop academic skills more slowly than nonpoor children and are at greater risk of being educationally disadvantaged."
Now, since it's my guess that it's not the older, educated, employed, intentional single mothers who we're talking about here, it's probably the young uneducated ones who find themselves pregnant and (foolishly IMO) decide to keep their babies, who are then raising them in poverty. Someone tell me how this is possibly in the best interest of the children?! Bullshit! I think it's nothing but selfish pettiness that would cause a woman in such circumstances to keep her baby... Not when there are thousands of terrific, prepared, ethusiastic would-be parents and families out there who would give it a great childhood—while the mother gets herself and her life together!

Myself, I'm no longer very young (30 is feeling dangerously close!!), and I am educated, but not only would I do everything possible (condoms, emergency contraception, abortion) to not end up with a full-term pregnancy in the first place, but I wouldn't hesitate a moment to give a baby up for adoption. Now, I'd damn well find the absolute best family I could, probably some nice lesbians or gay men (can be damn sure no fundies would get my baby!), but there's no way in hell I could parent a child at this time in my life, and I know it perfectly well. It's only common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist...

Raising a child is by far the most important endeavor upon which one can ever embark. A child should always be planned, meticulously planned, impeccably well thought-through. Prospective parents should have to write a 100-page essay on every aspect of parenthood and why they want to be a parent and what they think about this and what they will do in case of that—it's not to say that they wouldn't change their minds or go with something different in the future, but by gods people should think about things before doing them, and there's nothing more important than caring for and nurturing a little human being! That's why I think adoptive parents are often the best kind, because they're so deliberate about what they're doing: they very consciously and deliberately want to raise a child. So whatever else they may have going on or not, they've got the most important fundamental covered. Any idiots can do a little horizontal mumbo and shit!, the woman ends up pregnant, and there you have it, instant parents, ready or not. Sometimes they rise to the challenge and everything works out great, but often it's not the case. Sure there are plenty of other factors, but I just think that if every child were a planned child and every parent an intentional one, it would constitute a significant improvement in our society.