Showing posts with label Gaiety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaiety. Show all posts

Monday, October 24, 2011

Two.









We two boys together clinging,
One the other never leaving,
Up and down the roads going—North and South excursions making,
Power enjoying—elbows stretching—fingers clutching,
Arm’d and fearless—eating, drinking, sleeping, loving,
No law less than ourselves owning—sailing, soldiering, thieving, threatening,
Misers, menials, priests alarming—air breathing, water drinking, on the turf or the sea-beach dancing,
Cities wrenching, ease scorning, statutes mocking, feebleness chasing,
Fulfilling our foray.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Separated at birth?




Hateful bigot Sally Kern continued her ride on the "victim" train the other day. Speaking on some random Christian radio station (of which there are legion in my home state of Oklahoma), the crazed state representative said this:


"I have to be honest with you Rick, when I was sitting there in my car that day and when she told me that those emails were coming from homosexuals, honestly, fear gripped my whole body, because I was very aware of the homosexual lobbyists and the power that they have. And people say, 'oh you're so brave, so heroic,' but I'm not, I'm just a sinner saved by grace and I was gripped with fear that day. I just said, 'Lord, what have I done?' It entered our mind but honestly, and I mentioned this in the book, the Saturday night when my husband and I sit down and really talked about this and prayed about it, when we asked ourselves the question, are we willing ot even lose our lives over this?"


The answer to your question, you revolting twat, is this: what you have done is what so many other Christian supremacists have done. You've made ridiculous accusations against whole swaths of people, all of which are demonstrably false to anyone interested in looking at the actual evidence rather than bitching and moaning about non-existend Christian persecution. Show me one Christian bigot who has been killed by a homosexual activist. There aren't any. But I can do a quick Google search and show you HUNDREDS of GLBT people, children and adults alike, who have been bullied, attacked, tortured, oppressed, and murdered by God's Gentle People (TM).


If there were any justice in the world, you'd lose what tiny bit of influence you have over the low-information bigoted population you represent, and continue your unwitting career as a lookalike for Aughra, the one-eyed seer from The Dark Crystal.




Thursday, September 22, 2011

I'm back.





Yeah, it's been a while. I'm like that loser boyfriend who drunk-dials you at 3 am just when you think I've lost your number. It's like that.

This picture shows several things that are indicative of my life at this point. First of all, I'm at the gym. I am doing crunches while maintaining a push-up position with my arms, and pulling my knees to my chest. This is while I am suspended from a bar using two TRX straps. TRX straps are these nylon ribbon-thingies that hang from a bar. They utilize your own bodyweight for resistance while you do various painful exercises. In this picture, I am pushing up in mid-air against one TRX strap, with my feet stuck into another TRX strap. What results is a complex crunch movement in what feels like zero gravity. Zero gravity should be easier. It is not.

Also in the picture are members of my workout group laughing at/with me while this occurs. My trainer is taking the picture and also laughing. Our workout group laughs a lot.

The small folded towel in the image is what I'll use to eventually wipe the river of sweat from my face before I almost throw up.

This is what gay guys are expected to do to maintain their appearance. Women have long bitched and moaned about unrealistic body-image expectations, and for good reason. They are complaining about images like this one:






Gay guys, on the other hand, are constantly bombarded with body images like this one:







Sure, there are guys who can look like this more easily than others. They are a tiny fraction of the gay population. I know a ton of gay men, the majority of whom do work out and take care of their bodies. Not one of them looks like this. Of course, this image has been retouched and photoshopped from here to Detroit and back. Same with the anorexic beauty above him. This creates unrealistic expectations of what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to one's own body habitus. The reaction against these expectations resulted in the fetishization of guys like this:






These are bears. More specifically, they are "muscle bears". The bear movement came into vogue during the AIDS bloodbath of the 1980s, during which the super-skinny look was a bit too reminiscent of the cachexia experienced by our dying brethren. Some in the community reacted to this by working the big, hairy, "masculine", truck-driver look. There are several sub-types of bears. There are cubs (younger bears seeking older), daddy bears (older bears seeking younger), chubs (plump gay guys who aren't hairy enough to be bears), muscle bears (hairy muscular guys often without a 6-pack), otters (skinnier hairy guys), panda bears (Asian bears), pocket bears (short bears), polar bears (bears with white hair), wolves (a muscle bear who's rugged and outdoorsy)... this list goes on and on. My favorite term is the one used for the women who love to hang out with bears. Instead of the well-known "fag hag", these women are referred to as "Goldilocks".


The initial idea was a good one, offering community and identity to those gay guys who aren't easily assimilated into the young, smooth, muscular, pretty-boy cultural milieu. But the maturation of the idea has resulted in a body habitus expectation that is often just as rigid as the one against which these men initially rebelled. It's frustrating for those of us who are somewhere in the middle. I love hanging with the bears, usually. But I'm neither muscular enough, nor hairy enough, nor dark enough, nor faux-butch enough, nor "whatever" enough to really fit in with them.


My goal for my own workouts is to be ME enough. I've never been much of a joiner. But it would be nice to be able to excape the self-judgement that these expectations subtly or not-so-subtly create in most of us.














Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Elizabeth Taylor, 79.


Elizabeth Taylor passed away today after a long and remarkable life. The world is a better place for her having been here.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Oscar fashion round-up.



Jackie Weaver, in Collette Dinnigan.



Honey, let's just un-tuck and get real for a minute. I know people loved this dress. They're all over the interwebs talking about how this Australian actress looked like a princess. But I just can't get over the disco ball bodice that looks like someone took a glue gun and attached a bunch of plastic gewgaws all over it. The dress chops her off at the waist, making her look like an oompa loompa. And the color (or lack thereof) washes her out. I'm not feeling it.





Deborra-Lee Jackman, in a mercifully unknown designer's creation.



Oh honey. I know. Your husband is so unspeakably hot that really it doesn't matter in your mind what you wear as long as that scrumptious yumminess is on your arm. That's what you were thinking, right? It looks like your poodle exploded while you were walking it. The rest of the outfit is reminiscent of Sandy's "slutty Sandy" outfit at the end of Grease. Girl, no. Try again.



Penelope Cruz in L'wren Scott.



I think Penelope Cruz is one of the most beautiful and curvaceous women in Hollywood. And Ms. Scott was heavily represented among the cohort of beautiful and glamorous nominees. But this dress looks like a blood clot.




Virginia Madsen in Romona Keveza.



What the hell was she thinking? Poofy white top makes Ms. Madsen look a little fat. Textured skirt also makes her look a little fat. The combination of the two breaks her line in half and makes her look like a short person with spina bifida. Someone needs a gay friend.




Sharon Stone in Dior.

Patsy Stone attends a funeral. Oh, honey. No.



Scarlett Johannsen in Dolce & Gabbana


I think Scarlett Johannsen is one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. She has this ridiculously gorgeous figure that looks great no matter what you put on it. But I have a problem with this see-through lace thing... it's a little too Victorian for her... this looks like something Barbra would have tossed out during the initial filming of Hello Dolly. And the hair? Honey, were you in a car accident on the way?



Sandra Bullock in Vera Wang


Now that's a movie star. Look at how the dress moves with her, and how the very structured, angular bodice still manages to look as though it were comfortable and not allow a "wardrobe malfunction". I love Sandra Bullock, and love how she looks in clothes. However, there's something about her hair or makeup that makes me pause. I'm not sure what it is. Is it the orange tinge to the lips, or is it that she needs a little more drama in the eyes? I don't know quite yet. But this is a great example of how a movie star should wear a dress. Effortlessly.




Elizabeth Banks in Atelier Versace

Yard after yard of diaphenous beauty. I love this dress. It's so flattering on her. However, the color doesn't appear to do her complexion justice. Elizabeth Banks is a bit on the fair side, and this riot of pastels seems to make her blend into it.




Penelope Cruz in Donna Karan.


Penelope's gay friends must have texted her to ditch that L'wren Scott schmatte and put on a dress that's worthy of a movie star. This is it. I love this dress. I love the draping. I love the asymmetrical bodice that's at once structured and relaxed, modest and sexy. I love love love the color of the material. She looks tan and sexy. Oh, and she just delivered a baby. What? Yeah, girl.




Nicole Kidman in Dior


Nicole. Nicole, Nicole, Nicole. I understand your pain. I, too, am among those whose skin tone can best be described as "refrigerated". That's why I avoid wearing anything even close to the shade of this dress. It also looks like my mom's damask tablecloth that we sometimes use at Christmas, but not always because it's too small for the dining room table when it's pulled out. And those shoes might not be the best answer. Really, Nicole. You deserve better. But your hair? Flawless.





Natalie Portman in Rodarte.

How lovely did Natalie Portman look? A hundred weeks pregnant, and she strolls out in this beautiful shade of... what? Grape? Aubergine? Whatever. The neckline is perfection, the empire-ish waist is fabulous, not trying to hide her baby bump but not accentuating it either. I found myself looking at her, not at her dress. She was radiant.



Mo'nique in Tadashi Shoji.

I love how Mo'nique has elevated the way big girls dress at formal events. I actually think she looks better in this dress than the model from the runway. I also like the big flower she has in her hair... I know others might think it's overkill, but I like the Josephine Baker quality that it brings to Mo'nique's look. You go, girl.



Mila Kunis in Elie Saab.

Mila Kunis looked absolutely lovely. So gauzy and ethereal, with just the slightest touch of Victoriana. The hair and jewelry were simple and finished. The color was soft and feminine. A total winner from start to finish. Um... who is Mila Kunis, again?


Michelle Williams in Chanel couture.

Michelle Williams looks utterly fabulous. Look at how the dress hugs and skims her curves all the way down to the floor... perfection. The color seems to work for her, despite her fair skin... I'm not sure how, but it does. And I also like the way that the dress is sexy without showing any decolletage. Sexy and modest at the same time is hard to pull off. And the hair... girl... awesome.



Meryl Streep in Chris March.
I loved Chris March in Project Runway, and love that he gets to design for Meryl Streep. I like the ivory... it's a classic formal color that looks good on Meryl. I also like the plunging neckline... a little sexy, but not too much. But the overall look of the dress seems a little off kilter. I don't know what it is... maybe it's Mery's tousled hair... but the end result seems a bit blah. Not that Meryl Streep cares.





Mariska Hargitay in Vera Wang.
I like Mariska Hargitay. Anyone who gets to be that close to Chris Meloni is okay in my book. I also like that her father was Mickey Hargitay, a super muscley hunk from back in the day. You can see his genes in Mariska's lithe, beautiful figure. But this dress... I hate the color. It's drab. And all that froo froo... Lord have mercy. I get where Vera was going with this, but this dress needs an editor.




Marisa Tomei in Charles James.

Marisa looks great... her figure is well-accentuated by this dress from Charles James. I don't know about the crazy tulle at the bottom though. The asymmetric design is interesting I guess, but I can't help but be reminded of Carmen Miranda despite the dark palette.




Kristen Stewart in Monique L'huillier

This dress is lovely, I think. The draping is so beautifully done. Look at how curvaceous and sexy Kristen Stewart looks in it... despite her death-date complexion and agoraphobic personality. If this is what vampires go for, then sign my ass up. This is what Mariska Hargitay should have worn.




Jennifer Lopez in Armani prive.
People love to dog Jenny From The Block. I think she looks great in this dress, but it's certainly a lot of look. Perhaps one needs to be Jennifer Freaking Lopez in order to pull it off. She's giving us a bit of Disney Princess Realness, and I appreciate it.




Jennifer Lawrence in Calvin Klein.

Sometimes, the simplest designs are the best. I love this dress. I love that she's wearing what appears to be an orangey-red, a color that can be disastrous for some. I love that the design accentuates the gentle curges of Lawrence's youthful body, which is clearly beautiful. The cut of the top could easily make this dress look just a little bit beach-y, but the length makes it dressier... it's a win in my book. And no, I don't know who this woman is either.



Halle Berry in Marchesa.

Halle is serving up Good Witch Of The North Realness. Perfection. This woman could wear a burlap sack and make it look sexy and high-end. Too bad her taste in men isn't as good as her taste in clothes. At least he was hot. One is reminded of Princess Diana on the day her divorce was finalized, when she emerged from her limo to reveal a sexy, strapless, gorgeous new look. The best revenge, indeed.



Gwyneth Paltrow in Calvin Klein.

Honey, everybody was kvelling about Gwyneth in this Calvin Klein dress. I'm just not feeling it. She's obviously beautiful. But that big hem at the bottom looks a little... gasp... "home sewn". The material looks cheap. The little gewgaw at the hip looks like someone was trying too hard. And the design of the bodice and neckline, while interesting, looked more costume-y than anything. I just can't support it, but give Gwyneth snaps for her courageous fashion choices.



Florence Welch in Valentino.
I think Florence Welch, of Florence and the Machine, is one of the more interesting performing artists out there today. But this dress reminds me too much of my sister's Victorian-influenced junior prom dress. All she needs is some lavender Rit dye and she's there. Just... no.




Elizabeth Banks in Atelier Versace.
Love it. Love every bit of it. Banks looks better in this than the model does. The dress is a lot of look, to be sure. But Banks has opted for simple, elegant hair and accessories, so she's not overwhelmed. Classic.




Demi Moore in Atelier Versace.
I want to know who Demi's plastic surgeon is. Not that I could afford him. She looks flawless. The model from the Versace show has nothing on this Gen-X goddess. The hair, the dress, the rocking body, the accessories... every bit was fabulous.





Cate Blanchett in Givenchy couture.

I didn't know Dinah Shore was still alive. She looks great.




Annette Bening in Naeem Khan.
Age-appropriate sexy glamour. Perfect hair. Perfect accessories. This is how a 50-something movie star dresses.




Anne Hathaway in Valentino.

This is how Mariska should have approached a busy froofroo dress. Anne looks classically beautiful. So romantic and lovely. The color is perfect for Anne's refrigerated skin tone. Perfection.




Anna Kendrick in Elie Saab.

I like this look. Anna Kendrick looks romantic, feminine, and just plain... well... pretty. I do wish the color were a little deeper... Anna's skin tone is such that she gets lost in all this gauzy light pastel. Other than that, it was fabulous.




Amy Adams in L'wren Scott, with Cartier jewels.
I like this dress, but Amy needs to remove that necklace. Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it goes.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Fat As I Am



This song has been stuck in my head all day.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Dave Salmoni should never wear clothes. Ever.






Okay, I've posted about Dave Salmoni before. This Animal Planet television show host, zoologist, and animal trainer has been busy lately appearing on Chelsea Lately and other talk shows, always in a clingy pullover shirt that highlights his smokin' bod. But this collection of photos from a recent shoot in Flaunt magazine was just too delicious to pass up, so I'm featuring Dave again. The one with the corset was particularly distracting. Jesus Mary and Jenna Jameson, that boy is super fine. I might black out.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

She's written a letter to Daddy.



The reason why I don't watch American Idol is because I think that anyone who has the guts to sing in front of an audience deserves my support. But there's always an exception to every rule, and this super creepy song from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" is it. It made me think about my own issues with mental illness. I really have very little patience for mental illness, and maybe I should work on that.

Or maybe not.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The Homosexuals (1967)



This 1967 CBS documentary on homosexuality (hosted by a young Mike Wallace) would be hysterical if it weren't so sad. The inclusion of Charles Socarides (1922-2005) was interesting. He was one of the first pseudo-scientists who suggested "reparative therapy" for gay people, suggesting that homosexuality wasn't a moral issue after all, but was rather a psychiatric condition in need of treatment. He was also the founder of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Given the time period, I imagine that this approach seemed more reasonable than that of the criminal justice system.

The fascinating part of his story was the transformation of his thought processes from that of a scientist to that of a zealot. Even up until 2004, Socarides held fast to his beliefs that homosexuality was an illness resulting from an overbearing mother and a distant or absent father, even when the vast majority of reputable research indicated otherwise. He went so far as to misrepresent intentionally the position of the American Psychoanalytic Association, citing a 1968 position paper expressing general agreement with his theories about homosexuality, and ignoring a 1990 revised position paper that strenuously contradicted them. (This kind of biased cherrypicking is verboten in the literature review process.) In turn, NARTH was (and still is) identified widely as a disreputable, biased, and non-evidence-based organization.

It's interesting to note that Richard Socarides, the son of this discredited psychiatrist, is an openly gay man who served as President Clinton's advisor on GLBT issues (among other high-profile positions in government and in business).

I was also struck by the first man interviewed in the piece. His reasonable explanations and confident assertion of the inherent equality of gay people would be relevant even today. He was ahead of his time, to be sure. I hope he's still around to see how right he was, and how the opinions and mores of the country are finally starting to turn in his direction.

This documentary, produced just three years before I was born, is a graphic reminder of how far we've come in just my almost-forty years. It's also a reminder of how important it is to continue fighting for equal civil and human rights for GLBT people.


Addendum:


Thanks to an eagle-eyed Towleroad commeter, the first man interviewed in the report (whom I mentioned above) has been identified as Jack Nichols (his real name). From Wikipedia:

Nichols founded the Mattachine Society of Washington in 1961, and the Mattachine Society of Florida in 1965. The Mattachine Society of Washington was independent of the national Mattachine Society, with had formally disbanded a few months earlier.

Beginning in 1963, he chaired the Mattachine Society of Washington's Committee on Religious Concerns, which later developed into the Washington Area Council on Religion and the Homosexual. This organization was pioneering in forging links between the gay rights movement and the National Council of Churches.

Nichols led the first gay rights march on the White House, in April 1965, and participated in the Annual Reminder pickets at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, held each July 4 from 1965 to 1969. He also successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to rescind its definition of homosexuality as a form of mental illness.

In 1969, after moving to New York City, Nichols and his partner Lige Clarke founded GAY, the first weekly newspaper for gay people in the US distributed on newsstands.

From February 1997, Nichols was Senior Editor at GayToday.com, an online newsmagazine. He died on May 2, 2005, of complications from cancer.

I'm glad he lived through the 80's and got to see the tide turning in the right direction.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

If these two are gonna fit under it, I'm gonna need a bigger tree.



So it's been a while since I've blogged. I haven't had much to say lately. That all ended this morning when I saw the pic (shown above) of Ryan Barry and Victor Fehrenbach, both of whom have been featured previously on this blog.

To catch you up, Mr. Barry is the unspeakably hot former boyfriend of Lance Bass, a former Air Force officer, and a current personal trainer/underwear model/SLDN spokesmodel. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is the equally unspeakably hot recently-discharged Air Force officer, brand-new homo advocate on the Rachael Maddow show, and a certified American Hero© recently featured on MWG. According to a Towleroad source, the two have apparently been dating for several months. They are seen here in their "Hot Santa" outfits at the AIDS Services Foundation fundraiser last night in Orange County.

The tattoo on Fehrenbach's left pec reads "правда", or "Pravda". The Russian word for "truth", it was also the name of the leading Soviet-era state-controlled newspaper. I'm not sure what that means, but he could have the word "toaster" tattooed on his left pec and I'd still push a bitch out of the way to chew on it.

Many jealous congratulations to the couple. I'm going to get a cold compress now.

Monday, October 19, 2009

In defense of silliness.



Here we see some fun-loving bears enjoying a bit of mirth. (The clip to which they're lip-synching is from the fabulous TV show Glee.)

And of course some folks on the interwebs have clogged up the series of tubes by vomiting up some hateful-ass twaddle... in a nutshell, they think that our tribe shouldn't be acting silly and singing along to bouncy songs. Apparently we should all be sitting across cold tables in brightly-lit coffee houses and processing things.

To paraphrase the words of a Dallas drag queen walking through a crosswalk circa 1992... Kittens, this world is a harsh place. You could get your britches bunched all up in your tookie if you wanted to... there are plenty of injustices out there that would justifiably result in dyspepsia. The real winners in our struggle are those who can laugh heartily in the face of injustice.

Remember, my delicate little petals... anything that provides a little joy and laughter in our lives adds to the measure of good in this world.

Monday, October 5, 2009

These things will make you gay.



Sandra Bernhard. Without You, I'm Nothing. 1989.





Betty Butterfield visits the Vietvenese doctor. 2007.





Dangerous Liaisons, 1988.





Funny Girl, 1968.





Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, 1953.





All About Eve, 1950.





Tarzan the Ape Man, 1981.





Designing Women, Episode #89 ("Foreign Affairs"), Season 4, April 30, 1990.





The New Original Adventures of Wonder Woman, "Judgement from Outer Space", January 15 (and 17), 1977.





The Man from Atlantis, starring Patrick Duffy. 1977.





Big Business. 1988. (Skip to the 9:10 mark on this long clip.)





Steel Magnolias. 1989.





Pretty Woman. 1990.





Greater Tuna. 1981.




Thursday, September 24, 2009

Quotable.

Sometimes I run across a blog comment that really strikes me as insightful. I'm happy to re-post this comment left on Joe's blog regarding the recent comments from Larry Kramer. He repeated his oft-mentioned belief that gay people are fundamentally better beings than straight folk. You can imagine the commentary that followed. I don't always agree with Larry, but his ability to provoke a discussion can't be denied. One of the comments left after Joe's posting is reprinted below, as I think the author makes some important points.

"I do think its undeniable, that as a class, gay men and women have made contributions to our society in so many ways that are disproportionate to their numbers -- from great literature and art, to gentrification and reclaiming neighborhoods, to fighting for social justice. And there are reasons for this -- economically, socially, psychologically. We've all heard "that which does not kill you, only makes you stronger." We endure a lot. It strengthens characters. It creates empathy and understanding of others. It forces us to search outside our families and connect with others. It's made us more mobile, risk-taking and adventurous as we seek to define and understand ourselves. We question more -- our path is not set in stone, we've have to choose what we are going to make of our life without the traditional societal support structures and expectations. We are forced to defy them to live. It's all powerful stuff. And its created many amazing gay men and lesbians that I'm proud to call my friends.

"Better" is too reductive. But oh, we are so very, very different. And they're all differences I"m very proud of. And the world would be such a lesser place without us."

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

I think I'll start in Shorewood.




Beautiful ad. Unfortunately it's hitting the nail right on the head.

Just so everyone knows... my equal civil and human rights do not have the approval of straight people as a prerequisite. It's nice that some approve, but it's irrelevant. My rights are mine by right of being a human being and an American.

We'll win in the end. We will. Time is marching steadily in our favor. But oh, how the need to be patient causes dyspepsia.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Protect me from what I want.



One of my favorite bloggers, whom I read pretty much daily, posted this photo that he took of a lovely, muscled guy at the White Party. The message, "protect me from what I want", truly shocked me with its honesty, pathos, and relevance. Usually tattoos are designed to provide a reflection to the wearer of his (or her) own desires, values, or personality. This one, through its obvious message and scrupulous placement, was quite clearly designed to communicate a message that, when read, would capture the attention of even the most libidinous top.

Once we ripen into adulthood, we tend to find ourselves drawn toward constructs of sexual congress that, by and large, we will continue to prefer for the remainder of our actively erotic lives. Sure, we will try certain carnal flavors and cuisines, and some may be alluring enough to include in the list of staples in our sexual pantry... but there will always be those activities that represent the core of our sensual beings.

For some, it's anonymous hookups... those attachment-free experiences that are the sexual equivalent of stopping at the Wendy's drive-thru. It's serial monogamy for others, characterized by a steady parade of pleasant gentlemen who provide a brief respite from the torpor of our daily lives, each of whom will ultimately vanish into the mist like Brigadoon. Still others prefer the more freundlich, team-oriented erotic experiences such as sex parties or bathhouses (also known by the charming 1970s era nickname, "the tubs"). Baskin-Robbins, with its 31 flavors, in no way rivals the gay (and, I suppose, straight) smorgasbord.

None of these flavors of sexual fulfullment are any more worthy than the rest, in and of themselves. We choose the sexual pantry staples that suit our tastes, enhance our talents, and accommodate our skill gaps. And more often than not, we choose them early enough in our lives that by the time one reaches a certain age there can be a somewhat autonomic quality to the performance of these well-rehearsed acts.

Ultimately, we find that we have the ability to perform these familiar actions with a kind of muscle memory that doesn't require significant activation of the frontal lobes of our brains... the lobes responsible for planning, reasoning, and organization of sequential tasks. Much like the athlete who masters his event so completely that he no longer needs to consider the steps involved in performing it, our sexual congress in these instances can be regulated by a much lower part of the brain. We return to this intimate place of instinctive performance through the same process we use when we cook a well-loved family recipe... turning on the autopilot and reveling in the gauzy haze of familiarity in which we know exactly what the dish will ultimately taste like, but relish the process of creating it just the same.

Newton's first law of motion states that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The same law is applicable to this type of seasoned human behavior. The familiar script will remain the same until an external force is engaged... in the case of the gentleman pictured above, that force would be the plaintive message engraved on his back. I wonder how many men have hovered above what I'm certain is a spectacular derriere, only to be shaken from their well-rehearsed script? Were the frontal lobes slammed into neural activity, like the down-shifting of a Dodge Charger? Did he, in that moment, change the evening's menu to exclude the skin-to-skin action?

Is barebacking the sexual equivalent of a pan-seared foie gras in a port wine reduction that sounded delicious and decadent but proved too greasy and rich for the eating? What does this fleshly inscription say about its bearer, and about us? Can we ever truly be protected from anything, including ourselves? In the fullness of time, won't even the most well-defended fortress be compromised, regardless of any plea or protection or plan? Will we find that the most insidious and immovable threat to our survival is ourselves?

How do we fight for our survival if the enemy is us?

Monday, August 10, 2009

The big fake breast



Picture it: Small town, Oklahoma... April 30, 1990.

I think one of the little bright spots of my youth in Oklahoma was the series "Designing Women". This show ran from 1986 to 1993, and I don't think I missed an episode. I've known lots of gay men who followed that show back in the day. I don't know why... maybe it's a combination of gay men identifying with divas (Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Streisand, Cher, Callas) and our appreciation for southern women (Scarlett O'Hara, Tammy Wynette, the cast of Steel Magnolias, all of Del Shores' work).

Richard Dyer suggested that some gay men have historically identified with these women because marginalized groups have always gravitated toward an identification with these cult icons in an effort to ease the sting of social otherness that was so very characteristic of the day to day lives of gay men (at least until very recently). Wayne Koestenbaum, in his fantastic book "The Queen's Throat: Opera, Homosexuality, and the Mystery of Desire", posited that the social marginalization of gays facilitated identification with Maria Callas and her tumultous, tragic career and life.

Dyer and Koestenbaum make good points, though they ignore the fact that gaiety can't be painted with a broad brush... I know a couple gay men who dislike musical theatre and diva worship intensely. So I'm just not sure that we need a "queer theory" approach in this case. Maybe the reason why I loved this show so much was the fearlessness inherent in these characters. This was something that I was trying to develop in myself at that time in my life, so I guess it stands to reason that I'd enjoy the show and identify with it. It's also true that sometimes the enjoyment of a television show is due simply to good writing, excellent ensemble casting, and timely social relevance.

This is one of my favorite scenes in the series. When I think of this show, this is the first scene I think about. My family still to this day says the immortal line "I love knowledge... in fact I yearn for it... "

Friday, July 24, 2009

How do you change someone's mind when they're so afraid?

Gentle reader(s), this will undoubtedly be the longest post in the sordid and spotty history of this blog, but it serves an educational purpose. Below, please find my conversation with a guy who's been my friend for 25 years, since middle school. Being from Oklahoma, most of my friends from childhood could be considered relatively conservative and most definitely evangelical Christian. I don't know if I'd ever have a chance to speak this intimately to a fundamentalist unless I'd known him since I was a kid... so I think this conversation was illuminating.

I feel confident in saying that my responses would have been much more pointed and aggressive had I not had a 30 year history with this person. I was struck by the fear in his responses, and by the difficulty he was having in reconciling his antiquated belief system in the face of massive societal upheaval.

Names have been changed to preserve anonymity.

Glen, November 5 at 10:30am

DUDE! I understand that prop 8 is important to you, but what is up with Doug[mutual friend]? he put out a question, I answered it, and he railed on me. Please read what I read, I am sure I did not call him any names or anything. He asked for an opinion/agrument on the other side. Did I do something wrong?


Milkman, November 5 at 10:38am
Hmm... lemme check...


Milkman, November 5 at 11:32am
Oof... okay let's break this down.

You and Doug are coming at the marriage issue from different places, and getting stuck in the middle somewhere. Doug's argument (which is identical to my own) is that there are many kinds of marriages, only some of which are recognized by the church. For example, there are common-law marriages, civil marriages conducted at city hall, marriages officiated by random people who got certified to perform marriages in some screwy onling course, etc. There are drunken quickie marriages in Las Vegas. There are also marriages between divorced Catholics in which the marriage is not recognized by the church. All of these relationships are called "marriage" and are afforded the exact same rights and responsibilities that a marriage blessed by the church enjoys.

You are approaching this issue from the position that marriage is a Biblically-based, religiously-affiliated institution. For you, this is absolutely true. But for many many others, their marriage has nothing to do with Bible teachings. For each example of Biblical precedent for the institution of marriage, there is another example showing that there is equal precedent for marriage as a civil institution. Arguing whether marriage is a Bible-based institution versus a civil/nonreligious one is a moot point, because it's both. It just depends on who you ask.

What Doug appears to be saying is that it's very hard for those whose worldview is very Bible-centered to step back for a second and see the fact that in practice, marriage is and always has been as much a secular institution as well. In debates like the Prop 8 thing, it hits a very personal note. Gay and lesbian people have a long history of being discriminated against... not because we "chose" to be gay, but because that's the way we are. I prayed til my knees were flat, and I'm still a big old queen (and still Christian, if that makes a difference). So when it comes to a process that requires us to go door to door to straight people asking them for "permission" to marry, it sticks in our craw a bit.

Marriage is a human right... so much so that even convicted child molesters and murderers who will never ever see the light of day outside prison again, they are allowed to get married while in prison even though they'll never be able to touch their spouse. So while no one is saying that my partner of 15 years and I should be able to walk into the First Baptist Church and demand to be married by the pastor (churches have always picked and chosen whom they consent to marry, and this is no different) , we should instead have the option of a civil marriage. (There are plenty of churches that would marry us, of course... the Unitariand and the Church of Christ for example... but that's another discussion.)

And no, I don't believe the Bible is the unerrant word of God. I believe God is far too complex and awesome to be explained in a book, especially one that has been monkeyed around with by kings and popes over the centuries as much as the Bible has. And that's okay... there are lots of churches who totally agree with me. There are others who disagree mightily. But that shouldn't matter, as we're not talking about church marriage. We're talking about civil marriage, civil (secular) rights, and equal protection of our relationships under the law. We need this because "civil unions" are not respected in the same way that marriages are. There have been several recent court cases showing that "separate but equal" simply doesn't exist. We need to be able to leave our property to our spouse without being taxed more than straight people. We need to be able to have our wills not be contested by some long-lost fundamentalist relative, and have our spouses kicked out of the house after we die (this happened last year in Wisconsin to a man whose husband died). We need to have access to marriage for the protection of our children, as many states (including Oklahoma) don't recognize gay or lesbian people as adoptive parents. We need to be able to make medical decisions for each other when needed, without having to spend thousands of dollars on legal contracts and protective documents... straight people don't need purchase those, and we shouldn't need to either.

What our arguments come down to is this: our relationships are just as worthy and valid as any heterosexual marriage, and deserve to be treated equally under the civil (secular) law... and also, civil and human rights should never ever be up for popular vote. They are granted to us because of our equal humanity and because we're Americans. Putting our right to marry the people we love to a popular vote is wrong and un-American. That's why it's important for us to have recourse in the courts... not the judges are being "activist", but that they're fulfulling their constitutional role by protecting the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. That's what they're for. Does that makes sense? I usually try to keep a cool head when discussing this issue, as conversations about civil rights, fairness, and religious belief are like maneuvering through a minefield. But if someone asks about it and really wants to know, I think they deserve a reasoned, calm, and respectful answer.


Glen, November 5 at 11:47am
True, your argument does make sense although i disagree with your interpertation of the Bible. My thing is that we would not even have marriage at all if it were not for the Bible. that is where it came from. If people do not believe that, then the debate is virtually moot. True? Believe it or not, I have grown a lot. there is NO WAY I could have this discussion with Doug several years ago. I really do respect his point of view. I just disagree with it.


Milkman, November 5 at 12:07pm
Hiya - Right, we totally disagree on the interpretation of the Bible. And that's totally okay... that's the nice thing about being an American. You can disagree on religious views (and therefore go to different churches... or no church), but still have the same civil (secular) rights. Yes, you're saying that marriage came from the Bible and that we wouldn't have it if it weren't for the Bible. Again, you're coming from a religious position. Marriage has changed throughout the ages, but there has always been the co-existence of religious and secular marriage. There still is today... you have to get a license for marriage from the state, and you have a marriage blessing ceremony at your church. Those are two totally different things.

The debate may be moot from a religious standpoint... either a church's teachings permit same sex marriage or they don't. But the debate is totally not moot when it comes to the other, equally important type of marriage: civil/secular marriage. This has been around for centuries, ever since the institution was created to facilitate transfer of property (the woman) from one man to another. Kinda barbaric by our standards today, but that's what it was about back then. These days, it's the civil marriage that confers the legal rights and responsibilities, not the religious one. And that's what we're fighting to have recognized.

Don't get frustrated... it's really nice that you're asking and wanting to know. So many religiously conservative people go through life with blinders on and don't ever want to learn or understand. I wish there were more folks with your curiosity.


Glen, November 5 at 12:14pm
I can agree with the barbarism of property transfer and health and medical issues. My issue deals with what I wrote in my last post to Doug. If it were that simple, yes, equality. I will ask you to look at it from my perspective(not the radicals who call you names) (me, Glen) I am asked to be tolerant, and respectful of other views. I can not state my beliefs, that makes me a radical Christian. I can not say that I do not agree with a certain life style, that makes me narrow minded. I can not say that I believe in creationism, that makes me ignorant. From my perspective every time I am tolerant of one more idea, belief, or lifestyle that I do not agree with, I lose more and more of my voice or the right to speak up for what I believe in. MY personal thought is.. what is next? tolerance in what can be preached in my church? That is how I feel. For every inch given I lose two. When is enough going to be enough? Is never no more no less, it seems to always be more


Milkman, November 5 at 12:42pm
I hear ya... and I'm also hearing some frustration and a little fear when it comes to the changing face of society. It's something I'm noticing in conservative America, this tendency to want to put the brakes on. Socially, things are changing pretty fast from an historical stanpoint.

About beliefs, I think it's a stretch to say that you can't state your Christian beliefs for fear of persecution... especially in Texas, right? I imagine it's pretty safe to be a conservative Christian there. My first instinct is to say that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism... yes, you can be criticized for your ideas just like I can, and that includes your religious opinions if you choose to air them publicly. (That's why I'm always so private about mine, because my spiritual opinions are between me and God.) But if someone tries to keep you from saying something you believe in, then that's patently wrong.

First off, believing in a lifestyle... I always think "who am I to approve or disapprove of someone else's life?" If someone says they disapprove of me being gay, then yes, they deserve criticism because unless we're sleeping together it has nothing to do with them. Creationism is something that shouldn't be taught in public school science classes, but no one should tell you you can't teach it at home or at church. And if anyone ever tried to tell your pastor what to preach on Sunday, I'd totally call bullshit.

But your central issue seems to be the sensation that you're being pressured to accept and understand things that are hard for you to accept and understand without a little discussion about it first, which is understandable. Yes, society has changed, but there is still room for a conservative or religious voice. It's just that the tacit assumption that this voice is the only valid or acceptable one is beginning to relax. Conservative Christianity, from a political perspective, has been hard to deal with for people who don't believe in that. Many times, we hear that the fundamentalist viewpoint is the only valid one, and that we'd better get right with God or burn in hell. Preachers in some churches and on TV whip their followers into a frenzy, resulting in very real prejudice and violence, as well as civil rights issues like the one we're talking about. This means that the majority of gay guys like myself (and Doug) grew up associating religious conservatives with a lot of extremely painful events and feelings, which I guess explains why calm discussions are difficult to facilitate. What many Christians have trouble understanding is how to articulate their position without insisting that theirs is the ONLY valid position. You can obviously do it... but many others can't.


Glen, November 6 at 3:25pm
It is called listening. Which with age has become easier to do. I certainly DO NOT place you, Doug, our other gay glassmates, and assuming your partner, in the same category as the SUPER RADICAL groups who are and were attacking the supporters of Prop 8. I know that is not you, no more than I am in the James Dobson SUPER RADICAL group. As I had told Doug in my last post. If it was as Doug stated, just a Marriage certificate or Marriage rights and nothing more, nothing less, that would be drastically different. It is the Radical fringe that gets one thing and wants to take two or three(from my perspective). This is what scares me. When IS enough? My feeling is that I have to defend my rights as a Christian just so that I will continue to have them. couple of questions. Do you feel a Preacher shoudl have the ability to refuse to marry a gay couple if he does not agree?


Glen, November 6 at 3:30pm
another question, This "fairness Doctrine" what is your opinion? I am having trouble understanding why a Christian radio station, Conservative station, Liberal station, or Gay/Lesbian station should be MADE to air or display every and all views even if they are contrary to the theme of the station. If everyone has a station why do they need to equal out everyone? I do not get it?


Milkman, November 6 at 3:59pm
This is a touchy subject, as I'm still smarting from the election results. One actually CAN and SHOULD place me in the same group as those who feel extremely bitter resentment toward those who supported Prop 8. One can also include my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother-in-law, all of my co-workers, and many of my partner's family in that category too. My dad can't hardly even talk about it without getting his blood pressure up. And actually, the marriage I'm talking about really IS just a marriage certificate and the accompanying civil rights. That's all we want. Really. If "civil unions" were offered the same respect and secular recognition as the word "marriage", then that would be fine too... but they aren't. Recent lawsuits from the last couple years show that to be true.

That said, I think a preacher should absolutely be able to refuse to marry any couple he or she chooses, gay or straight, just like they've always been able to do. Catholic priests refuse to marry couples all the time... if one's divorced, for example. Even if both have never been married, a couple still can't have a full mass for their wedding service if one of them is Protestant. It's the way it's always been, and I support it as long as there are no public funds going to their organization(s). If you don't like the way a church runs their business, either work to change it from within, or go to another church. Or don't go to church at all, and work it out individually.

The FCC's "fairness doctrine" is problematic for me, too. The idea that any and all opinions should be treated as being equally valid is difficult to enforce, given the fact that many opinions are based on hatred, bigotry, misinformation, psychosis, or any number of other bizarre things. I do think that broadcast stations, since they are using the airwaves provided for free by the American people, should do their best to ensure truthful coverage of issues like this. But given the fact that most broadcasters are owned by for-profit corporations and therefore have ulterior motives, I can't say it'll work very well.

Listening is awesome, and it's hard to do sometimes. But some things are really not statements that deserve attention and patient listening. It's so hard for me to listen to people telling me my partner and I are an abomination, disgusting, not deserving of equal rights, dangerous to children, shameful, perverted, sick... and those are just the things I've read today. This is the reason why I don't go home to our home town very often. Growing up hearing those things, day in and day out, not just from kids in my class but from adults in the community that I was taught to respect, did a number on me that took years and years to un-do. I totally understand what was going through [our gay classmate who killed himself in high school] Mike's head before he did what he did, because it was going through mine too. And [Mike's boyfriend] Jay's. And it's not because Mike was sick in the head, it's because all he heard when he was growing up was that God hated him and he was going to hell unless he changed something about himself that he knew he would never be able to change.

So when I start to see so many people voting and working to grant people like Mike and Jay and [gay classmate] Lance and me equal marriage rights, it makes me honestly need to sit down for a minute and digest the shocked relief... I thought maybe, finally, we're moving in a direction where full participation in the community is possible. And when I see these efforts stymied by bajillions of dollars spent by the LDS church on ads that were specifically designed to whip up hatred and fear by disseminating outright, bald-faced lies about people like me... it makes me want to throw up. Wanna know why there's a stereotype of gay guys as alcoholic drug addicts? That's why. I know you're not a Dobson-ite. And you're awesome for that. I wish more conservative Christians had kind hearts and open minds.


Glen, November 6 at 4:19pm
not to make light of the discussion, but I do not like going back to our home town either. Talk about circa 1950's. I hated Mike for SO LONG for doing what he did. I felt it was so selfish. I then realized I was selfish for my feelings. Honestly I grew up with the same thing. It is kinda funny. I heard someone ask what is up with our home town? It goes on here in Texas. I love to cook, keep myself in good shape, basically picked out and decorated our home, picked out the tile and granite. I help my wife when it comes to shoes and clothes, I do not personally own any Prada shoes but the majority of my shoes are Johnson & Murphy and Bostonian, and Clarke.....Should I be worried? I have friends at Church that tell me I am REALLY in touch with my femenine side........I just really like those things, not that there is anything wrong with that.....


Milkman, November 6 at 4:36pm
Yeah I was mad at Mikee too, but at the time I was more scared than mad because I knew that there but for the grace of God went I. If my family hadn't been as awesome as they are, I feel confident in saying that that would most certainly have happened to me. Thank God I graduated right after that... college, even though it was in our home town, felt as though I had left an airtight room for the first time, and I could breathe.

And yeah, you do have just a little bit of sugar in your tank. That's okay, it makes you attractive to the ladies. Women generally just love us. It's interesting though... the majority of gay guys here in Wisconsin look exactly like the rough guys back home. Buzz cut, Carhartt jeans, work boots, tshirts or thermals... very butch. I'm thinking of my friend who's an electrician, and his partner, who's a security guard. Not a lot of Prada shoe-wearing homos out here. It's kind of nice.


Milkman, November 6 at 4:44pm
Another thing. You've mentioned "what is enough" a couple times... what is it that you're afraid that the left is going to take from you, other than your money in taxes?

Loading...

Glen, November 6 at 8:00pm
well specifically my religious freedom. For example, my right to listen to christian radio music/talk, my right to listen to a conservative radio program, my right not to have to listen to a liberal radio program, my right to pray when I want, and where I want my right to read my Bible silently when I want and where I want, my right to make the Final decisions about what my children learn and do not learn according to my values. When a father is handcuffed and arrested by a school board because he was not agreeing with what they were teaching his child and that they would not let him opt his child out.(true story) That is too far.

If I chose to raise my child in a Christian home and that child is taught to pray, and that child wants to pray before lunch, a test, that child should not be singled out, or suspended, or punished if that child is not harming anyone. I do not want to be mandated or forced by law to accept or honor things that are not in accordance with my values or beliefs. That is VERY VERY different than understanding, respecting, tolerating different views and lifestyles choices.I have great respect for you and your ability to make a decision that you feel is right for you. Who am I to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG even though I may disagree with your choice. The Bible I talk about even says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." "Judgement comes from the father above."Believe me, that is NOT a job I want!!!!I also do not want others to do it to ME!!! Excatally as you do not. I guess it interestingly boils down to something similar to what you feel (I think). I feel that the rights I have are in jeopardy of being taken away and it scares me because I feel that if I let go of even one I will lose them all. Do you feel that you have NO rights, and that to get even one must cast a wide net?


Milkman, November 9 at 12:08pm
Gosh, that's a lot of fear. I don't remember you being this afraid before. I'm not sure who told you that you needed to be, but all this fear is pretty misplaced. You're assuming that freedom and liberty are a zero-sum game, with one group gaining rights at the expense of the other. It's not that way. No one's trying to keep you from listening to or reading whatever you want. The father you mentioned is well within his rights to take his kid out of school when he wants to ... I don't know the whole story there, but that's what I'd surmise was the outcome. And I'm relatively certain that school boards can't arrest people, so there's that. If your kid wants to pray in school by himself before a test or say grace before lunch, who's going to stop him? The only time this is a problem is when kids who aren't Christian feel pressured, and one kid praying before a test doesn't constitute pressure. You went to a school that didn't allow prayer, and you turned out fine because your parents were involved and encouraged your spiritual growth at home and in Sunday school. Do you see Christians being rounded up and put into jail in other countries where marriage is equal? Spain? The Netherlands? Norway? South Africa? Canada? Nope. It's all working fine, and everyone, including conservative Christians, is okay.

You also keep mentioning a choice. I'd let it go, but you've mentioned it a few times. There was no choice. I know the church tells you there was, but please believe me that there wasn't. I'd totally admit it if there had been one, but there wasn't. This is the way I was made. People knew I was gay in third grade, before I even knew. No choice was made. I prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed for God to make me not Gay... who'd want to grow up gay in Stillwater? But even after praying 'til my knees were flat... still gay. So through lots of prayer and soul-searching, I finally came to the realization that God wants me to be just the way I am. No choice for me, just like there wasn't one for you. And it's not a lifestyle. It's my life. If I became celibate today and for the rest of my life, or if I married a woman tomorrow and stayed married until I died, I'd still be gay.

The only thing that anyone would be forced or mandated to do would be to treat others equally under the law even if their church doesn't think they should have to. This is because we don't live in a theocracy. Human and civil rights should never be up for popular vote... that's why the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state as well as an independent judiciary... to protect the religious from excessive state interference, and to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority.

And what's this about having "no rights" and "getting even"? Of course that's not what's happening. That's silly. Every American has the same rights, it's just that some Americans are allowed to exercise all of them while others are not. It's a question of fairness, not "getting even". Again, it's not a zero-sum game. For me to have equal protection under the law doesn't cost conservative Americans a single bit of their existing liberty. They can go on thinking I'm going to go to hell all they want. They can keep refusing to recognize my relationship in their churches. They can raise their kids any way they see fit. But when their right to religious expression starts to bleed into my right to equal treatment under the law, then the law must win out. And if gays were to really "get even", there's be a whole lot of violence and bloodshed to atone for the centuries of church-encouraged systematic misery and violence against us, including the holocaust, the crusades, the middle ages. Where would we stop? It would be absurd to even try to do something like that.

So no, it's not like I have "No Rights". Despite the fact that gay people are still killed in hate crimes frequently in this country, I know I've got it better than those poor young gay boys who were hanged in Iran this past year. I've got it better than the gays in Jamaica who are hunted down and beaten by angry mobs, most recently this past summer. I've got it better than the gays who are even now being put to death in Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. But does the fact that I'm not being hunted down and killed by my own government mean that I should be satisfied with anything less than the equal treatment under the law that my country's constitution promises?


Glen, November 10 at 1:03pm
You are right, but at times it does feel like a zero-sum game. Please accept my apology, I believe I may have offended you by using the word choice and lifestyle. I understand and accept that to you it was not a choice, and it is your life, not "a lifestyle." Life is life, mine is different than yours, is different than John or Jane Doe. Actually Christians are being jailed in some of those countries, and especially in Far East and Central Asia. Unfortuantely persecution has gone on since the beginning of time. The majority of which has been religious.

It seems to me, in my very very small mind that the persecution in many different countries is because of differences in beliefs and that violate laws. some countries it is aginst the law to be a christian, as I am understanding that it is aginst the Muslim faith to be homosexual? In this country, USA I get the feeling that most of the persecution is out of many of the same fears that I shared with you. Oh, lets not forget to add the word ignorrance. Fear and Ignorrance.Do me a favor, see if you can find the story about the sermon at FBC Dallas this past Sunday. What was reported(slanted I'm sure") was that Pastor Robert Jefferess preached on Homosexuality, and protestors peacfully protested out front that it was noting but hate speech. I also want to ask you some other questions I have. Unless you are tired of typing yet.


Milkman, November 10 at 1:42pm
I figured that's what you meant. And yes, Christians are being jailed in some of the same countries I mentioned. Under sharia law (muslim religious law), gays and lesbians are to be put to death in the most horrible ways imaginable. There was a photo or two smuggled out of Iran last year showing two 18 year old guys being hanged, and it's real hard for me to get that image out of my head. Yeah, the fear that you mentioned is something that was surprising to me. I really have been thinking about that this past weekend, wondering if maybe in addition to the hate (of which there's plenty), maybe there's just as much fear. That does kind of change how one would deal with a disagreement...

I heard about the FBC protest, and I'm glad that it was peaceful. It's hard to remain peaceful when emotions are running so high. But this is an example of how I would totally support the right of that pastor to preach whatever he wanted, while I also support the right of the protestors to voice their opinion. The pastor's blunder was that he listed the sermon's title on the public message board, which infuriated the public. This is a good example of a Biblically-justifiable but increasingly socially unacceptable bias. As long as we're a secular nation populated by lots of religious folks, we're going to get that kind of problem. I think it's okay to have that dichotomy as long as it doesn't urge people to become violent.

You can always ask me anything. :-)


Glen, November 10 at 1:55pm
Many/most Christians are aginst gay couples from adopting or having kids for many reasons. Here are the top ones. Forcing a lifestyle on them. Forcing them to do things they do not want to. Telling them that God is evil. Not giving them a sexual preference choice. Allowing them to observe sexual behavior that they should not. Making them be gay. Not accepting tem if they chose hetrosuality. Slanting life as to where the hate Christians. These are just some off of the top of my head. NOW, I never said that I believe any or all of these, but I will be honest many of these thoughts have crossed my mind. I have a difficult time seeing you forcing much of anything upon anyone that did not want it. That does not seem to be your nature, as I remember it.


Milkman, November 10 at 4:40pm
Well I'll tell ya... I know lots of gay or lesbian parents. To a person, they are all passionate about parenting... which they'd have to be given how much it costs and how hard it is to adopt or conceive. Parenting is parenting, no matter who does it... it's hard work, people make mistakes sometimes, and people need help (especially single parents). You can't possibly believe many of these concerns, given the fact that you know some gay people and know that we're not like that... but let's go through them one by one.

Forcing a lifestyle on them.

All parents do this. Kids are born to individuals who have lives of their own. Gay parents don't "force their lifestyle" on anyone, any more than straight parents do. Honestly, I really wouldn't know how to force my lifestyle (I hate that word) on anyone, even if I tried.

Forcing them to do things they do not want to.

What parent doesn't do that? It's called discipline. No kid wants to clean their room or wear clean underwear, but we force them to do it. Is that what you meant? Or are you talking about forcing a kid to do something sexual? That is a felony, and those people should be prosecuted and then killed. I know thousands of gay men and lesbians, and have never not once known a single one that was even rumored to be a pedophile. That's a really mean stereotype that has no basis in fact. All reputable research shows that most pedophiles are straight, simply because there are more straight people in the world. The percentage of the population is about the same on both sides, which means it's very rare.

Telling them that God is evil.

I don't know any GLBT parents who would do that. I've actually never heard of that happening. Not giving them a sexual preference choice.Well, given that it's not a choice, that's not possible. Even if it were, that choice is not appropriate for a child. If someone were to "decide to be gay" or whatever, that's a choice they'd have to make as an adult. But again, seeing as how it's not a choice, it is a moot point.

Allowing them to observe sexual behavior.

Sexualization of children is wrong, no matter who does it. That's not a worry just about GLBT parents, but about all adult-child interactions. Some things are not appropriate for kids... ever... and observing sexual acts is one of those things. This concern assumes that we're all sex-crazed, which isn't any more true for gays than it is for straights.

Making them be gay.

If I knew how to do that, a couple of our hotter classmates would be gay right now. Again, it's how you're made. No one can make anyone be gay, even kids. Likewise, no one can make anyone be straight... no matter how hard they pray on it. You can change behavior... like whether someone's celibate or not... but you can't change orientation.

Not accepting them if they're straight.

They wouldn't be a very good parent, then... would they? All the parents I know just assume that their kid will be straight. The law of averages supports that assumption. Every one of them tells me "I just want him/her to be happy and safe."

Slanting life as to where they hate Christians.

Most parents I know are either Christian themselves, or non-religious in a pretty benign way. The only way my kid will grow up hating Christians is if he sees Christians treating me, my partner, or his mom with contempt and hatred. There really isn't an effort to make kids hate Christians... most non-religious parents just don't care one way or another. They have more pressing things to worry about.

Wow. You've heard some scary shit about us. Remember... we're more alike than we are unalike. You mention that you don't think I'd be the type to do something like (xxx)... that's because we grew up together and you know me. I'm actually very similar to most GLBT people. You'd be shocked at how boring the lives of most gay and lesbian people are. Shocked. :-)


Glen, November 11 at 11:58am
Yes, and no, not really. I actually figured that most of it was hype mostly to freak Christians out and implant the fear bug. I am sure there are some ridiculous things that are blanketed over all Christians as well. You are right I do know you and I certainly did not ever place you under any of those suspicions.

When I boil this down and iron it out, I see the two main glaring things that we differ completely on are my conviction that people are not created gay, and your conviction that people are. My belief that the Bible is the complete inspired word of God without error, and you belief that it is not. Those might be two Mountains almost as high as Everest. I would be happy to discuss and debate them with you sometime.Your still the same friend I knew and grew up with, hopefully I have improved over the years.


Milkman, November 11 at 12:09pm
Yes, most of those concerns are pretty ridiculous, motivated by hate and fear of course... but that's the kind of thing that dehumanizes us and makes it therefore "okay" to discriminate against us or inflict violence against us. When a person doesn't recognize someone's equal humanity, then it's a lot easier to do terrible things to them without remorse, or in the name of Christian love.

In my case, being gay wasn't a choice. But even if it were a choice, this is America. I should still be able to choose to live any way I want to without losing my equal treatment under the law. It's the same with religion, which most certainly is a choice. You should be able to go to whatever church you want to and not lose your civil rights. As long as you're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?

Same thing with the Bible. There are lots of churches that don't believe that the Bible is the unerrant, complete word of God, and they're still considered Christian churches. That's a theologic difference that shouldn't make a hill of beans worth of difference when it comes to equal rights.

It just comes down to fairness, and an understanding that civil marriage recognition will in no way change what churches recognize and accept. The two kinds of marriage are separate entities. I really think there's room for more understanding between gay folks and conservative religious folks. Lots and lots of gay people are also Christian... we're more alike than we are unalike. It sure is hard to deny us the benefits of civil marriage when that fact is recognized.

It may seem like Christians are being trod upon right now, and perhaps rightly so because of the political activities of various individual demoninations. But there really isn't any reason to be afraid of gays getting married. We have every intention of being just as boring as all other married folks.