blasphemer!

I've been reading on Craig's blog about an attempt to have September 30 declared International Blasphemy Day. While I don't have any particular drive to blaspheme :) what I do find important about the idea of the day is that blasphemy is a matter of offence, and the truth is that it is not at all difficult to offend other people. Pretty much any religious idea or statement about religious doctrine or practice, for or against, can be deemed blasphemous by someone else. It is the nature of such things that where beliefs differ, offence will occur. People, generally, are easily offended.

On 9 July 2009, a law was passed in Ireland making blasphemous libel a crime for material "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage". Matters held sacred by any religion: can you see how easily (and inappropriately) that law could be deemed to have been broken?

Some time before the law was passed, a debate was held at the Guardian Hay Festival between Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. It was a wonderful rambling conversation that examined many different issues relating to religion and blasphemy. The whole debate is 78min and can be downloaded here, but this nine or so minutes below is a good representation of the kind of points they make. It is not important whether you are religious or not, atheist (as they both are) or not, offended by what they say or not. I think this debate would be thought-provoking for anyone on the subject of blasphemy.



From blasphemyday.com:

The primary focus of the Blasphemy Day movement and indeed this website is not to debate the existence of any gods or deities...

The objective of International Blasphemy Day is to open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected.

Without honest, open discussion religion can become a fence within which freedom of mind and will is contained and captured. Questioning, criticism, accountability, doubt ~ all are necessary and should remain legal. This is not to say that inciting any kind of action or violence against believers or non-believers is okay. Other laws govern that kind of action in many countries. But the right to think and express those thoughts, whether warped or wonderful, should be protected by society and its laws.

What do you think? Let me know what you think about the debate, too, if you end up listening to it. And in the spirit of the day, I have a recommendation for anyone who knows the Old Testament in the Bible. You don't have to love it or read it every day; you just need to be familiar with it. I'd like to recommend The FOB Bible. From the linked page:

The Old Testament re-imagined through poetry, verse, closet drama, e-mail, and short story. At once irreverent, whimsical, sexy, feminist, and poignant, this ain't your mama's Bible, and you sure didn't learn this in Sunday school.

I find this description apt. I like the way the pieces explore and question various ideas in the Bible, and without the need to come to any particular conclusion. Not only that, but it's really well-written. Here's one reading ~ it's a fun one and pretty much the only of the Youtube readings that isn't mumbled or otherwise inaudible (favourite line is when New Testament god 'whistled in disbelief and the air around him filled with tinkling bells and minty freshness'). I really wish the one about Abraham was there. I love that one. I also have no doubt that it, and several of the other pieces, would be labelled blasphemous by someone, because the authors dare to think and feel and bring new perspective to old words set in stone. Enjoy.

you can't go home

At least you can't go home and expect everything to be as you remember it, which is the real point of that saying. Things change, people move in and out, children get older, businesses close.

But in spite of all this (and sometimes because of it) it has been so, so wonderful to be home this last week. In Canberra I'm often looking around for people who want to go out, see a show, etc. I've made friends there but everyone is busy with work and family. But in Adelaide there are friends that consider me family. I feel so freaking loved here. If I could get a similar job as the one I do in Canberra I'd seriously consider moving back.

But for now I'm packing to head back. I've got to pick up some froggy cakes ~ the best Adelaide おみやげ ~ on the way to the airport. Tonight I'm going with a(n Adelaide) friend to see Adam Hills at the Canberra Theatre. Tomorrow is writing group. Life in the cold capital isn't all bad. :)

me and the blog

I've been asked before why I blog. It's a good question, but one that is hard to answer. I like to write, but there's a difference between writing for fun or relaxation or to comment on political or social issues or just life, and writing as a craft. I might work for weeks on a 400-word story or a poem, but that isn't going to happen with a blog post. And it shouldn't. It's more natural to just write and only edit for correctness. It's like the difference between snapshots and paintings, and the blog is more like a photo album than an art gallery.

Because of this, I sometimes worry that what I write on the blog is largely superficial. That isn't to say that I don't ever write about issues that are meaningful to me, but most of the time they are issues that are out there in the world and not about me personally and my own life. Some of the reason for that is that the most personal things (worth writing about) are hard things and it's difficult to open yourself to the vulnerability writing about them entails.

I don't write very often about things like the deep lonliness I sometimes feel, or how frustrating it is to feel like I have this immense capacity for loving that I never get to express (at least haven't for a long time). I haven't been in that many serious relationships, but those few were pretty good. I was good at loving them (obscure Christian Slater movie reference anyone?) I hope I get that chance again with someone I like and respect.

I've spent my whole adult life caring for, teaching, supporting and generally emotionally investing in other people's children and it's painful to realise that I may never get the chance to raise kids that I get to keep instead of give back. To be honest I've never even really cared whether or not I gave birth - I hate it when people say you have to bear a child to be a mother, because it isn't true. But the difference is that when you do give birth, you really have to screw up for someone to take that child away. When you don't, you have to wait for someone to allow you the privilege of raising a child, and that's rare. A couple of years ago a close friend of mine and her partner were basically just given a baby. I wish it were that easy for me. If someone dropped a child off on my doorstep, I'd have to change my entire life to accomodate them, yet it would be an easy decision to make.

These are the things that I don't often say, because they are ever-present and if I blogged about them all the time it would be a very angsty blog indeed. Generally speaking, my life isn't so angsty. It's busy and challenging and sometimes lovely. And sometimes not.

The other reason I don't blog about personal things a lot is that I'm (perhaps too) aware of my audience ~ both the known and the unknown. In my life offline I have a few friends that I talk to about pretty much anything, but only a few. I've connected with some awesome people through the blogosphere, some of them people I think I could be friends with for real if we lived close enough to each other for that to be viable. So part of me wants to just be one of those bloggers who writes without concern for who reads, because I've had good experiences with people who read and comment.

But the internet is a weird place and I find it more sensible to assume that everyone I know reads the blog, because then hopefully I won't write anything that hurts someone, or that exposes me or someone I know to stupid gossip, or reveal even good things that they regard as too personal for the internet. One of my closest friends found and read the blog for a while before telling me that they were doing so. What they thought they might read while I was unaware I do not know. But it's one of the things that makes me cautious, because this is a person who probably knows anything I'm likely to write here anyway. I don't know if it's truly possible to be anonymous on the net, and I'm not even sure I want to be completely so ~ but if not, then what I write will always be tempered by an imagined audience. It's just the way it is.

Anyway, the point of this post is really that I hope I can open up a bit more in the future about myself, even if there will always be a line that I don't want to cross. During my short break I read some of my earlier posts and it felt like I had more to say. I still have things to say. I hope some of you will stick around to read them.

lent

I'm doing Lent this year. Observing Lent isn't common in the LDS religion, so it's not something I've done often in the past, but I was talking to Notredame (my soon to be ex-boarder) about it and I'm attracted to the idea. I like that its purpose it to get closer to God. I like that it precedes a celebration of renewal and redemption. I also like that it happens over forty days. It's a Goldilocks amount of time ~ not too long or too short, but just right. :)

The three traditional practices of Lent were prayer, fasting and almsgiving, and these represented justice to god, self and one's neighbour. The modern interpretation of those is to give up some vice, adopt some good practice that brings you closer to God and to spend time or money giving to others.

So what am I giving up? It was tempting to choose housework, but I've decided on television. In the absence of that major and largely mindless distraction I think concentrating on some deeper issues will be easier. I also get more sleep when I watch less TV and use my time better as a result. If I want this to be a serious project, then I'll need both the time and the energy.

For my added task I've decided to reread a book a friend lent me several years ago that I later bought. I think it will be a useful exercise. It's about Christianity, but very focussed in on simplifying the living of it. I've lived the complicated version - the one that fills your schedule, but doesn't always develop you as a person. It's surprising how effectively you can crowd out real spirituality with 'good' activities. I think reading this book over the forty days and considering its questions and challenges will give me a vehicle to focus on this area of my life.

Last year could have been one of introspection over activity, but it wasn't. I even thought I was going through the process of examining my beliefs, but at some point that process wound down into nothingness without me even noticing. In hindsight I think I needed to take a break spiritually ~ to pull away from any kind of religion/religious practice or belief before I could approach them again with new eyes and decide with more objectivity what it means to me now.

The last challenge is almsgiving. I wanted to think of something really cool to do for that. Finally I remembered a project I was involved in a long time ago in Adelaide to create the packs they give to women when they first go to a women's shelter. Often when someone is escaping domestic violence, they don't have time to plan for it. A crisis occurs and they just have to run. They also may have very little money to start over. These packs provide basic toiletries: soap, shampoo, toothbrush, comb, that sort of thing. I like the idea of giving something so immediately useful to the woman receiving it.

So there's my plan. I'll let you know how it goes. Anyone else celebrating Lent? If so, what did you choose to do or give up for forty days?

stronger than you think

I love these two print ads that the Kids Helpline has been running for a while. I've been meaning to post a photo of them for ages, but I had to find my card reader. Well here they are:

Click to see the poster larger. The slogan in the yellow box reads "You're stronger than you think." What a brilliant way (visually) to immediately deliver that message.



I'm posting them now for another reason. Neil Gaiman has won himself a Newbery for The Graveyard Book. I love this book (and I highly recommend listening to Neil read it on the audiobook) but the book being entertaining isn't the reason I'm glad it won this particular award.

I think the world is often a harsh place, especially for children. I sometimes feel like my life has been hard (woe is me), but the truth is that I never had to deal with even a small part of the truly terrible challenges that some children face growing up. I think those Helpline ads are amazing, because they're not just about helping kids understand that they are strong, but also that they are strong enough to ask for help when they need it and to deal with the fallout of doing so.

I respect the fact that Neil's children's books are centred around strong, curious, resourceful children who fear things that are worth fearing but are not defeated by those fears. Sometimes they rely on the strength of trustworthy adults. Sometimes that option is not open to them and they have to find the strength within themselves to move forward without that safety net. And Bod (The Graveyard Book), Coraline (Coraline), and Lucy (Wolves in the Walls (a picture book)) all face formidable foes ~ three dimensional villians with real power, acting out of genuine malice and/or evil design (okay the wolves are just wolves).

The 'Other Mother' in Coraline is so creepy (you'll never look at black buttons the same way again) and Bod's family have just been murdered when The Graveyard Book opens. I found it interesting when Neil commented that adults see Coraline as a horror story, whereas children tend to see it as an adventure. I'm sure the same is true of the Newbery winner. Just as well, or these would be the best children's books that children would never get to read, because they'd be too scary!

I think his books empower children and I like that Neil doesn't presume to talk down to his audience just because they are children. And yes, I know he isn't the first author to write stories about brave children or scary villians, but the deceptive simplicity of the language (remember the way it felt the first time you read The Alchemist?) ~ the way the words lend themselves to being read out loud ~ the balance between humour and intrigue and drama ~ as well as the strong storylines, all come together to create delightful reading. Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!

transgender day of remembrance

Somehow I let this slip by (TD0R is Nov 20) despite the fact that I read some related posts from other bloggers. Given how much I've been thinking about this phenomenon (transgender or GID) this year, I wanted to acknowledge the day. This year I think that some people who are transgender have taught me one of the most important lessons I've ever learned. And it's going to sound ridiculously simple in my head as I type it, but here goes: We don't need to understand something to accept it.

I used to think some things were wrong, based on the fact that they didn't fit the 'natural order of things'. This attitude was also guided by religious belief and it was a narrow view. What I had failed to realise is that a certain percentage of anomalic difference IS natural. Though it manifests itself in a much more serious and life-altering way, transgender is no more unnatural than a birthmark, or a hereditary propensity to type 2 diabetes. Not only that, developmental anomalies are not harmful to others ~ they just exist.

There is one hugely important lesson I did learn from my church, and that is a unalienable respect for the truth. I can't ignore the fact that the doctrines of the church, despite numerous references to the eternal nature of gender, offer nothing in the way of explanation for why some people are born with indeterminate physical gender and why others are born identifying with a gender that does not relate to their physical body. In spite of this lack of clarity in the doctrine, transgender people who choose to have gender-reassignment surgery cannot receive the priesthood (a male gender privilege) or receive a temple recommend (the temple endowment ceremonies are quite gender-specific). I find this...inadequate. It is not enough (and this applies to the church's doctrine and policy on homosexuality, too) to say that you simply must deal with a 'condition' of your life that is totally irreconcilable with doctrine that is supposed to represent eternal truth. I don't think you can call something truth when it denies reality.

This doesn't only apply to religion. It's just a general fact. No matter what you believe is truth, you have to measure it against what is real. And if it doesn't measure up, you can't base what you do on it. Most importantly, you can't base how you treat other people on it. You can't deny someone else's reality, just because doing so makes you feel more safe in your explainable world. You can't hurt someone just because you don't understand them. Let me say that again. You can't hurt someone just because you don't understand them.

All hatred based on ignorance is upsetting, but I think the reason that I find hatred aimed at transgender men and women particularly disturbing is that after getting to know a few of these people, I feel like they are facing an internal struggle worthy of a lot of compassion on the part of other people. Many trans men and women reach out for understanding and receive hatred. I sometimes see the results of this in what they say and write. Some of them stop expecting to be treated well; they express surprise when people show them respect and kindness; they are rarely shocked (though deeply hurt and upset, of course) to hear about crimes committed against other transgender people and I think it's fair to say that many have either been the victim of harsh prejudice, or expect to be when they transition, or both.

It is appropriate for the Transgender Day of Remembrance to talk about transgendered people, but the salient point is not that they are transgender, but that they are people. And if the sampling I've discovered is anything to go by, really cool and articulate and funny people. They've been really open to me, answered some questions, and generally dealt very kindly with my naivety on the subject of transgender. It makes me feel really scared and mad to know they may be treated badly for no better reason than that they don't fit neatly into society's pre-determined boxes.

This video was prepared by some people in the transgender community for Transgender Day of Remembrance. I hope you'll take the time to watch it and acknowledge and remember the people who died.

Cross-posted at TRANScendGENDER.

don't extinguish love

This is compassionate, intelligent and inspiring.

Thanks Craig, for sharing it!

invites that make you go hmmm...

I received an invitation this morning to join a cause on Facebook ~ Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman.

Yeah. I don't think so.

I've been discussing this issue on a Hatrack thread. It's reminded me why I stopped going there...very frustrating at times. This is one of my posts on that forum (bold = text quoted from a previous poster):

Originally posted by Scott R:According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity.

So you see no problems with that? How reassuring. Do you actually not see the arrogance there?

This is not just about the rights you are so generously willing to see granted. This is also about the right to use the word 'marriage'. Marriage is an "institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple". It's like the water fountain argument someone made earlier. It's not relevant if the water is the same, or if the fountain is the same size or in the same locations. It is in the implied need for a separate water fountain that the denial of a person's humanity begins.

What is it about homosexuals that prompts you to keep the word marriage from them? Why it is important that their unions not wear the same label as yours? Why can't they drink at your water fountain?

Many religions have a building they refer to as a temple. The LDS church doesn't lay claim to the word, even though the temple is its most sacred location. In Hindu temples, people worship a plethora of heathen gods. I've been to several Buddhist temples in Japan and the level of commerce in those places contrasts sharply with the purpose and environment of an LDS temple. I'm sure that not a single 'temple' worldwide exactly mirrors the LDS temple. But so what? LDS temple patrons lose nothing as a result of these alternative definitions of the word. Those other worshippers, however, gain something by using it for themselves. The word has not only meaning to them individually, but also is understood in society to convey a certain level of respect and sacredness, even from those who think their beliefs are strange or abhorrent.

You can't just say that you are comfortable with granting the rights you choose to grant and withhold one that makes you squeamish. That's the nature of equality and rights - what you are 'comfortable with' isn't relevant, because your comfort isn't the goal.

I thought today's post would be about obama

I wanted to celebrate his election to President of the US. Exciting news. Instead I find myself in a bit of a blue funk, because in a state far away, a decision was narrowly made to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry. This post would be a lot longer than it already is if I explained fully why this angers and disappoints me and I've said a lot of it before anyway. Instead I just want to focus on one aspect of the matter: family.

A few days ago I received a forward from a friend (here in Australia) with a link to a Youtube video of a song written by Janice Kapp Perry in support of the Yes on 8 campaign. JKP music is a little dated now in Church circles, but back when her songs were new I really liked them. They were beautiful and melodic, and easy to remember and sing. I actually felt spiritually uplifted when I listened to them. Unfortunately in this case, I got a bad feeling the moment I saw the text accompanying the link in the email:

Dear Members

Please have a listen to this lovely song from Janice Kapp Perry. On YouTube, things spread like wildfire across the Internet. To get our message out about the importance of families and marriage, we have written a song called, 'Save the Family' which we have produced into a powerful music video.

Click below to see it and feel the magic and importance of families. Here's the link for the music video.

It's here. Feel free to go listen to it before you continue reading.

The song should have been wonderful. Families are precious. They are the building blocks of society. Without strong families the nation will crumble. But the moment I saw those words, 'our message about the importance of families and marriage' I knew that I wasn't going to hear a song written in support of families and marriage, but instead a message about 'saving' one type of family by invalidating another.

I am sitting at my desk in a very empty office right now and that's kind of how I feel inside. 'Dear Members'. That's addressed to me. I'm a 'member'...and that used to feel like such a good thing to me. Even recently as I've been re-examining my religion, it didn't feel bad to be a member of the Church. But when I got that email I felt so angry.

That is not OUR message. That is not MY message.

Who do they think 'we' are under attack from? How exactly does same-sex marriage diminish their marriages? Is it like some kind of exclusive club, where membership only has value if you keep the numbers small? But the song isn't actually talking about marriage; it's talking about families. If I call Scot and his husband and their twins a family, explain how I'm being inaccurate. When I go home to visit I inevitably spend a lot of time with one of the most vibrant (read: NOISY!) families I know, parented by two lovely women. We play cards and catch up and their crazy brood (most of whom I've known since they were born) tire me out with their stories and questions. I like being there. They're precious to me. And never once have I sat in their lounge watching the general hubbub around me and thought, 'gee, such a shame they're not a real family'.

How dare anyone try to declare that there is only one valid kind of family? How dare they look at children with parents who love them, and declare their families to be a threat to what is good and wholesome? There've been a lot of comparisons in the last few months to racism, segregation and laws that banned inter-racial marriage. The comparisons are fair. People used to look at an inter-racial couple and believe that there was something inherently wrong with them being together. And what they didn't understand, they legislated against.

There was a time when I really believed that homosexuality was a sin. I hate admitting that, but it's the truth and it's relevent here. I was in that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' frame of mind and I saw it in the same vein as people who 'lived in sin' instead of getting married - I didn't think it was right, but it never stopped me being friends with anyone.

One day at a friend's house I heard a very sad story (not uncommon in the gay community, especially when you go back a few years) about a woman whose partner had died. Because they weren't married (at that time couldn't even legally be considered to be a de facto couple) her partner's family was able to successfully shut her out of the funeral (not just the arrangements...the actual funeral) and eventually force her out of the house she and her partner had shared. They did not choose to acknowledge her part in the life of their daughter/sister. Instead they treated their family, the one they built together by choice, as if it never existed. As much as they could, they rendered it invisible, unimportant.

As I listened to this story, I knew right then that no matter what I thought about homosexuality, I had to support the right to same-sex marriage. I don't get to choose who can and can't be a family. I don't get to tell consenting adults that my opinions matter more than their relationship. 'I don't live that way, so you can't either' is a piss-poor way to treat other human beings.

I saw a short speech on Youtube by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders from back in 2007 when he was explaining his decision to support a same-sex marriage bill (after previously saying he would veto it). It was so beautiful I sent him an email. :)

Here's an excerpt:

As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage...

Two years ago I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs in my case have changed. The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support...

I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff. I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones - for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences.

And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship - their very lives - were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana.

To make people...couples...families...invisible in the law is to deny that they are people of equal standing. These are real families. They can't be put away like an ugly vase or avoided like bad news you don't want to hear. No matter what you think you see when you look at them, you are not supposed to treat other people that way.

So to Janice Kapp Perry and anyone in California who thinks they saved 'the family' with their fucking bullshit Yes on 8 vote, I want to say that I DO NOT accept your limited definition of family and I DO NOT support your derision for other people's families. I DO, however, think you suck.

orson scott card is an idiot...oh sorry, was that unkind?

Craig posted this document (Disagree But Don't Be Unkind) from Orson Scott Card. It should not be understood from that sentence that Craig agrees with the document. I had too many problems with it to contain within one comment on his post, so I'm writing my thoughts here. I'm also including some TG/GID-related thoughts, because that's something I've been looking at a lot lately and I think there are some connected issues. This post is way long...apologies in advance.

From the document:

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Okay firstly, as to the (largely misunderstood and sometimes made up) legal implications, OSC really needs to read this document. It is written by a member of his church and very aptly deals with the misconceptions under which he is clearly suffering. Secondly, same-sex marriage has already been legalised in many places and the things he is describing DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause.

I agree. We don't know the cause. He is using that idea to argue that we shouldn't be 'rushing into' legalising same-sex marriage. In doing so he is really arguing that we cannot allow what we do not understand. I think he is missing an important point. We cannot identify the causes of sexual orientation (there are theories, but nothing definite) - which means that we therefore can no more identify how heterosexual attraction is caused than we can how homosexual attraction is caused. We understand the purpose of (hetero) attraction (to propagate the species...some people even think homosexuality is Nature's way of doing the opposite, though Nature should really take away the parenting instinct with it if it wants to achieve that goal...) but that's not the same as defining what causes a particular orientation to occur in one and not another. Card may consider heterosexual attraction a gift from God, but wouldn't that mean that, by implication, homosexual attraction is, too? Not that his religious beliefs are the defining marker here, even if he wants them to be.

According to some members and leaders in the LDS church, homosexuality is indeed from God, but not so much a gift as a burden that will bring reward if the person can only bear it long enough. (Being born with a disability is sometimes explained the same way, except of course for the major difference that acting on a handicap isn't considered a sin, whereas acting on a homosexual attraction is.) This is the most common explanation I have been given (that it's a test) and I've been a member almost my whole life. I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately - the concept that some things are just meant to be borne and do not instead indicate flaws in religious thinking- and not just in relation to homosexuality, but also in relation to gender identity disorder (the Mormon church also believes that gender is fixed, eternally. The official church handbook used by ward and stake leaders, I just found out today. indicates that persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized and that while persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy, such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend. I have no idea what the official policy is (if one exists) on people who are intersexed). Overall, the conclusion I have come to is that homosexuality (or GID) makes no logical sense as a trial, temptation or life burden. The implied personality of God in that scenario is disturbing.

In the interests of being honest, and also describing how my thinking has changed, I used to see these issues like this:
Homosexuality can be accurately described as unnatural because it denies the biological imperitive on which so much of our instinctual human behaviour is based. Therefore the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as a wrong seemed logical to me on the basis that it was unnatural. GID to me was also an anomaly, even an aberration, to nature, to the way things were supposed to happen. Often I felt that GID was caused by imposed conformity to unnecessary and often illogical society-defined gender roles (and I have to admit that in thinking this I pretty much ignored the relevence of how the Church teaches and continually reinforces traditional gender roles in its doctrine and policy). I knew very little about GID and had no understanding of the way the physical body itself (its shape, development and function, which of course is defined by biology not society) can be a major part of gender dysphoria. I think I just put both of these things in the 'too hard' basket and forgot about them. I think that was the wrong approach.

The flawed underlying premise in my previous thinking, whether I saw it or not at the time, was that 'difference is wrong'. Over the last several months I've come to the realisation that difference is...well, different. And that's all. Difference doesn't need to be threatening, or wrong. I knew that logically, and I didn't see myself as a person who feared or rejected difference, but I think I still believed it on some other level, perhaps because my belief system didn't make sense otherwise. I don't even think it (difference) is inherently good (though it is often positive and productive for various reasons).

Something that is different to the norm ('norm' defined only as what the majority of the population experience) can be described as an anomaly...it's technically accurate...but so what? I mean seriously, people born with six fingers used to be considered in some societies to be cursed or of the devil and killed at birth. In other societies these things were seen as signs of a person destined to be a shaman or spiritual leader. My point is, sometimes (often even) societies assign meaning to things that have no meaning. This is especially true in terms of religion. We want an explanation. We want to understand why things are not as we expect them to be. Because uncertainty ~ lack of a discernable reason for something happening or existing ~ makes us nervous or afraid. We start to contemplate just how little we really know or control in this life and we don't like it.

Some people think difference is to be celebrated, others that it is to be tolerated, and still others that it is to be shunned or hidden. I think it depends on the difference at hand. I also think that there is a big difference between believing something (which everyone has the right to do as they choose) and legislating it. I like to use Mill's harm principle for these decisions. It's not strictly applicable in the sense that the principle refers to personal choices, and there's no denying that homosexuality and GID in almost every case is not a choice (I say 'almost' only as an acknowledgement that the feminist movement in its more radical forms did spawn a small number of 'political lesbians'). But the point is that if it doesn't harm other people (and causing offence is not considered a harm), it shouldn't be legislated against. Even if people really believe that a person is hurting themselves in doing some particular thing, they should not legislate to prevent the action.

And to be clear, my understanding of these issues, apart from what I've already explained above, is now is more like this:
I do not know why some people are homosexual or experience GID. I have not seen any convincing evidence that either of these things are caused by environment or upbringing. I assume there is a cause just as there are causes for all matters to do with human development and exceptions to the usual course of human development, but I acknowledge that we may never be able to define what that cause is. I don't think it matters, morally, if we ever can. Regardless of whether or not they are statistically anomalous, these things are real. That is a truth.
Religious belief should not be legislated. The Harm Principle should determine whether or not an action is allowed or forbidden in the law. (For the record, this is not something that has changed. I've never believed that religious beliefs (mine or anyone else's) should be imposed on others by law.) Impact on religious belief is not a valid reason to prevent an action or state that does not violate the Harm Principle. As an example, the above reasoning would allow marriage between two adults of any sex (and actually more than two as well), but wouldn't allow marriage to a cat or a child, because neither a cat nor a child can give legal consent and others are responsible for protecting them from (in the case of children even self-inflicted) harm.

The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

Given that statistically most gay people have straight parents, I do not see how this can possibly be true.

Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

I am stomping my feet under the desk.
1. No-one is talking about 'actively promoting' same-sex marriage. And even if they were, they would only be promoting it to people who are already gay, because hello, straight people are not going to consider same-sex marriage just because the advertising is good ~ this isn't a decision between holidaying at the beach or in the mountains, for crying out loud ~ and that being the case they would actually just be promoting the idea of marriage, full stop. That's wrong how?
2. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents'
By itself, I agree. They may become more tolerant and less likely to bully other children for their sexual orientation or for the situation of their parents. I'd be cool with that.
3. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable'
With the rest of the sentence, that's a crock. Sexual identity is not formable in the way he's claiming it is.

Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority?

Setting aside the obvious point that no, as far as we can see, legal same-sex marriage does not 'risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few'...wait for what? How should that persuasion take place? Political action is appropriate and seeking rights and recognition in the law IS a form of persuasion. It brings issues to the attention of society and allows a decision to be made. If Proposition 8 fails in November, it will be because a majority HAVE BEEN persuaded.

Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?

Can you, OSC?

vote

What Debi, and her friend Brian, said.

I've been pretty absent lately. Uni ends this weeks and I am so behind I'm kind of reverse lapping myself. Next week all the many thoughts in my head will come a-blogging out, never fear.