God Hates Fags?

So here's something that's bothered me about the whole anti-gay movement for awhile, and that is the fact that there's really no scriptural basis for 'God Hates Fags.' One good thing about being raised Mormon is that I have a fairly good grounding in the Bible.

Yes, there is that passage in Leviticus, "a man shall not lie down with another man as he lieth with a woman." I fully accept that passage is in there, and looks to me like it forbids homosexuality (at least between men. You can argue that it forbids something else entirely, or leaves a loophole for oral sex, but that's not important).

But, here's the thing that most fundie Christians miss the boat on. The law quoted is part of the laws of Moses. Things like not wearing clothing of mixed fibers or even the kosher rules. When Jesus came to Earth, he said that he was fulfilling the laws of Moses. By fulfilling them, that meant that they no longer needed to be obeyed. Jesus basically said that you didn't need to follow the rules of Leviticus anymore. Only two laws remained, "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and spirit," and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

In the early days of Christianity, a big question was if a person would have to convert to Judaism in order to also become a Christian. Remember, Christianity was originally an offshoot of Judaism, so this was a burning question as the evangelicals began to spread the good news of the Lamb of God. It was concluded that no, because Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses, one did not actually need to be a Jew to be able to be a Christian as well.

This is why Christians don't keep kosher, for instance, and never have. Christians can eat all the cheesy bacon-wrapped shrimp they want, and wear as many nylon/cotton blends as they please. Levitical law does not apply to Christians (technically, neither does it apply to Jews, since if you strictly interpret the scripture, the Law of Moses was fulfilled for everyone. Then again, I also believe the Anti-Christ died in a garage explosion in 1952 in Pasadena right before he was supposed to move to Israel and help develop their rocketry program, so I may not be the most reliable source to be issuing such decrees).

Long way of saying: the Christians should be the absolute last people in the world to live by Levitical law or persuade others to do the same. The only remaining law of God is that of love. Even so, Levitical law/Christian law is still a matter of conscience. Though I may pity an individual who lives a celibate life believing homosexuality is a sin, it's still their right.

So Christians can have as much gay sex as they want, but Jews can't.

Thoughts on Porn

Pornography is probably one of the most divisive issues within the feminist movement. One camp of radical feminists claim that pornography is inherently degrading to women and should not be produced or consumed. Any who disagree are immediately suspected of having patriarchal sympathies. In the other camp are the feminists who argue that participating in or consuming pornography is not inherently degrading and that women are free to make their own choices regarding the appropriate place of pornography in their lives. They call themselves sex-positive feminists, which I think is a bit of a misnomer. It's entirely possible to think that porn is bad yet have a healthy and active and rewarding sex life. Either way, there's quite a lot of vitriol being thrown back and forth between the two camps.

Personally, I believe there will be erotically-stimulating material in any culture, no matter how sex-positive or woman-friendly that culture happens to be. There are erotic cave paintings in France which they don't show you - paintings which were made, if you believe certain anthropologists, when the Goddess was the primary religious focus and sex was certainly A-OK. So depictions of erotic or sexual behavior should not be considered to be degrading in and of themselves. If a loving couple videotapes themselves having sex, no one is degraded. If they decided to be really kinky and put that on the Internet, I still believe no one is being degraded as long as they both understand and accept the potential consequences of that choice.

However, to say that porn does not have the potential to be degrading is naive in the extreme. Of course there is porn out there which is exceptionally degrading, and anyone who regularly consumes it should be immediately suspected as having anti-social or misogynist tendencies.

So where is the line drawn between 'good' porn and 'bad' porn? Or, as the terminology has evolved, erotica and porn? I think the key is the shame in consuming porn.

Like it or not, we still live in a fairly sex-negative culture. We talk out of both sides of our mouth, culturally-speaking. Sex is wonderful and fun and people should accept their bodies and their sexuality. But there's still a treatment of sex as dirty and bad. In film, a scene of a couple having loving sex is enough to earn an R or NC-17 - but that same woman can be shown as being tortured and perhaps only earn a PG-13 rating. Women should enjoy their bodies, but heaven help them if they carry condoms in their purse or even accidentally get pregnant - those women are sluts. Children and teenagers shouldn't be taught about sex at all - just that it shouldn't be done before marriage. We don't go as far as to call women who've had sex sluts, but a virgin is still described as pure.

I think that's where the degradation angle comes in when it comes to porn. Take gay porn. No one is campaigning against gay porn, claiming the actors are degraded by their participation. I think it's in part because gay men have already resolved most of their shame issues about sex during the process of resolving the issues about being homosexual. Issues of sex being shameful or dirty have resolved, at least by those who shape the thought of the gay rights movement and gay culture. Therefore, there's not a question of degradation involved in gay porn.

But straight porn is something else (I include lesbian porn in this category, since we all know straight men watch way more lesbian porn than real lesbians, if only through sheer volume). Some of those men who watch porn feel ashamed because they've been taught sex is wrong, porn is wrong, and masturbation is wrong. If they accepted that what they're doing is indeed wrong, they have to face a couple unpleasant scenarios: either they keep satisfying an extraordinarily strong drive and accept they're terrible people; or they have to take the 'moral' stance and disavow porn and masturbation. Many people, men and women, I think, are able to healthily integrate porn & masturbation.

But I think there's another group (primarily men) who have problems integrating that way. Loathe to either stop or accept they're bad people, they displace their shame and guilt onto the product itself. It's a variant of blame-the-victim. "If she hadn't been wearing that skirt and been so drunk, I wouldn't have wanted to rape her." "It's the fault of the actress I'm aroused by watching her." So they want to see the actresses degraded, to punish them for making them feel ashamed about watching porn (and perhaps to punish women in general for making them masturbate instead of doing the kind thing and sleeping with them). I think that's the root of degrading, 'gonzo' porn.

So the solution, therefore, is not to criminalize porn (I had a chance once to talk to a porn actor who got started when porn was still illegal. Porn will always be produced and consumed, banning it will simply force it back underground, like Prohibition and liquor). The solution is to promote a healthy attitude about sex (Note to Bush Administration and GOP: Abstinence-only education will only make your problems worse). Teach people the skills necessary for having a functional relationship, where they learn to relate to their partner as an equal and not an object or subordinate/superior. Promote the idea that sexual desire is healthy, that masturbation is healthy and perfectly acceptable.

I think once that happens, the problem of degrading porn will solve itself.

In the Aftermath of the IA/NH Primaries

So Huckabee and Obama took Iowa, while Clinton and McCain won New Hampshire.

First off, I'm very glad Clinton's tearing up didn't tank her chances, as some pundits were claiming it would. It's certainly a rotten double standard she's caught in - she displays ambition and drive (stereotypically masculine virtues), and is called a hyena and a ballbuster for it. However, when she displays emotion (crying about how much she loves the country), she's called weak and overly emotional and unstable. She just can't win. Fortunately, it seems characteristic Clinton Family to come out of really unstable situations on top.

Conventional wisdom states that one of those four individuals will be the next President. I certainly don't support Huckabee - he's a Bible-thumping psycho. I only hope he wins the general primary because he'll be so deliciously easy to trounce in the national election. Huckabee would only continue to destroy the freedoms of this nation and turn us into a theocracy.

I don't really appreciate McCain's waffling. He flipped on some pretty serious issues, and I can't imagine a PoW really condoning the torture of 'detainees'. He also supports the overturning of Roe v Wade and participated in an attempt to drive Navajo off their land. There goes that!

So, as usual, my choices are between the two Democrats, Obama and Clinton.

Clinton has drive and passion. She was a woman completing law school in the 60's. Don't tell me she didn't have to face some pretty severe sexism and discrimination as a result. I think that armed her with the determination and ambition she's so well known for. She's a divisive and controversial candidate, but I would be comfortable with her at the helm. Unfortunately, she also supports MFN status for China, which makes her position on human rights as a whole suspect. She also supports parental notification of teen pregnancy - I wrote a friend a long e-mail on this very issue today, and that's another issue I can't get behind.

Obama is a new Kennedy - young and inexperienced, he nevertheless represents hope. If he wins the primary, his best move for survival would be to nominate Clinton as his VP. Just like no one wants to assassinate Bush because Cheney is worse, no one who would want to kill our first (half) black president would be willing to let a woman step up and take control. Obama also recognizes the wage gap and wants to work to close it. However, aside from promoting responsible fatherhood, I've had problems finding where he stands on abortion and gay rights. Historically, though, civil rights, human rights and feminism have marched hand-in-hand together, so I can't imagine he'll deviate incredibly far from the liberal platorm.

Why are these so important, you ask? Why do I evaluate each candidated based on those two domestic issues? Because they're wider and more far-reaching than that. It has to do with granting people sovereignty over their own lives and bodies. You recognize that an individual has the basic right to make the necessary choices to attain their own happiness - even if they're not choices you would make, yourself. It's possible to believe that abortion is a moral wrong you would never choose for yourself; and yet exted that right to other people, recognizing that not everyone believes as you or is in the same situation as you. It has to do with extending basic dignity and human rights to everyone.

And it's that I want above all in my President - an ability to see everyone, even the people who disagree with you and choose a life very different from yours and don't even look like you, as human beings.

Thoughts on Gay Rights

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile, and that is how the arguments for gay rights are framed. Personally, I think they should be re-framed. I think the gay rights movement should adopt a completely different tactic when answering the anti-gay movement.

Now, the anti-gays generally approach the issue from a Christian standpoint, sometimes backed up with pseudoscience, and claim that homosexuality is deviant and ungodly. In counterpoint, the gay rights movement says they were born gay and cannot change. That their being homosexual (or transgender, or bisexual, or whatever the case may be) is not a choice.

Of course, the anti-gay crusaders respond that while same-sex attraction is not a choice, having sex is. That's what the dialogue in this country is all about, after all - questions of choice and consent.

Now, there's a sizable body of research which supports the idea of homosexuality as an immutable personality characteristic. For instance, there's a gland in the brain called the amygdala, which regulates aggressive behaviors. Men who identify as heterosexual have larger amgydalas, while both women and men who identify as homosexual have smaller amygdalas. Homosexual behavior has also been documented in nearly every species in the wild.

However, I think the fact of 'born with it' or not doesn't matter. For one, it does bisexuals a disservice - there's still a bias against bisexuals in both straight and homosexual communities. Bisexuals are confused, selfish, or gay people who are trying to keep the prerogatives reserved for heterosexual couples. For the record, I certainly don't believe that. I firmly believe that sexuality is a fluid characteristic, which can change over life and is certainly influenced by society.

For instance, a man who is born as a Kinsey 2 but raised in a strictly heteronormative society will probably behave and identify as a Kinsey 0 or 1. If he's raised in a much more open and permissive society, he will perhaps behave more like a 2, or even a 3 if he's exposed constantly to the idea that homosexual sex is desirable and enjoyable (author's note: this is totally not supported by any specific study, is just my personal opinion). Women who have been abused by men have a tendency to become lesbians. Lastly, fetishes - it's impossible to develop a fetish to something you haven't been exposed to. Foot fetishes are pervasive because feet are pervasive. In the Civil War era, some men had fetishes involving women wringing the necks of chickens. Nowadays, fewer people are exposed to that, so there aren't groups of men (and women, but by and large men have fetishes) with chicken-neck-wringing fetishes. Ten years after a car commercial aired featuring a giant woman, men popped up with giantess fetishes. So society at least has a nominal influence over our sexual development.

But all this doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if gays or transpeople were born that way.

Because they're adults, and have the perfect right to choose whom to have sex with, whom to fall in love with and whom to spend the rest of their life with. This is the tack which I think the gay rights movement ought to adopt. It's a basic human freedom to love - that whole 'pursuit of happiness' thing. Even if a human being is perfectly capable of loving and being attracted to both genders, they should be free to choose to love, fuck and marry whomever they wish, of any gender.