quarta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2008
sábado, 4 de outubro de 2008
PRIDE BAR
Ola Amigos (as) Pride Bar apresenta sexta noite sem consumo obrigatorio, Happy Hours. Dj Convidado NUNO BESSA Sabado regresso Susana Mastroianny. Strip masculino Domingo a melhor noite da invicta. Strip masculino. Apareçam serao sempre bem vindos. Consultem no link abaixo as fotos de MissTransex
Obrigado
Carlos Agra
http://picasaweb.google.pt/pridebar.gls/MissTransex2008?authkey=7QPqA_SyHME#
THE BIBLE, GAY RIGHTS, AND HOMOPHOBIA
THE BIBLE, GAY RIGHTS, AND HOMOPHOBIA
The current debate on homosexuality and whether it is something repugnant to be repressed, or a normal variation to be understood and respected, rather than feared, is a mess. Instead of clear thinking, honest speech, and real listening, we are being treated to the nauseating spectacle of bigots foaming at the mouth. Vicious propaganda from homophobes is countered by anti-religious diatribes. Positions are hardening, and no one is learning anything. Everywhere one hears the sharp sounds of minds snapping shut.
Homophobes are dangerous. While some are content to simply slander and hate, others commit arson, assault, and murder. Still others conspire to deny basic civil rights to gays and lesbians based upon an ignorant mythology that holds that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and that sexual minorities are therefore criminally antisocial, and should be punished. This mythology, that sexual orientation is a choice, is clung to in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because it is necessary to the construct that gays and lesbians are bad. In other words, irrational, even hysterical fear is driving the thinking, if you could call it that. These hateful attitudes are buttressed by bronze age religious dicta interpreted in the harshest possible light, and without reference to parallel commandments enjoining mercy, compassion, and lovingkindness. Nowhere in the homophobe's mental universe is there any sense of live and let live. Instead, they seek to control the lives of others and would force a conformity that ignores the variabilities of nature.
We need to pause a minute and reflect upon what insisting that there is only one right way to be human gets you. Are we going to reinvent the Medieval nightmare of book and witch burnings, of the ghastly persecutions of heretics, right here in America at the dawn of the 21st century? Lest my remarks seem a bit far fetched, think of those such as the Christian coalition whose goal it is to replace civil with Biblical law in this country by the year 2000. And, mind you, this would not be the seasoned, tested Biblical lawderived from thousands of years of Rabbinical disputation, but a severe and ill-informed version promulgated by individuals whose knowledge of ancient languages and of history is close to nil.
The by now well known Oregon Citizen's Alliance's notorious proposition that was defeated last fall would have forbidden local or state government from ever passing laws making it illegal to refuse to hire, or sell, or rent to an individual solely because they are gay or lesbian. Governments and schools would be forbidden to employ gays and lesbians, and libraries would have to remove books that portrayed homosexuality in a positive or sympathetic light. Ransacking libraries to remove books that disagree with the party line? In a country founded upon freedom of thought? What would come after? The amendment made it to the ballot because over 10% of the registered voters in the state signed a petition saying they wanted this issue in the ballot, but the measure was defeated 55% - 45% statewide. The OCA is now circulating petitions in those counties and municipalities in which the measure passed -- it would have passed statewide had not Portland skewed the vote. The OCA has also organized in Washington, and hopes to do the same here, with a clearly stated agenda to criminalize homosexuality.
I have a question that begs to be asked. Since opposition to homosexuality has its origins in religious dogma (however muddled that dogma may be), is it contradictory for a country that espouses freedom of religion and conscience to accept as public policy the arguments of one religious group, however dominant, with respect to homosexuals and whether they should have the same or fewer rights as other law-abiding citizens?
In a country, and hopefully, a world, of cosmopolitan diversity and respect for religious and other fundamental rights, the narrow, rigid, dogmatic views of those who would "purify" the rest of us in accordance with their own dogma must be seen for the incredibly dangerous things that they are. In the state of Washington it is a requirement of the State Constitution that the public schools be "free of sectarian influence." In other words the Writers of that document wished to ensure that inquiry be encouraged and independent thought allowed in the schools, without which no democracy can ever flourish or survive. The amendments and changes that the Citizen's Alliance proposes are clearly unconstitutional, and for very good reason.
However, there is another factor that also begs to be addressed, and this is the very large amount of support the OCA and other groups of its ilk have received. It is clear than many are persuaded. This is no silly fringe group mentality that may be dismissed with the vague hope that it will just go away. The situation is compounded by the fact that many well-meaning and poorly informed people, who have a sincere respect for their own religious tradition and wish wholeheartedly to do the right thing, are being misled by extremists such as Lon Mabon, who heads up the OCA. The result is that there is a very significant percentage of our population that is either by design or default quite willing to pervert the nation's heritage of freedom in the service of fear, hatred, and narrow sectarian goals. It seems incredible, but a nightmare of theocratic fascism is latent in these attitudes. It may be unlikely, but it is not impossible, and it is more likely the less seriously we take this threat.
Think of it -- an anti-intellectual movement fueled by irrational fears that wants to conduct witch hunts based on its own definition of moral purity, and having a demonized scapegoat target group. Sound familiar? If it doesn't, your assignment is to go and look up a guy named Hitler. He was elected to power in a fair, democratic election in 1933.
However, there may be a way out of this impasse. A brief history lesson in order.
Thinking about the syncretic nature of Western Civilization helps to explain the tensions with which it is fraught, and informs the debate about homosexuality currently raging.
On the one hand you have rationalists and humanists, with an impressive scientific and philosophical pedigree leading back to Greece, who perceive consensual homosexual activity between adults to be morally neutral, and who may, if they wish, refer to ancient Greek society, or to the ethnographic record, for examples of cultures in which homosexuality was not scorned and in which it was positively integrated. On the other hand, you have others, both Christian and Jew (but not all Christians and Jews), who have as their spiritual and moral anchor something from an originally completely separate tradition, and who cite as an absolute moral authority two passages in Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the "Holiness Code," which contains long lists of rules defining what is clean and unclean. Some of them are nudity taboos, injunctions against adultery and prostitution, a commandment to not "have one's seed pass through the fire to Molech," orders regarding leprosy and infectious boils, not to wear clothing made of different kinds of fibers or sow seed of different kinds in the same field, and "not to lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination" (or confusion). Leviticus 20:13 repeats the command, and adds that the punishment shall be death. Death is also commanded for bestiality, and for wizards or those who have familiar spirits. Clearly, an imposition of Biblical law upon the United States would have far reaching effects, from the complete shutdown of the biotechnology industry, devastation of the textile and clothing industry, through (let's just follow this to see where it leads) Auschwitz for queers and Native Americans practicing traditional religions, as well as neo-pagans and a lot more. Would the demagogues slavering over this scenario preach while wearing polyester pants and a cotton shirt? Does any of this make sense?
It would only be fair to subject these infamous passages to the same kinds of rigorous scrutiny, reflection, contextual analysis and argument that every other phrase in the Bible has been treated to.
It is curious fact that these passages do not in fact seem to have received the theological and Rabbinical anaysis they deserve, which is not surprising given the biases evident in both Christianity and Judaism. Christian misogyny is well known and needs no further explanation here. Jewish misogyny is more subtle, but one need only ask where are the female sages from Judith in the book of Judges to this century? If our religious traditions have been incapable of respecting fully 50% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising that they have also been incapable of coming to terms with the existence of a sexual minority of some 10%. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is something willfully and irrationally severe in the commonly accepted interpretations of the commandment. Like all forms of prejudice, homophobia dwells in the dark places of the heart where hatred, fear, and anger fester unexamined. It is about the maintenance of privilege by a dominant group unwilling to play fair and to descend to the level of being merely equal. It is about ignorance maintained willfully in the face of appeals to reason and compassion, and because it is irrational, it is full of contradictions.
So now we must study what has been written and consider it, and then turn it over again and wrestle with it, being ever mindful of the later prophetic tradition which has also been canonized. The Bible, for all of the severity in the opening books, and for all the nonesense that demagogues have made of it, is also full of exhortations to compassion and moderation. The problem for those who would wish to extend compassion to gays and lesbians while staying on good terms with their own religious tradition is, simply, how may we ethically honor the humanness of responsible gay and lesbian people?
I am wondering about God. If we accept the simple and well proven fact that gays and lesbians do not choose to respond erotically to others of the same gender any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals, we must ask why would God, on the one hand, create homosexuals, and on the other promulgate a doctrine forbidding homosexuality? One could say, I suppose, that God forbids murder too, and yet look what happens. Ted Bundy responded erotically to murder (he was, by the way, heterosexual). But, in murder, someone dies. In normal homosexuality, two individuals of the same gender find love and sexual intimacy. Who is hurt, then? Offended, maybe, but that is something else again. I recall hearing a Hassidic saying that sometimes judgment must itself be judged. This would indeed appear to be such an instance. What, then should our standard of judgment be?
Note that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of lesbianism. The intended audience of the commandment against homosexuality is clearly male. On the one hand, one might say that we should generalize from the statement to include lesbians, and that that is the correct way to interpret God's intentions. Many do this, as does the Citizen's Alliance. But, if we accept that, we are also accepting the awareness that God has tailored His remarks to specific audiences at specific times, and we are also accepting human authority to modify, or at least extend, those statements. And, if we are in the business of interpretation, would it be less valid to say instead that the commandment refers only to anal intercourse? After all, much of what male homosexuals do a male and female cannot do when together, not having the right equipment. Or, perhaps it refers solely to doing it with the eunuch Cannanite priests, with whom male worshippers had anal intercourse in their temples? Many of these Bronze age commandments can be seen as devices to keep the ancient Jews separate from their more numerous, citified, decadent etc. neighbors, and thus preserve the tradition. The Holiness code begins with the explicit statement not to do as the Egyptians or Caananites have done. To narrow the meaning of the commandment would, however, be in contradiction to the usual way of enlarging upon God's word in order to be certain of getting it right, as is, for instance, the case with the Jewish dietary laws. So we have to go deeper.
Enter the admonitions of the prophets. Despite the severity of the commanded death penalty for sodomy, the exhortations of Isaiah, who is accepted as speaking for God, are equally strong. Here the Bible contradticts itself and it up to us to choose.
What possible objection could there be to taking the prophets' exhortation to do good and refrain from evil as our guide? Persecuting homosexuals who only want to be left alone and get on with their lives, is, I am sure, clearly evil, as persecution causes misery and even death.
Responsible homosexuality by itself, on the other hand, causes no harm, unlike lying, stealing, committing adultery, and murder. And, in case anyone is wondering, the prophets in many places are explicit about what is good and what is evil, as is Isaiah when he speaks of pleading for the widow, helping the fatherless, and relieving the oppressed as more important than the strict letter of the law, a thread of reasoning informed by compassion that was restated by Jesus. Relieving the oppressed in this instance would mean not only refraining from persecuting homosexuals, but include positive regard for active monogamous homosexual relationships. It would seem that anti-religious diatribes, which cause further polarization of this sick debate, are unnecessary. Awareness of the streams of development in thought and practice in Judaism, which is the proper authority for the original meaning of the Hebrew Bible, and Christianity, which really only needs to know that God's love transcends all, completely changes the nature of the debate, and reveals the would-be persecutors for what they really are: fascists who would destroy our country's sacred traditions of democracy and religious freedom in order to increase their own power.
There is a simple solution. Why not honor and dignify homosexual relationships by requiring of them the same standards of responsibility that we do of heterosexuals, and leave it at that. Promiscuity is an ill wherever it turns up. Forcing sex upon someone without their consent is rape whatever the gender of the rapist and victim. No adult should ever have sex with children, and so on.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant to these requirements, as it ought to be to civil rights. It is a mistake to specify "protected" categories of individuals whose rights are reinforced by special legislation. The result of this approach is the kind of polarized debate we are now seeing. I suggest legislation, or even a constitutional amendment, stating that the only factors which may be considered in employment or housing, whether purchase or rental, and in other critical areas, are those factors which have immediate bearing on the issue at hand. Can the individual do the job? Does the individual have the money to pay for the rent or mortgage? End of discussion. If discrimination occurs, then the complainant need only demonstrate that he or she was qualified, or had the money, to prove injury. Simple.
If sex was only about procreation than no one would engage in sex more than half a dozen or so times in their lives, instead of the several thousand that they do. What about the bondings that sexual intimacy creates? I suspect that there is survival value in the presence among human populations of a minority group of erotically bonded males and females -- gays and lesbians, in fact. The Greek battalions of lover warriors were the best fighting units they had (so much for our military's idiotic homophobia).
As our country wrestles with this issue, we stand poised before a fork in the road. One road leads to a profound learning experience about the true nature of sexuality and dignity. The other leads into a nightmare masquerading as righteousness. It is nothing of the kind. Let our debate, and our experience, not be at the expense of reason.
The current debate on homosexuality and whether it is something repugnant to be repressed, or a normal variation to be understood and respected, rather than feared, is a mess. Instead of clear thinking, honest speech, and real listening, we are being treated to the nauseating spectacle of bigots foaming at the mouth. Vicious propaganda from homophobes is countered by anti-religious diatribes. Positions are hardening, and no one is learning anything. Everywhere one hears the sharp sounds of minds snapping shut.
Homophobes are dangerous. While some are content to simply slander and hate, others commit arson, assault, and murder. Still others conspire to deny basic civil rights to gays and lesbians based upon an ignorant mythology that holds that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and that sexual minorities are therefore criminally antisocial, and should be punished. This mythology, that sexual orientation is a choice, is clung to in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because it is necessary to the construct that gays and lesbians are bad. In other words, irrational, even hysterical fear is driving the thinking, if you could call it that. These hateful attitudes are buttressed by bronze age religious dicta interpreted in the harshest possible light, and without reference to parallel commandments enjoining mercy, compassion, and lovingkindness. Nowhere in the homophobe's mental universe is there any sense of live and let live. Instead, they seek to control the lives of others and would force a conformity that ignores the variabilities of nature.
We need to pause a minute and reflect upon what insisting that there is only one right way to be human gets you. Are we going to reinvent the Medieval nightmare of book and witch burnings, of the ghastly persecutions of heretics, right here in America at the dawn of the 21st century? Lest my remarks seem a bit far fetched, think of those such as the Christian coalition whose goal it is to replace civil with Biblical law in this country by the year 2000. And, mind you, this would not be the seasoned, tested Biblical lawderived from thousands of years of Rabbinical disputation, but a severe and ill-informed version promulgated by individuals whose knowledge of ancient languages and of history is close to nil.
The by now well known Oregon Citizen's Alliance's notorious proposition that was defeated last fall would have forbidden local or state government from ever passing laws making it illegal to refuse to hire, or sell, or rent to an individual solely because they are gay or lesbian. Governments and schools would be forbidden to employ gays and lesbians, and libraries would have to remove books that portrayed homosexuality in a positive or sympathetic light. Ransacking libraries to remove books that disagree with the party line? In a country founded upon freedom of thought? What would come after? The amendment made it to the ballot because over 10% of the registered voters in the state signed a petition saying they wanted this issue in the ballot, but the measure was defeated 55% - 45% statewide. The OCA is now circulating petitions in those counties and municipalities in which the measure passed -- it would have passed statewide had not Portland skewed the vote. The OCA has also organized in Washington, and hopes to do the same here, with a clearly stated agenda to criminalize homosexuality.
I have a question that begs to be asked. Since opposition to homosexuality has its origins in religious dogma (however muddled that dogma may be), is it contradictory for a country that espouses freedom of religion and conscience to accept as public policy the arguments of one religious group, however dominant, with respect to homosexuals and whether they should have the same or fewer rights as other law-abiding citizens?
In a country, and hopefully, a world, of cosmopolitan diversity and respect for religious and other fundamental rights, the narrow, rigid, dogmatic views of those who would "purify" the rest of us in accordance with their own dogma must be seen for the incredibly dangerous things that they are. In the state of Washington it is a requirement of the State Constitution that the public schools be "free of sectarian influence." In other words the Writers of that document wished to ensure that inquiry be encouraged and independent thought allowed in the schools, without which no democracy can ever flourish or survive. The amendments and changes that the Citizen's Alliance proposes are clearly unconstitutional, and for very good reason.
However, there is another factor that also begs to be addressed, and this is the very large amount of support the OCA and other groups of its ilk have received. It is clear than many are persuaded. This is no silly fringe group mentality that may be dismissed with the vague hope that it will just go away. The situation is compounded by the fact that many well-meaning and poorly informed people, who have a sincere respect for their own religious tradition and wish wholeheartedly to do the right thing, are being misled by extremists such as Lon Mabon, who heads up the OCA. The result is that there is a very significant percentage of our population that is either by design or default quite willing to pervert the nation's heritage of freedom in the service of fear, hatred, and narrow sectarian goals. It seems incredible, but a nightmare of theocratic fascism is latent in these attitudes. It may be unlikely, but it is not impossible, and it is more likely the less seriously we take this threat.
Think of it -- an anti-intellectual movement fueled by irrational fears that wants to conduct witch hunts based on its own definition of moral purity, and having a demonized scapegoat target group. Sound familiar? If it doesn't, your assignment is to go and look up a guy named Hitler. He was elected to power in a fair, democratic election in 1933.
However, there may be a way out of this impasse. A brief history lesson in order.
Thinking about the syncretic nature of Western Civilization helps to explain the tensions with which it is fraught, and informs the debate about homosexuality currently raging.
On the one hand you have rationalists and humanists, with an impressive scientific and philosophical pedigree leading back to Greece, who perceive consensual homosexual activity between adults to be morally neutral, and who may, if they wish, refer to ancient Greek society, or to the ethnographic record, for examples of cultures in which homosexuality was not scorned and in which it was positively integrated. On the other hand, you have others, both Christian and Jew (but not all Christians and Jews), who have as their spiritual and moral anchor something from an originally completely separate tradition, and who cite as an absolute moral authority two passages in Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the "Holiness Code," which contains long lists of rules defining what is clean and unclean. Some of them are nudity taboos, injunctions against adultery and prostitution, a commandment to not "have one's seed pass through the fire to Molech," orders regarding leprosy and infectious boils, not to wear clothing made of different kinds of fibers or sow seed of different kinds in the same field, and "not to lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination" (or confusion). Leviticus 20:13 repeats the command, and adds that the punishment shall be death. Death is also commanded for bestiality, and for wizards or those who have familiar spirits. Clearly, an imposition of Biblical law upon the United States would have far reaching effects, from the complete shutdown of the biotechnology industry, devastation of the textile and clothing industry, through (let's just follow this to see where it leads) Auschwitz for queers and Native Americans practicing traditional religions, as well as neo-pagans and a lot more. Would the demagogues slavering over this scenario preach while wearing polyester pants and a cotton shirt? Does any of this make sense?
It would only be fair to subject these infamous passages to the same kinds of rigorous scrutiny, reflection, contextual analysis and argument that every other phrase in the Bible has been treated to.
It is curious fact that these passages do not in fact seem to have received the theological and Rabbinical anaysis they deserve, which is not surprising given the biases evident in both Christianity and Judaism. Christian misogyny is well known and needs no further explanation here. Jewish misogyny is more subtle, but one need only ask where are the female sages from Judith in the book of Judges to this century? If our religious traditions have been incapable of respecting fully 50% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising that they have also been incapable of coming to terms with the existence of a sexual minority of some 10%. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is something willfully and irrationally severe in the commonly accepted interpretations of the commandment. Like all forms of prejudice, homophobia dwells in the dark places of the heart where hatred, fear, and anger fester unexamined. It is about the maintenance of privilege by a dominant group unwilling to play fair and to descend to the level of being merely equal. It is about ignorance maintained willfully in the face of appeals to reason and compassion, and because it is irrational, it is full of contradictions.
So now we must study what has been written and consider it, and then turn it over again and wrestle with it, being ever mindful of the later prophetic tradition which has also been canonized. The Bible, for all of the severity in the opening books, and for all the nonesense that demagogues have made of it, is also full of exhortations to compassion and moderation. The problem for those who would wish to extend compassion to gays and lesbians while staying on good terms with their own religious tradition is, simply, how may we ethically honor the humanness of responsible gay and lesbian people?
I am wondering about God. If we accept the simple and well proven fact that gays and lesbians do not choose to respond erotically to others of the same gender any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals, we must ask why would God, on the one hand, create homosexuals, and on the other promulgate a doctrine forbidding homosexuality? One could say, I suppose, that God forbids murder too, and yet look what happens. Ted Bundy responded erotically to murder (he was, by the way, heterosexual). But, in murder, someone dies. In normal homosexuality, two individuals of the same gender find love and sexual intimacy. Who is hurt, then? Offended, maybe, but that is something else again. I recall hearing a Hassidic saying that sometimes judgment must itself be judged. This would indeed appear to be such an instance. What, then should our standard of judgment be?
Note that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of lesbianism. The intended audience of the commandment against homosexuality is clearly male. On the one hand, one might say that we should generalize from the statement to include lesbians, and that that is the correct way to interpret God's intentions. Many do this, as does the Citizen's Alliance. But, if we accept that, we are also accepting the awareness that God has tailored His remarks to specific audiences at specific times, and we are also accepting human authority to modify, or at least extend, those statements. And, if we are in the business of interpretation, would it be less valid to say instead that the commandment refers only to anal intercourse? After all, much of what male homosexuals do a male and female cannot do when together, not having the right equipment. Or, perhaps it refers solely to doing it with the eunuch Cannanite priests, with whom male worshippers had anal intercourse in their temples? Many of these Bronze age commandments can be seen as devices to keep the ancient Jews separate from their more numerous, citified, decadent etc. neighbors, and thus preserve the tradition. The Holiness code begins with the explicit statement not to do as the Egyptians or Caananites have done. To narrow the meaning of the commandment would, however, be in contradiction to the usual way of enlarging upon God's word in order to be certain of getting it right, as is, for instance, the case with the Jewish dietary laws. So we have to go deeper.
Enter the admonitions of the prophets. Despite the severity of the commanded death penalty for sodomy, the exhortations of Isaiah, who is accepted as speaking for God, are equally strong. Here the Bible contradticts itself and it up to us to choose.
What possible objection could there be to taking the prophets' exhortation to do good and refrain from evil as our guide? Persecuting homosexuals who only want to be left alone and get on with their lives, is, I am sure, clearly evil, as persecution causes misery and even death.
Responsible homosexuality by itself, on the other hand, causes no harm, unlike lying, stealing, committing adultery, and murder. And, in case anyone is wondering, the prophets in many places are explicit about what is good and what is evil, as is Isaiah when he speaks of pleading for the widow, helping the fatherless, and relieving the oppressed as more important than the strict letter of the law, a thread of reasoning informed by compassion that was restated by Jesus. Relieving the oppressed in this instance would mean not only refraining from persecuting homosexuals, but include positive regard for active monogamous homosexual relationships. It would seem that anti-religious diatribes, which cause further polarization of this sick debate, are unnecessary. Awareness of the streams of development in thought and practice in Judaism, which is the proper authority for the original meaning of the Hebrew Bible, and Christianity, which really only needs to know that God's love transcends all, completely changes the nature of the debate, and reveals the would-be persecutors for what they really are: fascists who would destroy our country's sacred traditions of democracy and religious freedom in order to increase their own power.
There is a simple solution. Why not honor and dignify homosexual relationships by requiring of them the same standards of responsibility that we do of heterosexuals, and leave it at that. Promiscuity is an ill wherever it turns up. Forcing sex upon someone without their consent is rape whatever the gender of the rapist and victim. No adult should ever have sex with children, and so on.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant to these requirements, as it ought to be to civil rights. It is a mistake to specify "protected" categories of individuals whose rights are reinforced by special legislation. The result of this approach is the kind of polarized debate we are now seeing. I suggest legislation, or even a constitutional amendment, stating that the only factors which may be considered in employment or housing, whether purchase or rental, and in other critical areas, are those factors which have immediate bearing on the issue at hand. Can the individual do the job? Does the individual have the money to pay for the rent or mortgage? End of discussion. If discrimination occurs, then the complainant need only demonstrate that he or she was qualified, or had the money, to prove injury. Simple.
If sex was only about procreation than no one would engage in sex more than half a dozen or so times in their lives, instead of the several thousand that they do. What about the bondings that sexual intimacy creates? I suspect that there is survival value in the presence among human populations of a minority group of erotically bonded males and females -- gays and lesbians, in fact. The Greek battalions of lover warriors were the best fighting units they had (so much for our military's idiotic homophobia).
As our country wrestles with this issue, we stand poised before a fork in the road. One road leads to a profound learning experience about the true nature of sexuality and dignity. The other leads into a nightmare masquerading as righteousness. It is nothing of the kind. Let our debate, and our experience, not be at the expense of reason.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
