I know there are many who think that I should be willing to show some bit of compassion to Larry Craig. After all, he's a gay man who is being unfairly treated by the media and his supposed friends in the Republican Party. And in a sense, I do feel a bit of sorrow that he remains in denial of his true nature, even after it's clear that he did that of which he is accused.
He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. That means he was up to something. Had he been truly innocent, he would have fought any guilty plea tooth and nail. He pleaded guilty to keep the story from coming to light. He admitted as such early in the story. He pleaded guilty because he knew he couldn't deny what he had done. Unfortunately for him, the story did come to light. It came to light, and he was finally confronted with the truth about himself.
I've seen the reenactment of the vice cop's report. I've heard the interview tapes. He did the deed. He was there to solicit sex in that men's room. Every action spoken of in the report is classic tearoom cruising practice; looking in through the door, tapping the foot, blocking the door with his bag, and running his hand under the partition. He was out for dick, and had that vice cop not been there, he'd have gotten some, and we'd all still be in the dark.
And another gay homophobe would still be employed with the persecution of his own kind for political gain. But that's not the case. There is one less gay homophobe dictating public policy from his twisted, closeted, bigoted world view. To my way of thinking, that's cause for celebration!
Larry Craig is a clear illustration of what the gay rights movement is up against in our fight to be removed from the list of second class citizens. He cares more about his purse and his image on the world stage than he does the suffering of a class of people of which he is a part. He is as much a traitor and betrayer as Judas Iscariot himself.
All of this begs the question, "why?" It's a question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered. What about homosexuality is so threatening to society that groups like the RepubliKKKan party and the Religious Reich are compelled to do all in their power to keep gays in the closet, in the tearoom, and by the actions of vice cops, in the courtroom?
I have no real answers on the why. I have some theories, but I can't call any of them facts.
Social control: Politics and religion are in the business of social control. They use many means to maintain their power over society as a whole. By effectively making homosexuality both a crime and a sin, effectively if they can't shame us into compliance by invoking the name of god, they will get us with the threat and real possibility of legal action. By using these methods, they insure that none but the bravest or most foolhardy will have the courage to come out. They also insure that those who have the need, but not the courage to be honest will eventually wind up busted, and in the legal system. That means dollar bills. If there is one thing that America loves, it's those filthy green-backed pieces of rag paper.
Envy: As I said above, men are horny from the time that testosterone begins raging through their bodies around adolescence. Gay men as a general rule are more likely to find a willing partner for quick anonymous sex. The sex we have has no way of being reproductive. Effectively, without the threat of AIDS or other STD's, gay sex is sex for pleasure. It is sex for pleasure with no ill effects, or nine month surprises. The same cannot be said of heterosexual contact. There is the ever present reality that the nine seconds of pleasure of the orgasm will be followed by nine months of worry followed by eighteen years of child support. Tell me that isn't cause for jealousy. If people will kill because of jealousy, does it not stand to reason they would label someone who was getting more sex than themselves a sinner?
The need to hate: There are simply some people out there who have to hate. It is their Alpha and Omega. It is their overriding reason for living. Gays make a convenient target. As a matter of fact, the use of the word "faggot" remains the last socially acceptable bit of hate speech. The actions of the Religious Reich and the Republicans insure that nothing short of our own version of a march to Selma will ever begin breaking the hatred.
Larry Craig was a part of this environment of hatred. He was a willing participant in keeping his own in a state of second class status. He willingly licked the boot heels of those who condemned him and people like him. He sewed the seeds of the tempest, and he is reaping the whirlwind. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for him.
It is my fervent hope that he is just another in a growing line of closet cases who are having their closet doors ripped off. I would truly love to know just how many Judases in Republican garb there actually are. Perhaps having everyone of those toadies exposed will stop the relentless persecution of the American gay community.
I was lucky enough to have been born minus the gay sex "yuk" gene.
I was maybe 16 when I first heard of homosexuality. No ookie reaction or how can anyone do that? Certainly no reaction like the yuk factor aroused in me the first time I read about sexual gratification from peeing on someone or being peed on. Now, that's yukkie.
Hoping that they bathe in bleach afterward, their doing that doesn't affect me any more than living next door to a gay married couple would -- that is, if I lived next door to a gay married couple.
They could live in my house and eat off my dishes, even pet my dog, it still wouldn't affect me.
My post-depression-era parents were cheap, but not sexually repressed, and were totally up front about sex. The only thing I ever heard them say about homosexuality -- which I figured out much later -- was joking about the Bible saying "no "me'in' and she'in,'" whatever that meant.
The only compassion I have for Larry Craig is that he had to hid -- not in a closet -- but a deep, dark, dank mine shaft. What a waste of what could have been an untortured life.
by
Sandy Sand (129 articles, 0 quicklinks, 145 diaries, 1130 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 12:10:06 PM
No one is born with the "yuk" gene, or the "I hate blacks (jews/germans/irish/arabs) gene either. The "yuk" is something that is instilled by socialization.
It is an unfortunate bit of commentary on humanity that hatred is such an easy trait to pass on, but love, care, concern, compassion, and live and let live sometimes have to be drilled into someone's head. Thank the goddess that I was possessed of an incredibly analytical mind so I could resist attempts to indoctrinate me in the "hate the humans" club. And while I did pick up some "isms" from my brush with that club, I also have enough presence of mind to know that all that shit is just shit!
Thanks for reading my article and commenting.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 12:36:52 PM
Likewise, nobody is born Catholic, Christian, Presbyterian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, et al. It's all one giant affectation; con game; brainwashing.
by
Sandy Sand (129 articles, 0 quicklinks, 145 diaries, 1130 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 12:50:48 PM
We have entered the Apocalypse, the period in which All Will Be Revealed. The Age of Aquarius, the Golden Age, the Enlightenment. Poor bastards like Craig who are hanging out in the closet and bashing their own kind while hiding in there are in for a rough ride. Everyone is going to have to learn to think for themselves, and those who don't will perish.
by
daveys (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 83 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 1:26:02 PM
in any way the right to have ' sex for pleasure' I would dispute the ' envy' premise. There are many aspects in the sexual desire, not just ' being horny permanently' and sex the same as wine can be of different quality. Psychology of sexual relationship with a woman is complex, it includes the ' eternal talk with each other' and as such is supposed (at least ideally) to make both sides better as humans. I wonder if the psychology of the gay marriage has that aspect. It surely might. But 'pure pleasure' factor is usually contradictory to the personality growth. That's at least in other human occupations. None of the meaningful occupations are for 'pure pleasure'. This said I want to specify explicitly that I would agree with the ' social control' premise in the article. Neither do I think that the actual fact of being straight makes a person somehow ' better' than gay people. No, that's not true. What seems to me plausible though is what I stated above: the relatioship between a man and a woman seems to promote the growth of both personalities ( at least ideally).
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3220 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 2:21:10 PM
...for a comprehensive and informative article. I think I essentially agree with you; I have no problem with Craig's behavior or alleged behavior, but I do have problems with his policy positions in light of that behavior.
As a gay man I'm only all too familiar with many of the behaviors you describe on the coontinuum of human sexuality.
Have you read the reports of Jim McGreevey's empathetic letter to Craig?
I think as a person Craig deserves compassion, but as a politician/statesman he desrves what he got, although David Vitter should go too as far as I'm concerned...
Thanks again.
PS: It's interesting that you note Wilde who of course was on trial for gross indecency, and convicted, although his art was put on trial and used against him as well. The actual act that criminalized homosexuality in England was the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, or Labouche're Amendment, also known as, I'm paraphrasing roughly here, "An Act to Protect Women, Girls, and the Suppression of Brothels...." .....all interesting stuff.
by
Constance Lavender (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 157 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 4:47:19 PM
...this":Likewise, nobody is born Catholic, Christian, Presbyterian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, et al. It's all one giant affectation; con game; brainwashing," is a good way to piss some people off here. It's also a very true statement. We are born without a religion, and most people wear theirs like a cheap fur coat...whether or not it works keeping them warm, it sure looks pretty.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 1:47:46 AM
[NOT TO DENY] in any way the right to have ' sex for pleasure' I would dispute the ' envy' premise. There are many aspects in the sexual desire, not just ' being horny permanently' and sex the same as wine can be of different quality. Psychology of sexual relationship with a woman is complex, it includes the ' eternal talk with each other' and as such is supposed (at least ideally) to make both sides better as humans. I wonder if the psychology of the gay marriage has that aspect. It surely might. But 'pure pleasure' factor is usually contradictory to the personality growth. That's at least in other human occupations. None of the meaningful occupations are for 'pure pleasure'. This said I want to specify explicitly that I would agree with the ' social control' premise in the article. Neither do I think that the actual fact of being straight makes a person somehow ' better' than gay people. No, that's not true. What seems to me plausible though is what I stated above: the relatioship between a man and a woman seems to promote the growth of both personalities ( at least ideally).
Firstly, all human love relationships are complex. You cannot possibly say that a heterosexual relationship is in any way superior to a gay one, or any more or less complex, intense, etc. There is no proof of this. Gay relationships can be and are as deep, Gay relationships can be and are as long lasting ('til death do us part) or as fleeting as heterosexual. The presumption that homosexual relationships are inferior is part of the bullshit attitude that brings cockroaches like Larry Craig out of the woodwork.
Secondly, I stand on my point that men are, for the most part, continuously horny. It is an assumption that has existed for quite some time in the US. Some may sublime their desires into another form, but there is no doubt that testosterone cranks up the libido. Since the article in question is about gay men, and I am one, I think I know of what I speak. I didn't spend almost forty years of life as a homosexual and not learn some truths about men.
Thirdly, the bit about "pure pleasure" that you posted is pure bullshit! Being someone who has sex for pure pleasure, and being someone who has a well integrated personality, I find those statements to be red herrings. Can you site anything that supports your idea? If so, I'd be interested. If not, I call bullshit on that part of what you wrote.
As far as your last statement, you have NO EVIDENCE for this assumption as none exists. Once again, all human love relationships can and do promote the growth of both persons. For you to say that this is only going to happen in heterosexual relationships is to completely ignore the men and women throughout history that have lived in fulfilling, loving GAY relationships. What you have posted is misinformation, and I suggest you do some reading about interpersonal relationships on all levels before you make such bullshit statements!
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 1:58:11 AM
well, maybe gay relationship has the same level of love as heterosexual but surely your answer to my comment reveals at least the same level of hate. Jupiter, you are angry, that means that you are wrong... I did not deny anything in my comment- I just expressed my perception. Let me be clear- sexual preference is not a privilege and gay people do not have to prove anything to anyone. The anti-gay campaign is politics and economics. As such it is very similar to the campaign against the 'sexual counterrevolution' in the 1930s Russia. Gay rights are human rights- denying them those is denying those to any human.
But there is also a matter of recognizing spiritual equality. That is an individual decision and 'in your face' approach never works, sorry. It takes time. The culture I was born and raised in unequivocally says that man- woman relationship is the one enriching both spiritually and that bearing children and facing the family challenges is a part of that. Now, it does say that homosexuality is an empty box,sorry. Do I agree? I do not know. But I surely will support all the efforts for all people to be economically and politically equal. Now, as for the spiritual, I prefer my zone of comfort. Don't we all?
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3220 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 8:33:00 AM
We have entered the Apocalypse, the period in which All Will Be Revealed. The Age of Aquarius, the Golden Age, the Enlightenment. Poor bastards like Craig who are hanging out in the closet and bashing their own kind while hiding in there are in for a rough ride. Everyone is going to have to learn to think for themselves, and those who don't will perish.
Oh, I don't know about all that. It's just some fucked up politician who needs to die, not the heralding of the end of the world.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 2:02:41 AM
...for a comprehensive and informative article. I think I essentially agree with you; I have no problem with Craig's behavior or alleged behavior, but I do have problems with his policy positions in light of that behavior.
As a gay man I'm only all too familiar with many of the behaviors you describe on the coontinuum of human sexuality.
You're welcome...and I understand what you say about Craig. His behavior in the men's room of the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport was nothing I haven't done in a different setting. However, I am no hypocrite; I am an out and proud gay man.
Have you read the reports of Jim McGreevey's empathetic letter to Craig?
No, but I plan on doing so when I am done here.
I think as a person Craig deserves compassion, but as a politician/statesman he desrves what he got, although David Vitter should go too as far as I'm concerned...
I don't know. I guess you could say I have very little compassion for someone like Craig. Had he even tried to be contrite, had he been honest, I might consider feeling empathy for him and his situation. However, he remains defiant. He remains a liar. The best thing though is he remains a thorn in the side of the RepubliKKKan party.
Thanks again.
PS: It's interesting that you note Wilde who of course was on trial for gross indecency, and convicted, although his art was put on trial and used against him as well. The actual act that criminalized homosexuality in England was the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, or Labouche're Amendment, also known as, I'm paraphrasing roughly here, "An Act to Protect Women, Girls, and the Suppression of Brothels...." .....all interesting stuff.
That's why I sited him. His life was more or less destroyed because of how his time and place viewed his homosexuality. What a better and more clear illustration of the kind of social disease that Larry Craig promoted than to show the life of a man who was destroyed by the kind of hatred and loathing that Larry Craig, the Religious Reich and the Republican Party promote? Craig needs to pay dearly for his transgression against his own kind. If he does not, then he deserves all the derision that can be heaped upon him. I know that makes me seem heartless, but I am sick and tired of asshole homophobes like him who are just as gay as I, and seem bent on keeping us second class citizens at any cost.
Thanks for your comment. It is appreciated very much!
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 2:19:54 AM
As a Gay man, I am not at all pleased with your white washing of Christianity and your arguing that Christian homophobia did not exist before the End of the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation. Both the Catholics and Protestants used to burn us alive in public at the stake. Even Boswell dates the start of Christian homophobia to the 1100's, well before the end of the Middle Ages.
The Christians accepted as part of their holy scripture many of the books of the Jewish Old Testament, including Leviticus and its admonition that thou shall not lie with a man as thou liest wit a woman for such is an abomination to the Lord thy God. And in Romans, "men guilty of homosexual perversion" are one of the groups in Paul's listing of those who will not inherit God's kingdom. After Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the emperor Valentinian decreed that Gays were to be burned alive. Although John Boswell does cite Gay marriages and periods when Gays had a limited acceptance during the Middle Ages, these were temporary periods follwed by renewed persecution. The chronicleer Ordiricus Vitalis cited a temporary period of such acceptance in England during the reign of William the Conqueror's Gay son, William Rufus when, "filthy catamites, fit only to perish in the flames, gave themselves over to the vilest practices of Sodom." Even some of the works Boswell cites from the Middle Ages as indicative of Gay acceptance betray an underlying acceptance of homophobia. For instance, Boswell cites the Dialogue of Helen and Ganymede in which Helen defends heterosexual love and Ganymede Gay love. But when Helen says that there can be no offspring from Gay love, Helen wins, Ganymede concedes, and the dialogue end with the marriage of Helen and Ganymede. As the state took power from the Church at the end of the Middle Ages, the Church laws against Gays were taken over by the state. The English state had anti Gay laws long before the 1885 statute under which Oscar Wilde was prosecuted.
But in the last analysis, what more can you expect from a religion that regards all material pleasures as sinfull and holds that we all are so basically evil and sinful that we deserve to be burned alive forever and ever and that our only escape is to accept God's son being tortured to death to atone for our sins.
Envy: As I said above, men are horny from the time that testosterone begins raging through their bodies around adolescence. Gay men as a general rule are more likely to find a willing partner for quick anonymous sex. The sex we have has no way of being reproductive. Effectively, without the threat of AIDS or other STD's, gay sex is sex for pleasure. It is sex for pleasure with no ill effects, or nine month surprises. The same cannot be said of heterosexual contact. There is the ever present reality that the nine seconds of pleasure of the orgasm will be followed by nine months of worry followed by eighteen years of child support. Tell me that isn't cause for jealousy. If people will kill because of jealousy, does it not stand to reason they would label someone who was getting more sex than themselves a sinner?
I think, having explained it as you have, that is certainly a reality that if thought about rationally and logically, most hetero men would find envious at least during certain periods of their lives. I guess one could sum it up as "pleasure on demand".
That being said, I don't think most people think of it this way. Well, maybe, on second thought, the Rethuglicans and radical right do think that way, don't they? They almost always refer to the "Homosexual Lifestyle" which I guess is shorthand for gay men having a lot of sex with different partners.
by
Steven Leser (187 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 12:17:32 PM
I think, having explained it as you have, that is certainly a reality that if thought about rationally and logically, most hetero men would find envious at least during certain periods of their lives. I guess one could sum it up as "pleasure on demand".
And I didn't pull this one out of thin air either. I have had a few straight men tell me they envy me the fact that I can have sex for pleasure with seeming impunity. I usually tell them there is really nothing to envy. Yes, I can physically have sex pretty much anytime my libido craves it. However, when one looks at the entire "package", there are plenty of downsides to being homosexual. And while it is true most of the downsides are the result of the actions of assholes like Larry Craig, there are others that are simply a result of being a minority. It's not all sunshine, lollypops, and rainbows.
That being said, I don't think most people think of it this way. Well, maybe, on second thought, the Rethuglicans and radical right do think that way, don't they? They almost always refer to the "Homosexual Lifestyle" which I guess is shorthand for gay men having a lot of sex with different partners.
I can only go by what I have seen in my life. Once again, I have had more than one straight man tell me he wishes he could be as sexually active as he perceived me to be. I grant you that there are many others who aren't at all jealous of my perceived proclivities.
Promiscutity isn't the sole property of gay men. The rates of AIDS among straights, the rates of unwanted pregnancy, and the rates of abortion prove this. However, there is no denying that as a group, gay men tend to be both more sexually active and promiscuous than the average hetero male. Is this a good cause for envy? I guess it depends on the person.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 2:58:01 AM
Anger in a reply doesn't automatically negate it. To suggest such is ridiculous. You think that you can negate my article or my replies because you don't believe what I said. I say, you cannot negate anything with adjectives, anecdotes, assumptions, and anal retentivity. You can with evidence...and you have offered none. If you will note, I did do some research before I posted my article. You might have done the same, but no, you disagreed with no proof for anything you wrote.
Secondly, I am sick to death of the hetero-centric idea that "straights" have some kind of lock on love relationships. You don't.
The culture I was born and raised in unequivocally says that man- woman relationship is the one enriching both spiritually and that bearing children and facing the family challenges is a part of that.
Yeah, and? I don't know where you get the idea that I was born and raised in some other place where your experience wasn't the same as mine. I was born in Toledo, Ohio. I lived there until age 34. I had the same "hetero is better" bullshit thrown at me. I didn't buy it from my parents, priests, doctors, and other self-righteous, hetero-centric fuck heads, and I sure as hell don't buy it from you. You tell me WITH EMPIRICAL DATA how heterosexual relationships are better, or in any way superior to gay. No anecdotes, no bullshit! Just because you say it doesn't make it so!
Your relationships are so superior to gays, you have a fifty percent divorce rate, millions of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted kids. Yeah, that's a whole lot better than two men or two women living together from the time they met until the time one or both of them die. You really are superior...how could I have ever doubted? WHATEVER!
You are fully welcome to your opinion, but that's all you have. You have no proof of anything you say. You're just typing shit!
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 1:56:11 AM
As a Gay man, I am not at all pleased with your white washing of Christianity and your arguing that Christian homophobia did not exist before the End of the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation. Both the Catholics and Protestants used to burn us alive in public at the stake. Even Boswell dates the start of Christian homophobia to the 1100's, well before the end of the Middle Ages.
First of all, I am a gay man. I thought I made that abundantly clear. I wasn't whitewashing anything! I despise christianity! I would never give that religion of hypocrites any amount of latitude, and I don't. You need only look through some of the articles and comments I have written to know that I am not bullshitting you on this issue.
The focus of the article was to provide a little historical perspective to the actions of the asshole that is Larry Craig. It was also to show, in a sneaky way, the fact that christianity did, in fact, sanction gay marriage. Whatever else they did was outside of the scope of this article.
There is no way any author of any article at this site or any other can possibly be expected to turn over every pebble on the road to expose the ant larvae underneath. To have done so would have created a ten page article, and no interest at all from anyone who comes here. If it were my intent to write a book about what I had written, I would have covered the subject in a much more in depth fashion. I would have turned over the pebbles, then I'd have dug under them to find what other sort of vermin existed.
But that wasn't my intent when I began this article. My intent was to provide my reasoning as to why I am convinced that Larry Craig is a cock-smoking faggot of the worst kind. I believe I accomplished that goal. Can you say I didn't? If so, tell me where. That is what I am really concerned with in this article. There are far too many people who are willing to believe that Larry Craig is innocent. He isn't, and that fact needs to be hammered home!
If you want to write and article on the history of christian homophobia, then please do. I'd read it, and you can be sure I'd comment on it as well. If not, then I ask that you re-read the article with the knowledge that it wasn't written to be a historical piece on christian homophobia, but to provide a small bit of historical background on the things that Larry Craig did in that airport tearoom. I wasn't about to go through the entire history of homosexuality in humanity just to show what a shit and liar Larry Craig is. I didn't need to either, if you read the article again.
I am sorry that my article wasn't all you wanted it to be. I write for myself. If someone appreciates what I wrote, I love it. If not, I accept criticism that I deem proper, and ignore the rest. I can't be all things to all people. I can't write for how you would have me write. I can only do my best. It's good enough for me, and in the final analysis, that is my only concern.
I invite you to write a piece on the history of christian homophobia I'd love to see what you come up with in your research.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 2:26:27 AM
Do you think getting molested at age six resulted in your homosexual lifestyle? Or do you think your homosexuality was always there, just waiting to come out? Also do you display any feminine characteristics like talking with a lisp? Just curious.
If you would re-read the part about my molestation, you will read the following: "...I was molested at age six by three teenagers who lived across the street from my family's house in the Old West End of Toledo. Two were female, one wasn't. In one day, I sampled all that the human body offered, and guess which body offered what I liked. Yes, pretty much from that day until now, I have known what it is I like sexually, and what I don't."
In other words, I had a choice of two naked females and one naked male, and as I said, I knew what I wanted, what I liked, even at age six. There was a time I thought that the molestation might have made a difference, but now, I know that just isn't the case. After all, I had two females in the same room. I just wasn't into anything they had to offer. The male...oh yeah, I was all about him!
Do I display feminine characteristics? Not usually. Do I talk with a lisp? No, but I do stammer sometimes when I get excited. If you were to see me, you would never guess I am gay. I look like a trucker or a biker, not some limp-wristed clothes horse with criminal bad taste. I am a man. I just happen to be gay.
You bring up an interesting point. Not every gay man is a flighty, nelly, screaming queen. I know gay truckers, mechanics (I was one at one time), computer geeks, telephone workers, wrecker drivers, mailmen, and just about every other profession you can name. I also know drag queens, hair-messers, and so on. We are all different...just like everyone else.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 3:15:08 AM
PAPPY'S COMMENTS This blissful acceptance of our queer existence continued until about the end of the middle ages. Gay marriages were STILL very much commonplace at the time. They were also fully sanctioned by the Catholic church according to author John Boswell. The practice of gay marriage eventually started to fall out of favor. The money made from gay weddings was nothing compared to the money that could be received from hetero weddings, which resulted in new parishioners, and therefore, more money.
Sometime thereafter, homosexuality became a capital offense in the UK. Somehow, it became accepted that for some reason, homosexuals were inferior, and cursed. The hand of protestant christianity is undeniably all over the change. Everything the catholic church did was suspect. Since they were in the business of marrying men, that was suspect. It didn't take a lot of looking to find something "against" homosexuality in the bible, thus was the stage set for the ultimate routing of a class of people for no better reason than who they found sexually attractive. Thus was the stage set for the generation of a secret gay subculture. That subculture included public restrooms, public parks, back rooms at gay bars, and so on. END OF PAPPY'S COMMENTS
I did think after posting my article that I may have been too harsh in accusing you of whitewashing Christianity since whitewashing implies a conscious attemt to cover up something the whitewasher knows needs to be covered up. I occurred to me that you might actually believe in Catholicism and not be aware that you were covering up something odious.
I AM VERY PLEASED TO LEARN THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME ABOUT CHRISTIANITY. However you gave the wrong impression of your views when you wrote that "the blissful acceptance of our queer existence continued until about the end of the middle ages" and that Gay marriages were "commonplace" and "fully sanctioned by the Catholic Church". It did seem to me that you were trying to whitewash the homophobia of early Christianity. When you wrote that "The hand of protestant Christianity is undeniably all over the change," in reference to homosexuality becoming a capital offense, it did seem that you were blaming the protestant branch of Christianity for the homophobia and whitewashing the Catholic branch.
That is what you wrote even though that may not be what you intended. I am glad we agree about Christianity. And I agree with you about Larry Craig and you did convey your point about him. In a sense, even though Craig is a victim of this society's homophobia and his internalizing it must make him suffer, there is nothing more contemptible than an Uncle Tom because the Uncle Tom hates what he or she is and cannot "reform" to become something different from what she or he is.
Before your reply, I had already been intending to write an article about Christianity being intrinsically homophobic and I hope to give you the opportunity to read it soon.
I AM VERY PLEASED TO LEARN THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME ABOUT CHRISTIANITY. However you gave the wrong impression of your views when you wrote that "the blissful acceptance of our queer existence continued until about the end of the middle ages" and that Gay marriages were "commonplace" and "fully sanctioned by the Catholic Church". It did seem to me that you were trying to whitewash the homophobia of early Christianity. When you wrote that "The hand of protestant Christianity is undeniably all over the change," in reference to homosexuality becoming a capital offense, it did seem that you were blaming the protestant branch of Christianity for the homophobia and whitewashing the Catholic branch
There is a small grain of truth in what I said. In the same way that Medieval Europe eschewed the Roman traditions of bathing and sanitation, arguably leadi
