I’ve spent a lot of time commenting on other peoples craziness. Maybe it’s time to have my own page.
First blog post
This is the post excerpt.
If Muslims are ‘guilty’ of not condemning terrorism . . . .
Feeling kinda troubled right now about just how little the wider community seems to be voicing their disgust at the policing of black people. Feel free to share my question.
Resisting Arrest – 30 Years On.
Eric Garner anniversary: Capturing the New York police on camera – BBC News
MOSS SIDE INITIATIVE
THE REPORT OF THE MOSS SIDE INITIATIVE 1984 TO 1986
BLACK PEOPLE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
“There is evidence which shows that young Black people are often charged with public order offences, which are committted after the arrival on the scene of the Police Officer.”
Normally an offence would take place. The police would be called and they would then make an arrest for that offence.
In the black community in contrast, the police were there, they aggravated the situation by handling it badly and ended up making an arrest in response to the situation that they provoked.
Frequently that arrest was for such as “Resisting Arrest”. However when there were no other charges accompanying this, it might be said that rather than resisting a non existent arrest, they were rightfully protesting a wrongful arrest.
It seems that in modern times, this is increasingly happening in the wider community, in situations such as town centres, when the police eg approach people leaving pubs and club, drinkers, homeless people etc. aggravating the situation and eventually arresting these individuals. When I watch those documentaries on the policing of town centres, I repeatedly hear the phrase from the police “I have had enough of this” with the officers then arresting people for similar kinds of Public Order matters, in effect with the officers ‘taking offence’, rather than the police arriving in response to any specific offences against the public.
He Obviously Deserved It?
HANDS UP?
This chap is laying on the ground. Hands up. Explaining that he is a therapist and at the same time trying to calm down and protect his autistic client, who is rocking back and forth and who is clearly at risk of being shot for non complaince.
So how come they shot the one that WAS laid down with his hands up and not the one who was not laid down?
Yet I dare say that there are some who will still convince themselves that there is no racism and he brought in on himself.
How is it that it appears to be ok for a TRAINED police officer, responsible for some serious weaponry to panic / make “Mistakes” yet elsewhere, a black person with a gun or tazer in their face, is not allowed to panic.
Please exlain to me in the light of this video, exactly what it is that black people have to do in order to be judged to be “Complying enough”?
Interestingly portrayed by the news programme as “A confrontation with cops” Sorry, but I saw no confrontation WITH the cops. I saw a confrontation BY the cops.
Black Lives Matter?
Yes. Just Yes. Never mind “All Lives Matter”
After the Orlando shooting, would it have been appropriate to say – “But what about Black people?”
Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem
With regard to the Murder of Jo Cox, British Labour Politician, I have just heard it said that she may have died when she intervened in a fight that was going on outside her surgery. That is to say that she intervened, but it was not about her or her politics and that her death is therefore being used for political gain. Such a story sounds plausible. It may also offer a crumb of comfort that the world is not as evil as the initial indication.
Elsewhere, it is being said that a man wrestled with the perpetrator, to prevent him from attacking Jo Cox because of her politics. A Chicken and Egg scenario.
I don’t know the truth yet. I was not there. What I do know however, is that the events appear to have unleashed an outpouring of the most vile hatred. People in the UK and accross the world in the US have been celebrating the murder, for her supposed crime of supporting refugees, just as fundamentalist christians have cheered the massacre in Orlando and the Gun Lobby in the US have portrayed Orlando simply as a conspiracy geared to engineering Gun Control. Whatever the truth, actually this commentry alone indicates that we have a huge problem. One very sick world. Where is our humanity when we celebrate the murder of countless innocent individuals, revelling in this loss of life? At the same time as saying that those who express sympathy are politically motivated?
Now I am seeing a rash of people sharing posts to the effect that they are Deleting those “Friends” on their page who have “Liked” Britain First. For a long time, our Muslim friends have been criticised for allegedly not standing against terror, when terrorist events have taken place, however, I have questioned elsewhere why the vast majority of non fundamentalist Christians and the rest of “Jo Public” are not criticised for not standing against the Orlando Massacre, the fundamentalists cheers, or events such as the murder of Jo Cox, or even the existance of groups such as Britain First or Nigel Farage and his ilk. It is good that people are deleting Britain First supporters. One step up perhaps from simply changing a facebook status to the colour of a flag at which I guess some may have unfreinded themselves. However, perhaps we need to give more thought to and do something about the general apathy in our societies that allows these things to grow in the first place. Why did you friend them? Two sayings come to mind. The old – First they came for the Jews . . . . . and one of my favourites – You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. Time perhaps for us all to wake up and work to ensure that we are all part of the solution.
UPDATE in court, the “Alleged” perpetrator was asked – What is your name?
His response – “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
This may contradict somewhat the argument of Britain First . . . . .
Julia Hartley-Brewer on Owen Jones
So Julia Hartley-Brewer says that she is clear that this is about gay people and homophobia. She says “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” She adds “It is not about one gay journalist and his apparently hurt feelings”.
However, she goes on to say “Not that I am, strictly speaking, allowed to make that judgment call, of course, because I am not gay and therefore I am required to check my heterosexual privilege at the door before venturing to offer an opinion on anything that affects gay people. ” – Ooops – not bitter then Ms Hartley-Brewer?
She continues “Forget the inspiring we-are-all-one-humanity sentiment of “Je suis Charlie” after the Charlie Hebdo massacre; now we must all establish our right-on credentials before uttering a word of condemnation or sympathy about anything that affects people who are not in our own “community”” Ooops – still not bitter then?
As I have said elsewhere, this is the equivalent of those who respond to anyone saying “Black Lives Matter” by asserting “All Lives Matter”. “Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings””. No one said that the lives of all human beings do not matter, but allow us please to focus on what is important right here and right now. Ms Hartley-Brewer however seems to be repeating the same pattern, which in effect, proves the original point.
“it’s a very worrying state of affairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” – I think his point was that they were not being horrified that it was unequivocally a crime against gay people during the interview and they were trying to reinterpret it. When Owen Jones said it was an attack on LGBT people, Mark Longhurst argued with him that it was an attack “on the freedom of all people to try and enjoy themselves” also questioning that it was “deliberately targetted on one part of the community rather than the freedom to enjoy yourself no matter what your sexual orientation.” I am confused. Please explain how this fits with “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” as she now says.
“I am still at a loss as to what Owen Jones found so disgusting . . . . . because nothing was said that could remotely have caused such a scene.” It was what was NOT said, or NOT acknowledged in the interview that was the problem and she is still in reality dismissing it now.
She lists what she sees as Owens points. “And the third was that neither Mark Longhurst nor I were entitled to venture any opinion on any issues arising out of this crime because we were straight and therefore could not presume to care as much about the deaths of 50 gay people as Owen. In his own words: “You don’t understand this because you’re not gay.” ” Owen Jones was perhaps unlikely to go on a mainstream show, if he believed that the presenters were not entitled to venture an opinion because they were straight. As a journalist I would guess that he talks to straight people all the time. He merely commented that what was being said reflected that they did not understand it, not having the insight perhaps of someone who has been on the receiving end.
I might point out too that the article appears to repeatedly question his right to venture his opinion.
“Our heinous crime was simply not to play along with Owen’s preferred narrative”
“All three of these points are of course completely wrong and, frankly, really rather stupid”
“But why let actual facts get in the way of a good old bit of self-indulgent offence taking, eh?”
“Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings”. How anyone can manage to stir up offence at that innocuous remark defies all logic.”
You refer to the discussion dismissively as “this stupid row”
“he chose to make the entirely false claim that we had attempted to silence him. Under the headline “On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia”, Owen wrote this: “I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people.” – Correct me if I am wrong, but saying that someone is IGNORING or REFUSING TO ACCEPT that it was homophobia, is not the same as MAKING A CLAIM THAT WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO SILENCE HIM. He did not make the allegation that she claims he falsely made. That she claims was a flat out lie. They just refused to hear the point he was making.
By the way, I did not see that “when we did speak, he shouted us down”. There were two of them their voices were louder and they talked over him and it is interesting too that they edited the video of the events down soely to the part where in my eyes he WALKED out, rather than STORMING OUT as claimed.
In this piece Ms Hartley-Brewer criticised his opinion in a way that seemed not only dismissive and condascending, (If a black person said that something was racist, would she dismiss it and them in the same way, or might she reflect on their words?) but also quite frankly, in a way that is highly questionable.
“from where I was sitting, the entire thing has been ENTIRELY about you all along”.
“The truth is that Owen didn’t walk out “in disgust”. He wasn’t making a statement. He had had a bad day, was tired and emotional, and was spoiling for a fight. This wasn’t a call to arms, this was just a childish tantrum.”
“the professional offence-takers have chosen to create their own fantasy version of events in which Owen is a tragic victim . . .”
and the rather spectacular “This is peak Generation Snowflake: I don’t like what you say or the way that you say it so I’m going to scream and scream until you give in” Wow. Just wow. I never noticed what an emotional diva Owen Jones was till she pointed it out, over and over and over? Just how limp does Ms Hartley-Brewer think his wrist is? If Owen Jones had been a woman, I wonder if she would be asking if she was on her period?
Those that comment too are “the professional offence-takers”
“Owen Jones does not deserve an apology and he certainly won’t be getting one from me. And neither does anyone else who has jumped on the perpetually offended bandwagon.”
“It’s proof that there are now thousands – if not millions – of people in Britain who regard the taking of offence as not just their hobby but their full time job.” with the headline referring to his “hate mob”.
At every point, rather than simply arguing a point, Ms Hartley-Brewer undermines anyone who does not agree with her. I belive that it betrays her underlying views, supporting rather than countering the original complaints about their stance. How dare these divas stamp their feet? When Diane Abbot referred to her denial – It seems to me that she was entirely right.
Ms Hartley-Brewer says “They seek out offence and hidden insults wherever they may be, and even where (as in this case) there are none” – Well I believe I found a few.
She has a stunning parting shot “If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks.” Wow – Gay people, quite a lot of them, asking for unequivoval recognition of homophobia after over a hundred people in a gay club were shot, are the same as terrorists. From “it’s a very worrying state of arrairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” to comparing Owen Jones to Islamic State. Very gay friendly of you Ms Hartley-Brewer. Take a bow.
Thoughts on the Orlando Massacre
In the early hours of Sunday 12/5/16, Omar Mateen, massacred 49 gay people and injured another 50 or so at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando. It started off being portrayed as ISIS style terrorism, whilst others argue that it is clearly Homophobia. I have my own thoughts on the events and what has followed.
I am reading that he used to hang out with gay people and people that knew him are saying that he was not homophobic back then. The news has just said that he used Gay Apps. He has a father who says that Homosexuality is a sin, punnishable by God. We learn that he got married but was full of anger, ending up splitting up with his wife and the indication was that he was in meltdown mentally. Despite being investigated repeatedly for connections with ISIS, due to peoples concerns about him, no connections it seems were found and then some time after seeing two guys kissing, it is said that he eventually went on the rampage, killing and injuring the people in the club and saying that he was doing it for team ISIS at the last minute (and of course they would claim that it was their “victory” after the event). Rather than homophobic hatred, it seems to me that this may actually be the most horrific case of denial ever seen, something which it seems religion may be profoundly implicated in. Look, I can’t be gay, I am part of ISIS and I just murdered all these gay people.
The events unsurprisingly are being used by the likes of Trump in the US and Brexit, the leave the European Union campaign in the UK as an excuse to back their Anti Islamic sentiment via calls for Immigration Control, on account of how dangerous they say they are as potential terrorists. Their concern seems only to jump on the Anti Islamic bandwagon, not to look at either Gun Control or at Homophobia, on which they seem to be silent, as Owen Jones saw in his Sky News interview.
Meanwhile, the Liutenant Governor of Texas tweeted from the bible immediately after the massacre – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows” and a number of other disgusting individuals who claim to be Christians are also applauding the events with comments such as the following:-
“I wake up to some dude shooting up a gay night club. Isn’t that weird. Homosexuality is condemned by God, so that’s why he let that happen ppl.”
“God opened His armoury to deal with proud fag america”
“That is the right target for such shootings. Gays should be shot for disrespecting the natural order”
“The shooter is my hero, the cops should be sued for killing a hero, who has done social justice . . . . Homosexuality is a great sin against God and every natural human law, let those who knows please buy guns and kill off any, lesbian, transgender and their likes . . . . may the soul of the shooter rest in perfect peace, amen . . . . . and fyi I am a Christian”
“This was Gods hand and he will pluck them away one by one”
“Sinners being taken out by sin”
Strangely I do not see them condemning, or advocating the killing of those who engage in other acts that the bible deems to be abominations, there are many of them. They have chosen too, not to pursue things which are permitted within the bible such as the taking of slaves, or the marrying of your rape victims, or prisoners of war. Their comments appear to reflect pure hatred rather than the love and acceptance that God is meant to have advocated. Given such glaring contradictions, maybe it is time for ALL religions to deal once and for all, with their issues with homosexuality.
It is often asked why Muslims do not stand against acts of terrorism when they take place – Blaming all for the actions of a handful of fundamentalists. Well why don’t Christians do the same in relation to the sick Homophobia and Transphobia that we regularly see spouted by Christian Fundamentalists? If mainstream Muslims are either part of the solution, or part of the problem in terms of terrorism or homophobia, why not mainstream Christians?
Omar Mateens father clearly did not agree with Homosexuality, but he said it is for God to Judge and whether you believe in God or not, it works. If there is no God, there is no judgement, but if there is a God and judgement is left to him, well personally I do not believe that he would pass judgement on homosexuality anyway. When there is murder, rape, domestic violence, child abuse, robbery, assault and the rest, is God really going to focus his wrath on people who are attracted to people who simply have the same ‘bits’ as themselves? Particularly when, if he or she exists, he also created people with Intersex Conditions, a range of conditions where peoples insides and outsides do not necessarily match. The bits someone has, are not always the defining factor. Surely focussing only on the wrapping paper and not on the insides, who the person is, would in other circumstances be considered shallow, skin deep. How come God has never wreaked his wrath on paedophiles, rapists or murderers, causing some catastrophy on the Lifers wing of a prison for example and we might also ask what sin has been committed by every person that dies in countries beset by drought or famine conditions. Strange don’t you think? Is this really a result of sin?
There is a saying – What if God hates those who claim to know what God hates? Maybe the way that people respond to homosexuals and transexuals is a test set by God, when he is meant to have said that people were made in his image and that we should love. A test to see if people respond with the love and compassion that he is meant to have preached.
If it is a test. Some so called ‘Christians’ are failing miserably.
14/6/16
Poem. Religion and Homosexuality.
YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL
Black man of God
Preacher man
Spouting hatred.
Member of one oppressed group
Hating another.
GOD IS LOVE?
Not according to this man.
Homosexuals will all go to hell.
Didn’t some send black people too to the fires of hell?
No distinction?
Paedophiles
Rapists
Thugs
No mention?
But Homosexuals will all go to hell.
Such hatred is inspired by what exactly?
By loving someone the same as you?
Is God really that intolerant?
I somehow doubt it.
Maybe you Mr Preacherman
Should Go to Hell.
September 2009
Poem on Racism. The Story Without a Punchline.
WHEN NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS
The days news headlines shouted out –
There was no earth quake, no tsunami, no landslides or owt.
The CEO’s and Politicians told no lies (rare I know)
Headlines notable for the lack of porkie-pies.
But I heard a man tell a story that had all enthralled.
How he got on the bus and like it was the end of the world
Got off in Moss Side, a connection to make
And this HUGE great big black guy followed him –
No mistake.
He thought he was a gonner
And he started to sweat
Till the guy crossed the road and . . .
Well . . .
Simply went.
He’d not had to phone our wonderful police
His body went limp and he gasped in relief.
When he got to his mates at the end of the lane,
He retold the story . . .
Again . . .
And again.
20 years on he’ll still reminisce
Over the night he survived this scary near miss.
But why is he headlining this cautionary tale?
Telling over and over this ‘story to no avail’.
If the story seems odd –
It’s as it’s missing a punch line,
Nothing happened.
No mugging, no murder, no crime.
In reality the punchline
If there’s anything to tell,
Is one of racist assumptions,
Him being a bell
And acknowledging that racism
Is alive and well.
But they never get to that bit do they.
10/9/2015
20 years or more ago, someone told me a parallel story. It troubled me greatly and I pored over it until I had worked out what was going on. I realised that this is a story about something that did not happen. A story with no punch line. In most peoples eyes, this does not constitute a story. It needs the punchline. The realization of the implications of this persons fears.
I have heard variations on this story many times since, but then, over 20 years after I first heard and dissected the story that isn’t a story, I was shocked to see the original tale on which I based my thoughts written up in a booklet of peoples reminiscences. Over 20 years later, the person is not only still telling this “entertaining anecdote”, they also went so far as to submit it for publication as an amusing anecdote. In writing, there for all to see. Presumably therefore, 20 years on, they have still not got to the punch line. If they had, they might be a bit more sheepish, or at least one would hope.
It appeared under the heading “We still laugh about that one . . . ”
Strangely, if the black guy knew of his starring role, I doubt he would be laughing and neither dear reader am I.
Homosexuality Religion and the Inconvenient Issue of Intersex.
I recently experienced someone telling me that they could not fully accept homosexuality on religious grounds. Athough this individual might be said to ‘love the sinner, but not the sin’, it upset me that they might view it as a sin. There are far worse things to condemn in this world than loving someone who has the same bits as yourself. Murder, rape, robbery, domestic violence, child abuse to name a few. If there is a God, surely they would advocate LOVE and being slightly less shallow than a concern only with the wrapping paper. So I wrote a paper on my thoughs and sent it to them to consider. The arguements often floor people who are religious and though it may be upsetting to have your beliefs challenged, denial of someones very existance has to be worse. I would be happy to hear your views.
HOMOSEXUALITY, RELIGION AND THE INCONVENIENT ISSUE OF INTERSEX
Homosexuality has been condemned on a number of fronts often on a religious basis.
You often hear it said that the Bible says that God created Man and Woman and that sex should only be between a man and a woman, within the institution of marriage. People also say that homosexuality is not natural. God Created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Not Natural – Actually – Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and is now thought to have evolutionary advantage, hence why it has continued, despite the fact that homosexual individuals are less likely to reproduce. Google can show many examples.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve – Actually this argument is flawed at a very basic level.
Firstly there is not just man and woman, Adam and Eve. This ‘Binary Gender Classification’ is inaccurate. There actually exists a number of physical conditions which fall between the two sexes. These are referred to as ‘Intersex’ conditions. As such the central tenant, that there is only man that should lay with woman and woman that should lay with man, is just not true. In truth, there are a range of in-between physical states, ie a sliding scale of gender from male through the various intersex conditions to female. This is about physical characteristics, nothing to do with lifestyle or choice and it in effect proves that the bible is lacking, it does not reflect reality.
A number of these intersex conditions are described by the Intersex Society of North America. http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions. It may involve for example, certain organs to do with the reproductive system not having developed, or having developed too far, the presence of organs from both genders etc. This may either be outwardly visible, or internal.
In nature, there are also certain in between states including Gynandromorphs – individual animals that are literally split sexually down the middle as in the following article. Half male and half female. BBC – Earth – These animals are male on one side and female on the other
Historically, children who have had intersex conditions that we have become aware of, ie generally where there are abnormalities of the genitalia, have been forced to fit into one or other of the two gender categories in general use, male or female, often through surgical intervention, although this clearly represents a false dichotomy. There were only two choices on a birth certificate or any other form, two toilet doors to choose from and children by and large are dressed in either blue or pink and are given toys which are deemed to be for boys or for girls. Parents in such cases have frequently discovered later on in their childs life, that they chose the wrong identity for their child, based as it was, solely on outward appearance and this was much more to do with their desire as socially conditioned adults, to make the child “fit in” with society or possibly even with what it says in the bible, just as gay people are pressured to fit in, rather than looking at the childs needs / how they may naturally have developed as they reached puberty etc. Sadly things are not as clear cut as the bible says. The insides and the outsides do not always match and this is the same for Transexual individuals.
The fact that the practice of surgical intervention in relation to visibly intersex children has gone on for years, is at odds with those who complain about transsexuals / trans gender individuals – those that feel that they have been born in the wrong body – having operations to align their body with the gender that they feel they are internally. If you are going to argue that it is not OK for a transsexual to adjust their body to fit with how they feel inside, how come it is OK for surgeons and parents to operate on childrens bodies in order to make the child fit in with societies expectations, or simply the parents preference in cosmetic terms, particularly when this pre-empts how the child might naturally develop or feel about their gender when they reach puberty and takes place without the child having any say in the matter? It must either be OK, or not OK, to interfere with what God gave you, if you believe in God and there is perhaps some irony where people have had their child operated on to fit in with the biblical definition of Male and Female, at the same time as arguing that Transgender individuals must not interfere with what God gave them.
For others who are physically intersex, the intersex characteristics are not obvious, perhaps being genetic or relating to internal organs and these individuals are often raised as the sex that they outwardly appear to be, with the anomaly only on occasions becoming apparent eg at puberty, or when the individual tries to conceive etc. It is likely that in many instances, the intersex condition may never be discovered. In reality it would only become apparent if eg the couple could not conceive and pursued answers to this through tests, which for the most part would require both access to medical care and also, that this is affordable. In many parts of the world, the reasons for a failure to conceive would not be pursued.
There are two recent cases that were reported in the UK. One was a person who grew up as a woman in the absence of male genitalia, who never went on to have periods and was later discovered to be genetically male. It was found that “she” had a tiny undeveloped womb and she was then given hormone treatment to develop the womb, going on to have twins, conceived through fertility treatment.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/woman-who-genetically-man-gives-507526
The other concerned a man. He was complaining of stomach aches and eventually started to find blood in his urine. He went to the doctor fearing that he had cancer, only for it to be discovered that he had both male and female genes and the internal organs of a woman, as well as the external trappings of a male. The blood that he had been finding in his urine, was in fact menstrual blood which was emerging through his penis and the stomach pains were period cramps. In theory he had all he needed to impregnate himself and carry his own child. From his perspective however, he considered himself male, as he had been raised and he booked himself in for a hysterectomy to resolve the problem.
Other examples are Kleinefelter Syndrome, where individuals have an extra x chromasome. Different From Birth : I Have Klinefelter Syndrome Story & Experience and a community where many children known as Guevedoces, are raised as girls but develop male genitals at puberty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981
Clearly gender is not in the least bit clear cut, in purely physical terms.
Increasingly parents of intersex children, where this is apparent, are choosing to allow their children to develop without being forced surgically into one gender or the other, such that they can choose this for themselves once they are older, if they want to. In addition however, as tolerance and understanding grows, there are an increasing number who are deciding not to choose one gender or the other within the traditional binary classification system, but to self define as an “Intersex” individual.
There is an argument to say that there should indeed be a third category, for example on birth certificates and monitoring forms, such that people can choose male / female or “other” – which might include intersex, transgender and a range of other options, a scenario which would much more accurately reflect reality and Facebook status options now recognise this diversity as of Feb 2014, as do others.
This being the case, the concept that there is a clear cut man who should only “lie” with a clear cut woman, within the institution of marriage, is inadequate to cover the physical reality. Are intersex individuals to be condemned to never be allowed to have a sexual relationship, particularly if they are unable to marry, not on a moral basis, but as a result of their genes or how they were made physically, when, if you believe in God, those intersex individuals were made by God in his image? What if a woman has married, believing herself to be a clear cut woman, only to later discover that she is in fact genetically male. Should the marriage be disallowed? In all likelihood there will be a number who fit this category, women or men who marry and eg do not go on to conceive, but who did not find out the reality as they did not pursue the answers? Technically they would already be in “same sex” marriages, regardless of the legality of this in their countries. In reality this could apply to unknown numbers of people. Limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman is already inadequate and it should be changed if only to address the issue of the relationships / marriages of intersex individuals.
Finally if it is acknowledged that there is a variation in physical characteristics, a continuum rather than a clear cut dichotomy between men and women ie all shades of grey in between, who is to say that such differences in physical characteristics might not also be mirrored in terms of both sexual preference and also gender identity. Sexual preference / who a person might be attracted to / their gender identity etc may also each be on a continuum, such that in the end we have men who are attracted to men, men who are attracted to both men and women, men who are attracted to women, women who are attracted to men, women who are attracted to both women and men and finally women who are attracted solely to women, as well as transgendered individuals – men and women who feel that they are living with the wrong genitalia and all the intersex individuals and whoever they prefer, with all the various categories of individuals taking their place somewhere on the various continua. In short – Intersex conditions prove that the insides and the outsides are not always in alignment and this is the situation with both gay and lesbian individuals and also trans individuals.
Homosexuality is condemned by some on a religious basis, with passages from the bible used to support this. Throughout history however, it is my understanding that a number of other things have also been condemned in the bible as Abominations, which now are viewed as acceptable. For example it is said that people should be stoned to death for eating shrimp, cursing your mother, cutting your hair or having a tattoo etc. Other things were deemed permissible, which now would not be seen as acceptable eg it was ok to take slaves, to marry your wifes slaves, your rape victim, your prisoners of war etc etc. If we have seen fit to end some of these practices, when as a society we have advanced in our thinking, we have to recognise that we are in fact picking and choosing what we WANT to condemn and as such we can also choose to move forward in our thinking in relation to homosexuality.
In reality, if homosexuality was mentioned in the bible and has been condemned ever since this time, yet it is still here even despite an inability on the part of practicing homosexuals to reproduce ‘naturally’, perhaps we really do have to conclude that although gay people may have been forced historically to “fit in”, just as intersex individuals were in a very physical way, in reality homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is part of a continuum of sexual preference, just as there is no strict binary gender distinction and no set gender identity, with all the different groups being natural and normal, being mirrored within many animal populations etc and all of whom might be deemed to be made in Gods image with an equal right to happiness.
At the time the Bible was being written, the science to understand the reality of the diversity of gender, gender identity and sexuality that existed, was not around and without the media and its ability to raise awareness and with the weight of expectation on people to fit in, many gay people attempted to do just that. Now as understanding is increasing, people are not “turning” gay, they are finding the courage to express who they really are. In reality, for many this is a process. Finding out who you really are and getting to the point where you can live that, is like peeling back the layers of an onion, undoing all the socialization and expectation that has been placed on you, gathering the courage and support to face the fear of rejection and condemnation which has abounded, until you are finally able to express your true and natural self.
With these advances both in science and also awareness, the false distinctions in terms of gender, sexual identity and also sexuality and the rules that follow need to be dismantled.
God – if he or she exists – made all of us and his biggest thing it seems is to say we should love and accept everyone.
IcanCyoublog 