Archive for the ‘homosexuals’ category

The Bathroom Law Hoot

July 30, 2017

Americasn’ social awareness has evolved and continues to evolve. Homosexuality, which in years past, was the source of whispers, rumors, and outright disparagement has come out of the closet and, in all its multicolor stripes, shines brightly before all Americans. For some Americans this change has been just too much. “My whole life has informed me that this type of life style is wrong”, some say. Others add, “why even the Bible says its wrong.” Hmmm.

The acceptance of gays and gay life styles (by some Americans but not all) stems from largely the realization that someone they know or see regularly was gay and on top of that was respected when the person was in the closet. For this group of Americans, the recognition that the “gay” person was a contributing member of society was enough reason to change their minds. Gay life style was not a learned behavior, rather it was a natural condition for that person. Being gay was nature, not nurtured.

A fundamental of political life is to separate the whole into smaller groups and find ways to lump to gather a majority from these separate groups and produce a voting majority. Since gays are a minority, separating them out and emphasizing some aspects of gay life which could, in turn, cause “non-gays” to unite has been an obvious tactic.

And what better ally than to invoke god and the bible?

Gay men and lesbians were the easiest to understand. Gays and Lesbians were born that way. Transgender people, however, represented a much more difficult group to comprehend. Members of this group was born one gender and later sought to attain the physical characteristics and to live like the other gender. How is that possible?

For bible thumpers and the political low life’s who were ready to exploit them, the trans community was red meat. Discrimination against this group must be possible because they were less known and least understood. And most of all, clever discrimination could result in political victories.

When Charlotte passed an ordinance declaring it legal for someone to use the bathroom which matched their gender identification, North Carolina’s State elected officials had seen enough. (More to the point, many of these officials saw an opportunity). North Carolina passed a law (HB-2) which mandated that individuals had to use public restroom which match their birth gender. Hmmm.

After much debate and more importantly economic backlash from organizations such as the NCAA, the North Carolina legislation cried uncle and reversed the law. Now, here comes Texas.

Gallantly, Texas lawmakers worried about protecting innocent women from a transgender female (read male at birth) from entering a “female” marked restroom and doing something other than using the facilities. Hmmm.

Texas too demanded transgender people to use the restroom of their birth sex identity.

The hoot of this controversy lies in the realization that once someone has undergone a “trans” (transition from male to female or female to male), they no longer necessarily look like their former gender. Trans males often grow beards and trans women grow breasts.

Doesn’t anyone think that would present a give away if a big breasted “male” walked into a men’s room, or bearded “lady” entered a women’s room?

Of course, the real purpose behind these bathroom bills is power and searching for logic is non-sensical. And, to tell these “god fearing” christians that almost for certain they have already been using restroom while a transgender person was using it too could be too devastating to handle. Some things are better left unsaid.

Pope’s Congressional Speech

September 25, 2015

Pope Francis gave a wonderfully crafted speech to assembled Congressional members and guests yesterday. The Pope spoke broadly yet delivered targeted messages on individual freedoms and collective responsibility, especially those towards leaving the next generation with a livable planet.

Speaking passionately about the dignity of all men and the importance of family (clearly including women), the Pope was silent on the GLBT community. For sure, his measure of human respect seemed applicable  to all including GLBT.  He just didn’t call them by name. What was missing was recognition that GLBT humans were fully worthy of an unencumbered and respectful place within the Catholic Church. In other words, the Pope neither stated openly nor inferred any change in Catholic dogma which considers the GLBT community as engaging in aberrant behavior.

The Pope also spoke to the sanctity of life. He made a passionate reference urging Congress to those seeking a new home (immigrants) and called for law makers to respect life at all stages of development.

Pro-lifers cheered interpreting the Pope’s comments as an anti-abortion position. The Pope most likely did mean this but also said all countries should end the death penalty which most hard right legislators do not accept.

At the most optimistic perspective, the Pope’s speech was a signal that church dogma would relook at the extremes of “respecting all humans” and the “sanctity of life”.

Homosexuality has been long a taboo within the Catholic Church dogma. “Unnatural” is often used to describe homosexuality and “traditional” family is the code for man-woman family units. With scientific studies showing homosexuality as well as gender assignments being matters of nature and not the result of nurture, it becomes more difficult every day for Catholics to accept Church teaching on homosexuality and for clergy to maintain intellectual honesty claiming something which is quite normal to not be. How can the church preach the need for mankind to respect each other (and not make war or abandon the poor) while at the same time singling out that some are different that the rest?

The Pope also has his work cut out to examine the extremes of “sanctity of life”. At the older end of life, “death with dignity” is a growing preference for many. Church teachings absolutely ban such actions in which someone voluntarily ends ones life.

Someone choosing suicide at age 25 simply because they were despondent seems unwarranted and should not be accepted by society. But what about someone who has lived a full life and is suffering from some terminal disease? Is keeping someone alive when they are heavily medicated and incapable of making any life decisions humane?

The Pope singled out the “death penalty” as a practice society should end. This seems a reasonable wish since the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. But let’s not stop there.  What about war? What about the protection of the civilian, noncombatant population?

The opposite extreme of life is pregnancy, birth, and early life. The church has made clear its positions that sexual intercourse has purpose only in creating life. Accordingly, sex for the pleasure of sex is not recognized by the Church. And should an unwanted pregnancy occur, this pregnancy must be seen through to birth no matter what. Hmmm.

The modern church regrettably has knowledge of contraception and how it can be successfully used in family planning. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, there also exists safe methods to end the pregnancy and still hold open the option for children later in life.

The “pro-choice” and “pro-life” groups differ mostly around when life begins. Pro-choice advocates emphasize “viability”, that is the fetus can survive if taken from the womb. Pro-life advocates cite “conception” as the beginning of life regardless that there are estimates that more than half of all conceptions are naturally aborted.  This is when an abortion is not an abortion.

More troubling abortions occur when fetuses are genetically damaged or physically deformed. Is it ethical or morally correct to abort these fetuses. The Catholic Church is clear, no way, no how. Hmmm.  Who should care for these poor souls, if they survive birth and the mother is unable?

So the Pope’s homework with respect to sanctity of life and dignity of man demands a relook at contraception and homosexuality. Contraception brings the means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Homosexuality and gender identity appear now to be based upon nature and no acquired preference. With the modern world more aware of what’s going on around them, these church dogmas which diverts markedly from reality (take what they say on faith), may lead the masses to not hear the Pope’s other important messages.

Pope Francis’s Congressional speech was a message Congress badly needed to hear. While the speech may have fallen upon deaf ears, the message was also appropriate for his clergy and the population at large.

The speech will live on as a great speech should the Pope find a way to address the gapping gaps in logic surrounding contraception and homosexuality.

They Not What They Do

October 19, 2014

The final draft report of the assembly of Roman Catholic Bishops pretty much says it all. If anyone thought that Pope Francis had initiated a melting of a dead ended catholic orthodoxy, take a deep breath and look again. The big freeze is still in place.

The modern world has moved in most matters to a different place than the Roman Catholic Church. Church teachings on family planning, birth control, premarital sex, divorce, remarriage, and open inclusion of homosexuals in everyday life are glaringly out of step.  The real world is moving one direction while the church seems to be trying to swim the other way.  Hmmm.

While the Catholic Church still has many admirable practices such as tending to the sick and poor, its all male hierarchy continues to act in a mean spirited, unkind, and fundamentally uniformed manner. In the US, church leaders do not hesitate to enter the public square and use their tax exempt status to influence legislation favorable to their positions. Hmmm.

Catholic women have pretty much broken the code. Most catholic women practice birth control and family planning and simply say nothing. The local parishes can accept this providing these women do not speak out. Similarly, divorced catholics who wish to remarry understand that a proper donation to the church will produce an annulment and the potential to remarry openly. It is homosexuals who are the bane of these Bishops.

Church teaching have long reduced homosexuals to a class somewhat like the Hindu “untouchables”. This position has worked well since many homosexuals have external mannerism which call attention to their difference with the straight community. Picking upon homosexuals, in a sick way, seems to made church leaders feel more morally correct and consequently more powerful. Hmmm.

As most people with a heart beat today recognize, gays or lesbians, especially those with effeminate or manly characteristics, cannot mask their creativity or ability to contribute to society. And, as even a greater surprise, as more homosexuals “have come out”, most people are shocked to realize how many Americans are homosexual. Most Americans have noticed, but not those who are Roman Catholic clergy.

The final draft report can be seen as a business plan. The church may think it is making a statement on dogma but in fact it is segmenting the church attending market. Conservative Catholic leaders believe that the Sunday collection baskets will do best if lay members still can “sin” in everyday life. With a little “sin”, there is a ready made need for a church who can grant “forgiveness”. Sort of job security.

As part of their business plan, conservative church leaders do not care if homosexuals remain.

It is possible,although not totally clear at this point, that church leaders may instead think Catholic homosexuals will follow Catholic women examples. Live their lives as they wish, contribute to the church, and seek forgiveness often (and of course with a few coins to the local priest).

It is also possible that these older men leaders are simply not as smart or wise as the Sisters Religious.