Thursday, December 01, 2005

Monotheism and its Discontents, Part II

Look, just because ancient civilizations, on the whole, didn't much care about same-sex (unless the male "top" was of a lower class -- at least in Rome), and the monotheistic religions defined themselves in contradistinction to them, in large part, do we have to continue hating and scapegoating people who like to have sex with members (no pun intended) of their own gender?

What the hell is the big deal? How is this Burkean conservatism? How is it truly Christ-like -- he ate with lepers, defended prostitutes, but would treat homosexuals this way? Bullshit.

Everybody needs to chill, get laid more (however they want), and realize that if it offends you, too fucking bad. It ain't none of your business.

5 Thoughts:

Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

I agree completely. There is something very unatural about the vicarious sexuality of these Republican bigots. Why do they think that sex is so important that it must be addressed by public policy? Heck, if we are going to do that, let's create a government sponsored dating service or something practical. Why would a person with a normal sex life give a shit what two consenting adults are doing in their bedroom. These guys are just plain creepy. I suspect they are jealous and want to join in.

Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:29:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

It goes way back. Vidal, in Live from Golgotha, a hilarious satire of late-20th-century America and early Christianity, makes it pretty clear that Paul was a repressed homosexual.

By Pauline doctrine, apparently, the best thing to do is not to have sex at all. If everyone did that, the species would die out in less than a century.

Is this the culture of life? Why are we listening to Paul or Augustine or Aquinas at all nowadays? Why not Lucretius? A far better choice, I'd say -- or even Marcus Aurelius, dour though he is.

Or, better, yet, Locke-through-Rawls and Habermas. Hmmm...how 'bout that?

In no Gospel is homosexuality mentioned, reportedly. Why, then, is it such a big deal?

Religion is a form of social control. Always has been, always will be. That's why conservatives love it. Sex-for-pleasure is completely non-productive, let alone non-reproductive. Thus, as Orwell brilliantly noted, sex-for-pleasure must be controlled in a totalitarian society.

These theocrats don't want a State, funnily enough (if you can make heads or tails of their confused dogmas) -- they want a Church infusing a state apparently limited to outsourcing as much public works and programs and money into private, preferably Christian, charities. This includes public schools; hence killing them with NCLB, purposely underfunded.

And so on.

Is it a coincidence that "denomination" has two meanings? Puritans have always believed that the elect are favored not only on this earth but in heaven. As Franklin said (not the Bible): "God helps those who help themselves."

Note in this article how critical Rat-zinger was in the Inquisitional crackdown on tolerance of any kind for homosexuals. While countless priests were buggering young boys all over Europe and America.

Uh-huh. There's that "culture of life" again.

Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:13:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Um, just in case, obviously, I have no idea (and neither does Vidal, and nor would he claim to) whether or not Paul was a homosexual, especially as that term didn't apply very well to the Roman world.

Same-sex practices? No idea. But you gotta wonder why he was so anti-sex-of-any-kind-for-pleasure.

In any event, with pushing-7-billion of us, I'd say that sex-for-pleasure and same-sex is, if not literally patriotic, is certainly "species-otic".

This will of course be considered heresy by those still in thrall to an ideology that arose when about 100 million people lived on the planet. Oh, by all means, please do conserve that minority view of a few proto-Bedouins on sex, women, and life in general. That's "moral."

Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:16:00 AM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

The idea that homosexuality matters at all is "gay" by definition. Do none of these folk's know how to read? Are they not aware that some of history's most productive and intellectually creative societies were profoundly accepting of homosexuality? Would they argue that it was reall a GOOD thing that Socretes was executed for "corrupting" the youth of Athens? Yeah, he and his followers were really bringing down the popular culture.

Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:18:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I think the key point is that "homosexuality" is a late-19th-century construct. The classical world wouldn't have recognized the categorization. Check out the article on homosexuality in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. I think the main evidence that those folks haven't read any history comes from the fact that they don't realize that the term they use is anachronistic when applied to any pre-late-19th-century culture.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:40:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home